Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Southwestern Power Administration
Presidential Documents
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Health Care Financing Administration
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Labor-Management Standards Office
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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.
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule exempting potatoes shipped for experimental purposes from the handling and assessment regulations of the Washington State potato marketing order. The marketing order regulates the handling of potatoes grown in Washington, and is administered locally by the State of Washington Potato Committee (Committee). Experimental shipments of potatoes by handlers utilizing new and innovative packaging, including the commingling of different varieties of potatoes in the same package, or shipments of non-traditional experimental varieties of potatoes will continue to be exempt from the grade, size, maturity, pack, inspection, and assessment requirements of the marketing order. By relaxing the requirements on shipments of such potatoes, this rule continues to provide the industry with greater marketing flexibility and with the ability to investigate new methods for increasing producer returns. It also is expected to provide consumers with more choices in buying fresh potatoes.
May 11, 2001.
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) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440; 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, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, 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. 113 and Marketing Order No. 946, both as amended (7 CFR part 946), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department 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.
This rule continues in effect exemptions for shipments of potatoes for experimentation from the grade, size, maturity, pack, inspection, and assessment requirements of the marketing order. By relaxing the requirements on new and innovative packaging and on non-traditional varieties of fresh potatoes, this rule continues to provide the industry with greater marketing flexibility and the ability to investigate new methods for increasing producer returns, and provides consumers with more choices in buying fresh potatoes. The Committee unanimously recommended the exemption for experimental packs and varieties at its meeting held on June 8, 2000.
Section 946.51 of the order provides authority for the Committee to recommend the implementation, modification, suspension, or termination of regulations. Section 946.52 provides the necessary authority for the Department to issue regulations, and to modify, suspend, or terminate such regulations. Furthermore, § 946.54 provides authority for the modification, suspension, or termination of handling regulations for the purpose of facilitating the handling of potatoes for special purposes, while § 946.55 provides for adequate safeguards to prevent such special purpose shipments from entering unauthorized outlets. The order's handling regulations, § 946.336, establish the grade, size, maturity, pack, and inspection requirements for potatoes grown in Washington. The assessment rate for Washington potatoes is established in § 946.248, pursuant to § 946.41.
Handlers have expressed a desire to experiment with shipping potatoes of different varieties in the same container. This has been a problem, however, since the order requires that all potato varieties, as a minimum, meet U.S. No. 2 grade as defined in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Potatoes. These standards specify that a particular lot of potatoes has “similar” varietal characteristics. Although the order's handling regulations do allow the mixing of any size and variety in a 3-pound or smaller container, handlers have been unable to
Prior to this action, the order's regulations required that all potatoes shipped to the fresh market, with the exception of those meeting the minimum quantity and special purpose exemptions, be inspected and assessed. The handling regulations did not provide adequate relief for commercially viable shipments of non-traditional or experimental potato varieties that could not meet minimum inspection requirements. Several producers and handlers within the production area are attempting to develop and market new varieties of potatoes. Some of the new varieties have irregular shapes or are small in size and will not meet minimum order requirements. In order to market these unique potatoes, handlers were required to utilize the order's minimum quantity exemption, which allows shipments up to, but not in excess of, 500 pounds of potatoes daily without regard to assessment and inspection requirements. This had prevented handlers from shipping larger quantities of these potatoes and thus adequately determining marketability and consumer acceptance. By allowing handlers to ship the quantities of new varieties they believe are necessary to determine marketability, this rule adequately addresses this issue.
As is currently required for all special purpose shipments, handlers shipping experimental potato packs or experimental potato varieties will need to apply for and obtain a special purpose certificate from the Committee. To help ensure compliance with the revised provisions and to statistically track the shipments of experimental potato packs and varieties, the Committee will require that shipments made pursuant to this action be reported on the Special Purpose Shipment Report, as modified to include potatoes shipped for experimental purposes. Such reports will help the Committee in determining whether applicable requirements have been met and whether proper disposition has occurred, and will be furnished to the Committee for each shipment made pursuant to the applicable Special Purpose Certificate. The Committee's intent is to keep reporting requirements at the minimum level necessary to monitor compliance while determining the viability and extent of any changes in the packaging and marketing of Washington potatoes.
The Committee contends that the purpose of the order is to provide quality assurance and minimum grade standards for Washington potatoes and not to inhibit innovation. This rule thus provides the Washington potato industry with the ability to seek new and innovative ways to market its fresh potato crop without the costs and constraints of regulation that otherwise provide a necessary service to the industry. This rule provides the industry with the flexibility to explore new markets while enhancing product development, and helps in identifying niche markets which may benefit producers, handlers, buyers, and consumers of Washington State potatoes. Should a particular experimental pack or variety become commercially significant and some form of quality control or assessment reinstatement be needed, the Committee will consider further changes in the exemptions.
As referenced earlier, the Committee currently utilizes two forms for special purpose shipments. These are the Shippers Application for Special Purpose Certificate and the Special Purpose Shipment Report. To conform to this terminology, this rule also replaces the term “Certificate of Privilege” with the term “Special Purpose Certificate” wherever it appears in the Rules and Regulations and Handling Regulations established under the order.
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 40 handlers of Washington potatoes who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 340 Washington 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. A majority of these handlers and producers may be classified as small entities, excluding receipts from other sources.
This rule continues in effect exemptions for shipments of potatoes shipped for experimentation from the grade, size, maturity, pack, inspection, and assessment requirements prescribed under the regulations of the marketing order regulating the handling of potatoes grown in Washington. Pursuant to authority in §§ 946.51, 946.52, and 946.54, at its meeting on June 8, 2000, the Committee unanimously recommended that this exemption for experimental potato packs and varieties be added under § 946.336(d),
By relaxing the regulations, this rule continues to provide the Washington potato industry with the enhanced ability to seek new and innovative methods of marketing its fresh potato crop. This rule continues to provide the industry with the flexibility to explore new markets while enhancing product development, and helps to identify niche markets which may benefit producers, handlers, buyers, and consumers of Washington State potatoes.
The Committee believes that this rule will continue to have a positive economic impact on the Washington potato industry. Producers and handlers will be able to concentrate on developing innovative new packaging and marketable new potato varieties without the costs associated with inspection and administrative assessments, as well as most of the costs associated with grading. Although not having specific information regarding the volume of potatoes that will be marketed through this exemption, the Committee estimates that the initial volume being shipped will be low and thus will have little negative impact on Committee assessment income. However, since one of the objectives of this action is to increase the utilization of fresh potatoes produced in Washington, the Committee will consider changing the handling regulation and assessment requirements in the future, if needed, to help ensure quality control and adequate Committee income if the experimental shipments become commercially viable.
The current assessment rate is $0.002 per hundredweight of potatoes handled. Also, the cost of inspection under the marketing order is $0.06 per hundredweight of potatoes inspected. Handlers, both small and large, shipping
With regard to alternatives, we believe that this action best reflects the marketing and product development goals of the Washington potato industry.
The Committee estimates that initially four or five handlers may apply for and obtain Special Purpose Certificates for the purpose of making shipments of experimental packs or varieties. In addition, such handlers will be required to furnish to the Committee a Special Purpose Shipment Report for each shipment made under the experimental purposes exemption. The Committee estimates that the time taken by the handlers who apply for the exemptions will total less than ten hours. Such time is currently approved under OMB No. 0581-0178 by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, as noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, 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 Washington potato industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the June 8, 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:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as published in the
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Department of Energy (DOE).
Final rule; completion of regulatory review.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Review Plan,” published in the
The final rule published on January 18, 2001 (66 FR 4627) is effective April 23, 2001.
Isiah Smith, Jr., (202) 586-8618,
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and Mark 0100 series airplanes, that currently requires revising the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to provide the flightcrew with instructions not to arm the liftdumper system prior to commanding the landing gear to extend. For Model F.28 Mark 0100 series airplanes, the existing AD also requires modification of the grounds of the shielding of the wheelspeed sensor wiring of the main landing gear (MLG) and installation of new electrical grounds for the wheelspeed sensor channel of the anti-skid control box of the MLG. This amendment removes the previous revision of the AFM and requires a new limitation and a new warning. This amendment is prompted by issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent inadvertent deployment of the liftdumpers during approach for landing or reduced brake pressure during low speed taxiing, and consequent reduced controllability and performance of the airplane.
Effective May 16, 2001.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications, as listed in the regulations, was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 2, 1999 (64 FR 52219, September 28, 1999).
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Fokker Services B.V., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw Vennep, the Netherlands. 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, 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) by superseding AD 99-20-07, amendment 39-11337 (64 FR 52219, September 28, 1999), which is applicable to all Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and Mark 0100 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.
There are approximately 123 airplanes of U.S. registry that will be affected by this AD.
The modifications that are currently required by AD 99-20-07 take approximately 33 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts cost approximately $755 to $1,236 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $336,405 and $395,568, or between $2,735 and $3,216 per airplane.
The revision to the AFM required in this AD will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AFM revision required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $7,380, or $60 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 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 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 (d) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent inadvertent deployment of the liftdumper systems during the approach for landing or reduced brake pressure during low speed taxiing, and consequent reduced controllability and performance of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) For Model F.28 Mark 0100 series airplanes having serial numbers as listed in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-067, Revision 1, dated July 6, 1998: Within 6 months after November 2, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-20-07, amendment 39-11337), modify the grounds of the shielding of the wheelspeed sensor wiring of the main landing gear (MLG), in accordance with Part 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, as applicable.
Modifications accomplished prior to November 2, 1999, in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-067, dated March 12, 1993, are considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.
(b) For Model F.28 Mark 0100 series airplanes having serial numbers as listed in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-037, Revision 2, dated December 4, 1998: Within 12 months after November 2, 1999, install
Installations accomplished prior to November 2, 1999, in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-037, dated November 12, 1990, or Revision 1, dated November 16, 1998, are considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD.
(c) Within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this AD. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the appropriate sections of the AFM.
(1) Remove the following information from the Limitations section:
(2) Add the following information to the Limitations section in the Miscellaneous Limitations sub-section:
(3) Remove the following information from Section 5—Normal Procedures, sub-section Approach and Landing, after the subject Approach:
(4) Add the following information to Section 5—Normal Procedures, sub-section Approach and Landing, after the subject Approach:
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(e) 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.
(f) Except for the AFM revisions required by paragraph (c) of this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-067, Revision 1, dated July 6, 1998; and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-037, Revision 2, dated December 4, 1998; as applicable. This incorporation by reference was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 2, 1999 (64 FR 52219, September 28, 1999). Copies may be obtained from Fokker Services B.V., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw Vennep, the Netherlands. 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 Dutch airworthiness directive 1998-042/2, dated February 29, 2000.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on May 16, 2001.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Interim final rule; request for comments.
The Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District changes the operating regulations for the railroad drawbridge and three highway drawbridges crossing the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal (Oakland Estuary), between Oakland and Alameda, California. The bridges are: Alameda County highway bridges at Park Street, mile 5.2; Fruitvale Avenue, mile 5.6; High Street, mile 6.0; and the Army Corps of Engineers railroad bridge, mile 5.6 at Fruitvale Avenue. This interim rule will more accurately align rush-hour closure periods of the drawbridges to the present needs of commuting land traffic, while continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation on the waterway. It states the above named bridges shall open on signal, except that, from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels. It also incorporates an administrative change to correct the waterway mile-points of the affected bridges to coincide with existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers measurements of the waterway.
This interim rule becomes effective on May 11, 2001. Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2001.
Comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to: Commander (oan-2), Eleventh Coast Guard District, Bldg. 50-6, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501-5100. The Commander (oan-2), maintains the public docket for this rulemaking.
Mr. David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District, Building 50-6, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501-5100, phone (510) 437-3516.
The Coast Guard encourages all interested persons to participate in this interim rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Persons submitting comments should identify this rulemaking (CGD 11-99-013), the specific section of the rule to which each comment applies, and the reason for each comment. All comments and attachments must be submitted in an unbound format, no larger than 8
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Interested persons may request a public hearing by writing to the Coast Guard at the address under
The existing governing regulation, 33 CFR 117.181, specifies that the drawbridges need not open for the passage of vessels from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Coast Guard consulted with navigation, the city of Alameda and Alameda County to determine if the bridge closure times could be changed to improve commuting conditions for land traffic. Average daily traffic counts were obtained for the Park Street drawbridge, as it is the most congested. Waterway traffic and requests for bridge openings were also analyzed. On November 12, 1999, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), CGD11-99-013, in the
This Interim Rule incorporates an administrative change to correct the waterway mile-points of the affected bridges to coincide with existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers measurements of the waterway. The new rule will read Park Street Bridge, mile 5.2 vice the existing rule mile 7.3; Fruitvale Avenue mile 5.6 vice the existing rule mile 7.7; High Street mile 6.0 vice the existing rule 8.1; and the U.S. army Corps of Engineers railroad bridge Fruitvale Avenue mile 5.6 vice the existing rule mile 7.7. This Interim Rule also amends the existing regulation to adjust the rush-hour periods when the Oakland Estuary bridges need not open for the passage of vessels. It states the above named bridges shall open on signal, except that, from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels. This changes the time period in the existing rule, 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 and 3:45 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., for when the bridge need not open on signal. The proposed change is expected to improve highway traffic conditions during peak rush hours, while not adversely impacting navigation on the waterway.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It has been exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under that order. It is not “significant” under the Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This rule is merely shifting the time the bridge need not open on signal to coincide with rush hour traffic it is neither extending or shortening the closure period.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In accordance with 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this Interim Rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rule making process. If your small business or organization is affected by this rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the U.S. Coast Guard using information in
This rule contains no collection of information requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has determined it does not have implications of federalism under that order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions not specifically required by law. In particular, the Act
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, Figure 2-1, paragraph 32(e), this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation, because it is a Bridge Administration Program action involving the promulgation of operating requirements or procedures for a drawbridge. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
Bridges.
33 U.S.C. Sec. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.225 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
The draws of the Alameda County highway drawbridges at Park Street, mile 5.2; Fruitvale Avenue, mile 5.6; and High Street, mile 6.0; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers railroad drawbridge, mile 5.6 at Fruitvale Avenue, shall open on signal; except that, from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draws need not be opened for the passage of vessels. However, the draws shall open during the above closed periods for vessels which must, for reasons of safety, move on a tide or slack water, if at least two hours notice is given. The draws shall open as soon as possible for vessels in distress and emergency vessels, including commercial vessels engaged in rescue or emergency salvage operations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for the combined residues of zoxamide and its metabolites 3,5-dichloro-1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (RH-1455 and RH-141455) and 3,5-dichloro-4-hydroxymethylbenzoic acid (RH-1452 and RH-141452) in or on potato, tuber; potato, granule/flake; potato, wet peel and residues of zoxamide in or on grape; and grape, raisins. Rohm and Haas requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.
This regulation is effective April 11, 2001. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket control number OPP-301110 must be received by EPA on or before June 11, 2001.
Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted by mail, in person, or by courier. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit VI of the
By mail: Cynthia Giles-Parker, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-7740; and e-mail address: Cynthia Giles-Parker@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
In the
The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of the fungicide zoxamide 3,5-dichloro-
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....”
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2), for tolerances for the combined residues of zoxamide and its metabolites 3,5-dichloro-1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (RH-1455 and RH-141455) and 3,5-dichloro-4-hydroxymethylbenzoic acid (RH-1452 and RH-141452) in or on potato, tuber at 0.060 ppm; potato, granule/flake at 0.30 ppm; potato, wet peel at 0.10 ppm and zoxamide in or on grape at 3.0 ppm; grape, raisins at 15 ppm. Several of the tolerances that are being established by this rule ae different from those proposed by Rohm and Haas. EPA's review of the data submitted by the company lead to an Agency decision to modify the proposed tolerances. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by zoxamide are discussed in Table 2 below as well as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.
Zoxamide has low acute toxicity (Toxicity Category IV for acute oral, inhalation toxicity and Category III for acute dermal toxicity and ocular irritation). Zoxamide is considered to be a dermal sensitizer, but it is not a skin irritant (Toxicity Category IV). In addition, a concern was identified for the potential of zoxamide to be an inhalation sensitizer for the following reasons: (1) up to 50% of the wettable powder formulation's dispersed particle size is less than 5 μm, and thus inhalable to the alveolar region in humans; and (2) zoxamide's mechanism of action is binding to tubulin, and therefore may bind to other proteins. See Table 1 for a discussion of EPA's our findings.
The primary target organ for oral exposure is the liver. In chronic and subchronic dog studies, liver and thyroid weights were increased along with liver histopathological changes and increases in alkaline phosphatase in the chronic study. There was no evidence of developmental or reproductive toxicity. The data demonstrate no increase sensitivity of rats or rabbits to
The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences. The Agency evaluated the available hazard and exposure data for zoxamide and made the recommendation for the FQPA safety factor to be used in human health risk assessments (as required by the FQPA of August 3, 1996). The Agency concluded that the FQPA safety factor could be removed (i.e., reduced to 1x) in assessing the risk posed by this chemical because:
1. There is no indication of quantitative or qualitative increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to
2. A developmental neurotoxicity study conducted with zoxamide is not required.
3. The dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessments will not underestimate the potential exposures for infants and children. Additionally, there are currently no residential uses.
For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the appropriate UF (RfD = NOAEL/UF). Where an additional safety factor is retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA Safety Factor.
For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and compared to the LOC.
The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases (e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10
1.
i.
ii.
A Tier I chronic DEEM® analysis was performed. The assumptions of this Tier I analysis were tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop-treated. The following tolerance levels were used in the analysis: grapes at 3.0 ppm, raisins at 15.0 ppm, potatoes at 0.060 ppm, potato flakes and chips at 0.30 ppm, and potato wet peel at 0.10 ppm. Since the tolerance levels for processed commodities used in the analysis were based upon processing studies, default concentration factors for grape juice; raisins; wine and sherry; potatoes, white-dry; potatoes, white peeled; and potatoes, white peel only, were set to 1x.
The chronic dietary exposure (food only) to zoxamide for some population subgroups are presented in the following Table 3. The resulting dietary food exposures occupy
iii.
2.
The Agency uses the Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration (GENEEC) or the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticide concentrations in surface water and SCI-GROW, which predicts pesticide concentrations in groundwater. In general, EPA will use GENEEC (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model) for a screening-level assessment for surface water. The GENEEC model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. GENEEC incorporates a farm pond scenario, while PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment in place of the previous pond scenario. The PRZM/EXAMS model includes a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.
The Agency uses the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index reservoir. The SCI-GROW model is used to predict pesticide concentrations in shallow groundwater. For a screening-level assessment for surface water EPA will use FIRST (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model). The FIRST model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. While both FIRST and PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment, the PRZM/EXAMS model includes a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.
None of these models include consideration of the impact processing (mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would ever exceed human health levels of concern.
Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) from these models to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD. Instead drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to zoxamide they are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections below.
Based on the GENEEC and PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW models the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of zoxamide and its degradates for acute and chronic exposures are as follows:
Tier 1 (GENEEC) modeling estimates that zoxamide residues (zoxamide + degradation products) in surface water, from aerial and ground application, are not likely to exceed 61.1 and 57.0 μg/L for the annual peak concentration (acute) for grape and potato uses, respectively, and 48.3 and 45.1 μg/L for the 56 day average concentration (chronic) for grape and potato uses, respectively.
Tier 2 (PRZM/EXAMS) surface water modeling for zoxamide residues (zoxamide + degradation products), using the index reservoir with the percent cropped area (PCA=0.87 for grapes and potatoes), predicts the 1 in 10 year peak (acute) concentration of zoxamide residues from grapes is not likely to exceed 77.7 μg/L and from potatoes is not likely to exceed 20.9 μg/L. The 1 in 10 year annual average concentration (non-cancer chronic) of zoxamide residues from grapes is not likely to exceed 21.8 μg/L and from potatoes is not likely to exceed 6.2 μg/L. The 36 year annual average concentration (cancer chronic) of zoxamide residues from grapes is not likely to exceed 12.4 μg/L and from potatoes is not likely to exceed 4.1 μg/L.
The SCI-GROW predicted concentration of zoxamide in shallow ground water is not expected to exceed 0.064 μg/L. The SCI-GROW predicted concentration of zoxamide residues (zoxamide + degradation products) in shallow ground water is not expected to exceed 2.07 μg/L.start
3.
4.
EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether zoxamide has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, zoxamide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that zoxamide (3,5-dichloro-
1.
2.
i. There is no indication of quantitative or qualitative increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to
ii. A developmental neurotoxicity study conducted with zoxamide is not required; and
iii. The dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessments will not underestimate the potential exposures for infants and children. Additionally, there are currently no residential uses.
1.
2.
Chronic risk estimates resulting from aggregate exposure to zoxamide in food and water are below the Agency's level of concern. Surface and ground water EECs were used to compare against back-calculated Drinking Water Levels of Comparison (DWLOCs) for the aggregate assessment. For the chronic scenario, the DWLOCs are 17,000 μg/L for the U.S. population and 4,800 μg/L for the most highly exposed subpopulation (children 1-6 years old). The chronic EECs (highest 48.3 μg/L) are less than the Agency's DWLOCs for zoxamide residues in drinking water as a contribution to chronic aggregate exposure. EPA thus concludes with reasonable certainty that residues of zoxamide in drinking water will not contribute significantly to the aggregate chronic human health risk and that the chronic aggregate exposure from zoxamide residues in food and drinking water will not exceed the Agency's level of concern (100% of the Chronic PAD) for chronic dietary aggregate exposure by any population subgroup. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the Chronic PAD, because it is a level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to the health and safety of any population subgroup. This risk assessment is considered high confidence, very conservative, and very protective of human health.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The petitioner has proposed a method (TR 34-98-150, MRID No. 44732115) utilizing gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC/ECD) for enforcement of tolerances for zoxamide in/on grape and grape processed commodities and Method TR 34-98-142 (MRID No. 44732114) for enforcement of tolerances for zoxamide and its acid metabolites in/on potatoes and potato processed commodities. Method TR 34-98-142 utilizes GC with mass selection detection (GC/MSD).
For zoxamide and the two acid metabolites (RH-1452 and RH-1455), in/on potato tubers and potato processed fractions, the GC/MSD method is proposed as the primary method and the GC/ECD method as the confirmatory method of analysis. The estimated limit of detection (LOD) and validated limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the analysis of residues of zoxamide and its acid metabolites in/on potato commodities, were 0.006 and 0.02 ppm, respectively. For zoxamide in/on grape commodities, the GC/ECD method is proposed as the primary enforcement method and the GC/MSD method is proposed as the confirmatory method of analysis. The reported LOD and the validated LOQ for the analysis of zoxamide residues in/on grape commodities were 0.003 and 0.01 ppm, respectively. For both methods, each method of analysis may be used as the confirmatory method for the other.
The above methods are proposed for tolerance enforcement, and are used as the data-collection methods in the analyses of samples obtained from the field, processing, and storage stability studies. The concurrent method recovery data indicate that the methods are adequate for data collection. Both methods were successfully radiovalidated using samples from the grape and potato metabolism studies. These methods were also successfully validated by an independent laboratory.
This method is currently being validated by the Analytical Chemistry Branch Laboratories, BEAD (7503C), Office of Pesticide Programs. Upon successful completion of the EPA validation and the granting of this registration, the method will be forwarded to FDA for publication in a future revision of the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol-II (PAM-II). Prior to publication and upon request, the method will be available prior to the harvest season from the Analytical Chemistry Branch (ACB), BEAD (7503C) Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Road,Ft. George C. Meade, MD 20755-5350. Contact Francis D. Griffith, Jr., telephone (410) 305-2905, e-mail: griffith.francis@epa.gov. The analytical standars are also available from the EPA National Pesticide Standard Repossitory at the same location.
The petitioner submitted data concerning the recovery of residues of zoxamide and its metabolites RH-1452 and RH-1455 using FDA multi-residue method protocols (PAM Vol. I). Zoxamide was successfully recovered using Protocols D and E. RH-1452 and RH-1452 RH-1455 did not chromatograph acceptably on any of the GC columns tested. Therefore, these would not be expected to be analyzable by Protocols D and E. The methylation of the compounds produced derivatives that are analyzable by GC but have poor and variable recoveries through Protocol B, indicating that none of the protocols are suitable for the recovery of either of the acid metabolites RH-1452 and RH-1455. The MRMs are adequate for enforcement of the proposed tolerances for residues in/on grapes, but not for potatoes. The submission will be forwarded to FDA for complete evaluation.
Adequate enforcement methodology (example: gas chromotography) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Calvin Furlow, PRRIB, IRSD (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5229; e-mail address: furlow.calvin@epa.gov.
There are currently no established Codex, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) for residues of zoxamide in/on plant or livestock commodities. Section F of the petition indicated that MRLs are being sought in Canada and Mexico concurrently with this U.S. registration. As the registration of zoxamide is a joint review with Canada , the US tolerances and Canadian MRLs for Zoxamide in or on grape and potato commodities will be set at identical levels.Therefore, no compatibility issues exist with regard to the proposed U.S. tolerances discussed in this petition review.
Therefore, the tolerances are established for the combined residues of zoxamide and its metabolites 3,5-dichloro-1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (RH-1455 and RH-141455) and 3,5-dichloro-4-hydroxymethylbenzoic acid (RH-1452 and RH-141452), in or on potato, tuber; potato, granule/flake; potato, wet peel at 0.060 ppm; 0.30 ppm; and 0.10 ppm, respectively and zoxamide in or on grape at 3.0 ppm and grape, raisins at 15 ppm.
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket control number OPP-301110 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before June 11, 2001.
1.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.
2.
EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
3.
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and
For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 371.
(a)
(2) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of zoxamide and its metabolites 3,5-dichloro-1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (RH-1455 and RH-141455) and 3,5-dichloro-4-hydroxymethylbenzoic acid (RH-1452 and RH-141452) in or on the following commodities:
(b)
(c)
(d)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission, at the request of The University of North Carolina, licensee of noncommercial station WUNM-TV, NTSC channel *19, substitutes DTV channel *18 for DTV channel *44 at Jacksonville, North
Effective May 21, 2001.
Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-3, adopted April 4, 2001, and released April 6, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Television, Digital television broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission, at the request of Midway Broadcasting Company, succeeded in interest by Community Radio Network, Inc., licensee of Station KHBM-FM, Monticello, Arkansas, substitutes Channel 229C2 for Channel 229C3 at Monticello, Arkansas, and modifies its authorization accordingly. In addition, Channel 230A is substituted for Channel 230C3 at Bastrop, Louisiana, Channel 232A is deleted at Bastrop, and the authorization for Station KTRY-FM, Bastrop, is modified to operation on Channel 230A.
Effective June 14, 2001.
Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-141, adopted March 21, 2001, and released March 30, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Radio broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission, at the request of Iberia Communications, L.L.C., substitutes TV channel 53 for TV channel 36-at New Iberia, Louisiana.
With this action, this proceeding is terminated.
Effective May 21, 2001.
Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-2, adopted April 4, 2001, and released April 6, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal
Television, Digital television broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Corrections.
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council are issuing a correction to FAC 97-24 to correct the instruction for the revision of the Certification entitled “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension or Ineligibility for Award (Executive Order 12549).”
April 11, 2001.
Ms. Laurie Duarte at (202) 501-4755, General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat, Washington, DC 20405.
8. * * *
b. Redesignate paragraph (i) as paragraph (j) and add a new paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Malta, MT. Newly developed Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) to the Malta Airport has made this proposal necessary. Class E 700 feet and 1,200 feet controlled airspace, above the surface of the earth is required to contain aircraft executing procedures in the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). The intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Malta Airport, Malta, MT.
Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2001.
Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager, Airspace Branch, ANM-520, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 01-ANM-03, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours in the office of the Manager, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, at the address listed above.
Brian Durham, ANM-520.7, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 01-ANM-03, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056: telephone number: (425) 227-2527.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit, with those comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 01-ANM-03.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in the light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination at the address listed above both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Airspace Branch, ANM-520, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) by establishing Class E airspace legal description at Malta, MT. Newly developed RNAV SIAPs to Runway 8 and Runway 26 has made this proposal necessary. Class E 700 feet and 1,200 feet controlled airspace, above the surface of the earth is required to contain aircraft executing IFR Procedures at Malta Airport. The FAA establishes Class E airspace where necessary to contain aircraft transitioning between the terminal and en route environments. The intended effect of this proposal is designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. This proposal would promote safe flight operations under IFR at the Malta Airport and between the terminal and en route transition stages.
The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth, are published in Paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9H dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in CFR 71.1 The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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 11013; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p;. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within the 4.3 mile radius of the Malta Airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the 270° bearing from the Malta Airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 6.5 miles west of the Airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the 090° bearing from the Malta Airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 5.4 miles east of the Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1200 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 48°34′30″ N., long. 108°43′00″ W.; to lat. 48°34′30″ N., long. 107°00′00″ W,; to lat. 48°05′12″ N., long 107°00′00″ W.; to lat. 48°17′41″ N., long. 108°43′00″ W., to the point of origin; excluding that airspace within Federal Airways.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace at Salmon, ID. Newly developed Area Navigation (RNAV) and VOR/DME Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP), and the RNAV Departure Procedure (DP) at the Salmon Lemhi County Airport has made this proposal necessary. Additional Class E 700-feet and 1,200-feet controlled airspace, above the surface of the earth is required to contain aircraft executing the RNAV and VOR/DME SIAPs, and RNAV DP at Salmon Lemhi County Airport. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Salmon Lemhi County Airport, Salmon, ID.
Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2001.
Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager, Airspace Branch, ANM-520, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 00-ANM-29, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours in the office of the Manager, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, at the address listed above.
Brian Durham, ANM-520.7, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 00-ANM-29, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056: telephone number: (425) 227-2527.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy relate aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit, with those comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00-ANM-29.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in the light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination at the address listed above both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Airspace Branch, ANM-520, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) by modifying Class E airspace at Salmon, ID. A newly developed RNAV-C and VOR/DME-B SIAPs, and AHEHU RNAV DP at the Salmon Lemhi County Airport, has made this proposal necessary. Additional Class E 700-feet and 1,200-feet controlled airspace, above the surface of the earth is required to contain aircraft executing the RNAV-C and VOR/DME-B SIAPs, and AHEHU RNAV DP at Salmon Lemhi County Airport. The FAA establishes Class E airspace where necessary to contain aircraft transitioning between the terminal and en route environments. The intended effect of this proposal is designed to provide the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. This proposal would promote safe flight operations under IFR at the Salmon Lemhi County Airport and between the terminal and en route transition stages.
The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth, are published in Paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9H dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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 11013; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certifies that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In considering of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2000, and effective September 16, 2000, is amended as follows:
That airspace extending upward from 7000 feet above the surface within the 12.2-mile radius of the Lemhi County Airport, and within 6.5 miles each side of the 328° bearing from the 12.2 mile radius extending to 17.9 miles, and within 7.8 miles each side of the Salmon VORTAC 054° AND 234° radial extending from the 12.2-mile radius of the Airport to 17.5 miles southwest of the VORTAC; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a nine beginning at lat. 45°04′50″ N., long. 114°32′53″ W.; to lat. 45°12′31″ N., long 114°16′24″ W.; to lat. 45°42′45″ N., long 114°16′24″ W.; to lat. 45°42′45″ N., long. 113°48′29″ W.; to lat. 45°38′30″ N., long. 113°25′10″ W.; to lat. 45°24′35″ N., long. 113°18′25″ W.; to lat. 44°43′23″ N., long. 113°42′40″ W.; to lat. 44°43′23″ N., long. 114°32′53″ W. to the point of origin; excluding that airspace within Federal Airways.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of data availability and request for comment.
In the
This notice makes these staff analyses available for public comment. Today's notice does not re-open the comment period on the NPR.
The Commission must receive any comments in response to this notice by May 11, 2001.
Comments should be mailed, preferably in five 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 20814; telephone (301) 504-0800. Comments also may be filed by facsimile to (301)504-0127 or by e-mail to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. Comments should be captioned “Notice of Additional Hydrocarbon Data.”
Suzanne Barone, Directorate for Health Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-0477, ext. 1196.
The January 3, 2000 NPR presented ingestion data collected by the American Association of Poison Control Centers'(“AAPCC”) Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (“TESS”) for general cosmetic categories that may contain low viscosity hydrocarbons. The categories included: (1) Miscellaneous nail products; (2) sunscreen and suntan preparations; (3) bubble bath and bath oil; and (4) creams, lotions, and make-up. The data presented in the NPR were from the years 1995 through 1997.
A total of 74,042 ingestion incidents were reported in these product categories. While these incidents were not limited to known hydrocarbon-containing cosmetics, they demonstrate that children access the contents of these types of products in the home. Thus, if such products contain hydrocarbons of low viscosity, aspiration and therefore serious injury, can result. In addition, the NPR included 1996-1997 AAPCC data for exposures to baby oil, a cosmetic product known to contain low viscosity mineral oil, which is a hydrocarbon.
An analysis of brand name-specific cosmetic data obtained by CPSC staff after the NPR was issued is presented below. Data on additional deaths and the additional CPSC staff analysis of the data available when the NPR was issued are also presented.
At the December 3, 1999 Commission briefing on the NPR, Commissioner Gall requested that the staff develop a plan for the collection and analysis of additional data related to ingestion incidents involving mineral oil-based cosmetics.
A comment was received from the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA) (CP00-1-6) in response to the NPR requesting the opportunity to review and comment on the additional cosmetic data purchased from the AAPCC. These data contain brand names and must remain proprietary under the terms by which CPSC acquired them from the AAPCC. Therefore the database cannot be made available to the public. However, the staff analysis of the data that is summarized in this notice is available to the public. Copies may be obtained from the Office of the Secretary. The analysis is also available on the CPSC world wide web site at:
The supplemental AAPCC cosmetic database purchase contained a total of 31,903 ingestion cases coded as: (1) Miscellaneous nail products; (2) sunscreen and suntan preparations; (3) bubble bath or bath oil; and (4) creams, lotions, and make-up. Of these, 538 cases involved ingestion of more than one substance and were therefore eliminated from consideration. Of the 31,365 single substance ingestions, 476 involved potential aspirations as defined below by CPSC staff in Section D., Additional Analysis of Data Available when NPR Was Issued. Seventeen of the aspiration cases involved a serious medical outcome.
CPSC staff eliminated 2,049 products (22,262 exposures) from further consideration because either the products were known not to contain hydrocarbons or the formulations were emulsions or solids. Of the remainder, 30 products (1,461 exposures) would require child-resistant packaging under the proposed rule. Staff lacked sufficient information to make that determination for 222 products (7,642 exposures). Some of these were from a specific cosmetic product category such as “bath oil,” some members of which may require packaging under the rule as proposed, but were products for which a brand name was not available. The remaining ones were products for which no formulation information was available.
The staff evaluated the combined data set of cases that were either known to be or might be subject to the rule as proposed. The two parameters evaluated were potential aspiration and serious injury. Five potential aspiration cases were identified in this manner as having serious medical outcomes. Three of these cases involved baby oil and two involved bath oil. There were 224 additional cases coded as potential aspirations that did not result in serious effects. Seventy-nine cases resulted in serious outcomes but did not meet the staff criteria for potential aspiration.
Seven fatalities were identified in categories of products known to contain hydrocarbons. Five of these deaths were not reported in the NPR or the preceding advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”). 62 FR 8,659 (February 26, 1997). Of these, three deaths were identified in TESS that were caused by products that appear not to be subject to the rule. The first case was the death of a child following ingestion and aspiration of a homemade cleaning product. The second case was the death of a child following ingestion and aspiration of motor oil. The third TESS case was the death of a child following ingestion and aspiration of hair oil. The products involved in these three deaths either contain less than 10 percent hydrocarbons or have a viscosity greater than 100 SUS at 100° F.
The other two deaths that were identified in CPSC databases were apparently caused by products that would be subject to the rule as proposed. The first death occurred in 1997 when a 12-month female died 45 days following ingestion of baby oil. The autopsy revealed that the child died as a result of a left hemothorax due to complications from swallowing and aspirating baby oil.
The second death occurred in 2000 when a 9-month old female died six days following the ingestion of a hair moisturizer product. The patient suffered respiratory arrest and died in the intensive care unit.
Commissioner Gall's specific interest in cases involving mineral oil-based cosmetics also prompted a reevaluation by CPSC staff of the data available at the NPR stage with a focus on aspiration. The data presented in the NPR contained 114 cases of cosmetic exposure coded as aspirations by the AAPCC for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997 (29, 36, and 49 respectively).
TESS codes identify the routes of exposure for poisoning cases. These route codes include, “ingestion,” “aspiration,” “inhalation/nasal,” “ocular,” “dermal,” “bite/sting,” or “parenteral.” The 74,042 incidents identified in the NPR were ingestions that did not also involve other routes of exposure. However, according to AAPCC coding guidelines, all cases coded as aspiration are also coded as ingestions.
Upon reevaluation, the CPSC staff believed that using only incidents coded with the aspiration route of exposure was underestimating the number of aspiration incidents. Numerous cases not coded as aspirations resulted in respiratory effects. Therefore, in addition to any case coded as an aspiration by the AAPCC, any inhalation or nasal route of exposure case, and any ingestion case that also had related respiratory effects, was considered by the CPSC staff to be a potential aspiration. Many of these cases are not coded as aspiration cases by the AAPCC. For example, a case of aspiration of hydrocarbon following vomiting may not be coded as an aspiration by the AAPCC because the initial route of exposure may have been ingestion. However, if the child exhibits respiratory effects related to the poisoning, the case would be considered an “aspiration” for purposes of this analysis.
The CPSC staff reanalyzed the TESS data originally presented in the NPR to take into account the additional cases of potential aspiration. In addition, several other changes were made. The analysis was expanded to include cases involving all routes of exposure. However, cases involving more than one product and cases where the age of the child was unknown were eliminated.
Reanalysis of the TESS cosmetic data in this manner resulted in 1200 cases of potential aspiration for the years 1995-1997 as opposed to the 114 cases identified in the NPR.
The TESS cosmetic data for the years 1993 through 1999 show 186,359 exposures with 2,894 potential aspirations. The TESS data also show 109,823 exposures to household chemical product categories that may contain hydrocarbons, 8,221 of which were potential aspirations.
The detailed staff reanalysis of these data is available to the public. Copies may be obtained from the Office of the Secretary. The reanalysis is also available on the CPSC world wide web
Federal Communications Commission.
Request for comments.
On March 30, 2001, the Federal Communications Commission released a Final Report on a spectrum study of the 2500-2690 MHz band for Third Generation (3G) wireless systems. The Final Report reviews and evaluates the earlier analyses and evaluates additional topics, including potential alternate frequency bands for relocating Instructional Television Fixed Service and Multipoint Distribution Service operations and the costs associated with relocation.
Comments Due: April 16, 2001.
Rodney Small, or Geraldine Matise, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2452, or (202) 418-2322, respectively; internet:
This is a summary of the text of the Public Notice, DA 01-786 released March 30, 2001. This document is available on the Commission's Internet site, at
1. The staff of the Federal Communications Commission today released a Final Report on a spectrum study of the 2500-2690 MHz band for Third Generation (3G) wireless systems. The Final Report was prepared under the leadership of the Office of Engineering and Technology, in cooperation with the Mass Media Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and the International Bureau.
2. The 2500-2690 MHz band was identified by the 2000 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-2000) as candidate spectrum for 3G systems, along with the 806-960 MHz and 1710-1885 MHz bands. The WRC-2000 results allow countries flexibility in deciding how to implement 3G systems. The conference recognized that in many countries the frequency bands identified for 3G may already be in use by equally vital services. In the United States, the 2500-2690 MHz band is currently used by the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) and Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS).
3. The technical study of the 2500-2690 MHz band has been conducted in two stages. In an Interim Report in ET Docket No. 00-232, released November 15, 2000, the staff examined technical characteristics of 3G systems; the existing and planned use of the 2500-2690 MHz band; the ability for 3G systems to share spectrum with incumbent services; and possible options for segmenting the frequency band to provide spectrum for 3G systems. The Final Report reviews and evaluates the earlier analyses and evaluates additional topics, including potential alternate frequency bands for relocating ITFS/MDS operations and the costs associated with relocation.
4. The study conducted by the FCC staff is a companion to a study done by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on the 1755-1850 MHz band. The NTIA Interim Report (“Federal Operations in the 1755-1850 MHz Band: The Potential for Accommodating Third Generation Mobile Systems”), which was issued on November 15, 2000, and the NTIA Final Report (“The Potential for Accommodating Third Generation Mobile Systems in the 1710-1850 MHz Band: Federal Operations, Relocation Costs, and Operational Impacts”) cover the same topics as the FCC staff reports. The FCC and NTIA band study reports are consistent with a Study Plan issued by Department of Commerce on October 20, 2000.
5. Earlier this year, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in ET Docket No. 00-258 on January 5, 2001, to examine and propose spectrum for allocation to fixed and mobile services that would be capable of being used to provide 3G wireless services. The NPRM recognized that a number of frequency bands, including the 1755-1850 MHz and 2500-2690 MHz bands, are capable of supporting advanced wireless systems, and invited comment on the Interim Reports issued by the FCC staff and NTIA. To provide a complete record on issues under review in ET Docket No. 00-258, the Commission seeks comment on the Final Reports of the 1755-1850 MHz and 2500-2690 MHz band studies.
6. We hereby solicit comment by April 16, 2001 on the issues raised in the Final Reports. Comments should be filed in ET Docket No. 00-258. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Generally, only one electronic submission must be filed. If filing by paper, parties must file an original and four copies. Parties should send comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties are also encouraged to file a copy of all pleadings on a 3.5 inch diskette in Word 97 format.
7. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet at
8. The full texts of the FCC and NTIA Final Reports are available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, 20036., telephone 202-857-3800, facsimile 202-857-3805, TTY 202-293-8810. You may also view the FCC Final Report at
9. This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
10. This action is taken pursuant to authority found in sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 303(r); and pursuant to sections 0.31 and 0.241 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 0.31 and 0.241.
11. For further information, contact Geraldine Matise, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-2322 (
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on proposed information collection. This notice is an extension of the currently approved information collection burden for the Quality Control (QC) system which includes the sampling plan and the arbitration and good cause processes. This part of the QC system burden has been approved through June 30, 2001.
Written comments must be submitted on or before June 11, 2001.
Send comments and requests for copies of this information collection to: Retha Oliver, Chief, Quality Control Branch, Program Accountability Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302. You may FAX comments to us at (703) 305-0928 or e-mail at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Request for additional information or copies of the information collection form and instruction should be directed to Retha Oliver, (703) 305-2474 or e-mail at
The QC system contains procedures for resolving differences in review findings between State agencies and FNS. This is referred to as the arbitration process. The QC system also contains procedures which provide relief for State agencies from all or a part of a QC liability when a State agency can demonstrate that a part or all of an excessive error rate was due to an unusual event which had an uncontrollable impact on the State agency's payment error rate.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice—Availability of appealable decisions; legal notice for availability for comment of decisions that may be appealable under 36 CFR part 215.
Responsible Officials in the Southwestern Region will publish notices of availability for comment and notices of decisions that may be subject to administrative appeal under 36 CFR part 215. These notices will be published in the legal notice section of the newspapers listed in the Supplementary Information section of this notice. As provided in 36 CFR 215.5 and 215.9, such notice shall constitute legal evidence that the agency has given timely and constructive notice for comment and notice of decisions that may be subject to administrative appeal. Newspaper publication of notices of decisions is in addition to direct notice to those who have requested notice in writing and to those known to be interested in or affected by a specific decision.
Use of these newspapers for the purpose of publishing legal notices for comment and decisions that may be subject to appeal under 36 CFR part 215 shall begin April 11, 2001 and continue until further notice.
Southwestern Region, ATTN: Regional Appeals Coordinator, 333 Broadway SE, Albuquerque, NM 87102-3498.
Christina Gonzalez, 505-842-3219.
Responsible Officials in the Southwestern Region will give legal notice of decisions that may be subject to appeal under 36 CFR part 215 in the following newspapers which are listed by Forest Service administrative unit. Where more than one newspaper is listed for any unit, the first newspaper listed is the primary newspaper which shall be used to constitute legal evidence that the agency has given timely and constructive notice for comment and for decisions that may be subject to administrative appeal. As provided in 36 CFR 215.5, the time frame for appeal shall be based on the date of publication of a notice for decision in the primary newspaper.
Notice by Regional Forester of Availability for Comment and Decisions affecting New Mexico Forests: “Albuquerque Journal”, published daily in Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, for comment and decisions affecting National Forest System Lands in the State of New Mexico and for any decisions of Region-wide impact.
Notice by Regional Forester of Availability for Comment and Decisions affecting Arizona Forests: “The Arizona Republic” published daily in Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona, for comment and decisions affecting National Forest System lands in the State of Arizona and for any decisions of Region-wide impact.
Notice by Regional Forester of Availability for Comments and Decisions affecting National Grasslands in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas: Kiowa National Grassland in Colfax, Harding, Mora and Union Counties, New Mexico: “Union County Leader”, published weekly on Wednesday in Clayton, Union County, New Mexico. Rita Blanca National Grassland in Cimarron County, Oklahoma: “Boise City News”, published weekly on Wednesday in Boise City, Cimarron County, Oklahoma. Rita Blanca National Grassland in Dallam County, Texas: “The Dalhart Texan”, published on Tuesday and Saturday in Dalhart, Dallam County, Texas. Black Kettle National Grassland in Roger Mills County, Oklahoma: “Cheyenne Star”, published weekly on Thursday in Cheyenne, Roger Mills County, Oklahoma. Black Kettle National Grassland in Hemphill County, Texas: “The Canadian Record”, published weekly on Thursday in Canadian, Hemphill County, Texas. McClellan Creek National Grassland in Gray County, Texas: “The Pampa News”, published on Friday and Sunday in Pampa, Gray County, Texas.
Notice by Forest Supervisor of Availability for Comment and Decisions: “The White Mountain Independent”, published Tuesday and Friday in Show Low and Navajo County, Arizona.
Notice by District Ranger of Availability for Comment and Decisions: Alphine District: “The White Mountain Independent”, published Tuesday and Friday in Show Low and Navajo County, Arizona. Chevelon District: “The White Mountain Independent”, published Tuesday and Friday in Show Low and Navajo County, Arizona. Clifton District: “Copper Era”, published weekly on Wednesday in Clifton, Greenlee County, Arizona. Heber District: “The White Mountain Independent”, published Tuesday and Friday in Show Low and Navajo County, Arizona. Lakeside District: “The White Mountain Independent”, published Tuesday and Friday in Show Low and Navajo County, Arizona. Springerville District: “The White Mountain Independent”, published Tuesday and Friday in Show Low and Navajo County, Arizona.
Notice by Forest Supervisor of Availability for Comment and Decisions: “Arizona Daily Sun”, published daily, in Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona.
Notice by District Ranger of Availability for Comment and Decisions: Beaver Creek District: “Arizona Daily Sun”, published daily, in Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona. Blue Ridge District: “Arizona Daily Sun”, published daily, in Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona. Peaks District: “Arizona Daily Sun”, published daily, in Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona. Long Valley District: “Arizona Daily Sun”, published daily, in Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona. Mormon Lake District: “Arizona Daily Sun”, published daily, in Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona. Sedona District: “Arizona Daily Sun”, published daily, in Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona. Sedona District: “Red Rock News”, published Wednesday and Friday in Sedona, Coconino County, Arizona.
Notice by Forest Supervisor of Availability for Comment and
Notice by District Ranger of Availability for Comment and Decisions: Douglas District: “Daily Dispatch”, published Tuesday-Saturday, and Sunday in Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona. Nogales District: “Nogales International”, published on Tuesday and Friday in Nogales, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Sierra Vista District: “Sierra Vista Herald”, published Sunday-Friday, in Sierra Vista, Cochise County, Arizona. Safford District: “Eastern Arizona Courier”, published weekly on Wednesday, in Safford, Graham County, Arizona. Santa Catalina District: “The Arizona Daily Star”, published daily, in Tucson, Pima County, Arizona.
Notice by Forest Supervisor of Availability for Comment and Decisions: “Arizona Daily Sun”, published daily, in Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona.
Notice by District Ranger of Availability for Comment and Decisions: North Kaibab District: “Arizona Daily Sun”, published daily, in Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona. Tusayan District: “Arizona Daily Sun”, published daily, in Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona. Williams District: “Arizona Daily Sun”, published daily, in Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona.
Notice by Forest Supervisor of Availability for Comment and Decisions: “Prescott Courier”, published daily in Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona.
Notice by District Ranger of Availability for Comment and Decisions: Bradshaw District: “Prescott Courier”, published daily in Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Chino Valley District: “Prescott Courier”, published daily in Yavapai County, Arizona. Verde District: “Prescott Courier”, published daily in Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona.
Notice by Forest Supervisor of Availability for Comment and Decisions: “East Valley Tribune” and “Scottsdale Tribune”, published daily in Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona.
Notice by District Ranger of Availability for Comment and Decisions: Cave Creek District: “Scottsdale Tribune”, published daily in Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona. Globe District: “Arizona Silver Belt”, published weekly on Wednesday in Globe, Gila County, Arizona. Mesa District: “East Valley Tribune”, published daily in Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona. Payson District: “Payson Roundup”, published biweekly on Tuesday and Friday in Payson, Gila County, Arizona. Pleasant Valley District: “Payson Roundup”, published weekly on Tuesday and Friday in Payson, Gila County, Arizona. Tonto Basin District: “Payson Roundup”, published biweekly on Tuesday and Friday in Payson, Gila County, Arizona.
Notice by Forest Supervisor of Availability for Comment and Decisions: “The Taos News”, published weekly on Thursday in Taos, Taos County, New Mexico.
Notice by District Ranger of Availability for Comment and Decisions: Canjilon District: “Rio Grande Sun”, published Wednesday in Espanola, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. El Rito District: “Rio Grande Sun”, published Wednesday in Espanola, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. Jicarilla District: “Farmington Daily Times”, published daily in Farmington, San Juan County, New Mexico. Camino Real District: “The Taos News”, published weekly on Thursday in Taos, Taos County, New Mexico. Tres Piedras District: “The Taos News”, published weekly on Thursday in Taos, Taos County, New Mexico. Questa District: “The Taos News”, published weekly on Thursday in Taos, Taos County, New Mexico.
Notice by Forest Supervisor of Availability for Comment and Decisions affecting lands in New Mexico, except the National Grasslands: “Albuquerque Journal”, published daily in Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
Notice by Forest Supervisor of Availability for Comment and Decisions affecting National Grasslands in New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma: Kiowa National Grassland in Colfax, Harding, Mora and Union Counties, New Mexico: “Union County Leader”, published weekly on Wednesday in Clayton, Union County, New Mexico. Rita Blanca National Grassland in Cimarron County, Oklahoma: “Boise City News”, published weekly on Wednesday in Boise City, Cimarron County, Oklahoma. Rita Blanca National Grassland in Dallam County, Texas: “Dalhart Texan”, published on Tuesday and Saturday in Dalhart, Dallam County, Texas. Black Kettle National Grassland, Roger Mills County, Oklahoma: “Cheyenne Star”, published weekly on Thursday in Cheyenne, Roger Mills County, Oklahoma. Black Kettle National Grassland, Hemphill County, Texas: “The Canadian Record”, published weekly on Thursday in Canadian, Hemphill County, Texas. McClellan Creek National Grassland, Gray County, Texas: “The Pampa News”, published on Friday and Sunday in Pampa Gray County, Texas.
Notice by District Ranger of Availability for Comment and Decisions: Mt. Taylor District: “Cibola County Beacon”, published on Wednesday and Friday in Grants, Cibola County, New Mexico. Magdalena District: “Defensor-Chieftain”, published Wednesday and Saturday in Socorro, Socorro County, New Mexico. Mountainair District: “Albuquerque Journal”, published weekly on Thursday in Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Sandia District: “Albuquerque Journal”, published daily in Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Kiowa National Grassland: “Union County Leader”, published weekly on Wednesday in Clayton, Union County, New Mexico. Rita Blanca National Grassland: “Boise City News”, published weekly on Wednesday in Boise City, Cimarron County, Oklahoma. Black Kettle National Grassland: “Cheyenne Star”, published weekly on Thursday in Cheyenne, Roger Mills County, Oklahoma. Black Kettle National Grassland: “The Canadian Record”, published weekly on Thursday in Canadian, Hemphill County, Texas. McClellan Creek National Grassland: “The Pampa News”, published on Friday and Sunday in Pampa, Gray County, Texas.
Notice by Forest Supervisor of Availability for Comment and Decisions: “Silver City Daily Press”, published Monday-Saturday in Silver City, Grant County, New Mexico.
Notice by District Ranger of Availability for Comment and Decision: Black Range District: “The Herald”, published on Tuesday, in Truth or Consequences, Sierra County, New Mexico. Quemado District: “Silver City Daily Press”, published Monday-Saturday in Silver City, Grant County, New Mexico. Reserve District: “Silver City Daily Press”, published Monday-Saturday in Silver City, Grant County, New Mexico. Glenwood District: “Silver City Daily Press”, published Monday-Saturday in Silver City, Grant County, New Mexico. Silver City District: “Silver City Daily Press”, published Monday-Saturday in Silver City, Grant
Notice by Forest Supervisor of Availability for Comment and Decisions: “Alamogordo Daily News”, published daily in Alamogordo, Otero County, New Mexico.
Notice by District Ranger of Availability for Comment and Decisions: Sacramento District: “Alamogordo Daily News”, published daily in Alamogordo, Otero County, New Mexico. Guadalupe District: “Carlsbad Current Argus”, published daily except Saturday, in Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico. Smokey Bear District: “Ruidoso News”, published Monday and Thursday in Ruidoso, Lincoln County, New Mexico.
Notice by Forest Supervisor of Availability for Comment and Decisions: “Albuquerque Journal”, published daily in Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
Notice by District Ranger of Availability for Comment and Decisions: Coyote District: “Albuquerque Journal”, published daily in Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Cuba District: “Albuquerque Journal”, published daily in Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Espanola District: “Albuquerque Journal”, published daily in Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Jemez District: “Albuquerque Journal”, published daily in Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Pecos-Las Vegas District: “Albuquerque Journal”, published daily in Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by June 11, 2001.
F. Lamont Heppe, Jr., Director, Program Development & Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1522, Room 4034 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 720-0736. Fax: (202) 720-4120.
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1935 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for an extension.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: F. Lamont Heppe, Jr., Director, Program Development & Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1522, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 720-0736. FAX: (202) 720-4120.
RUS Form 268 is designed for use by RUS electric and telephone borrowers in complying with the reporting requirements outlined in RUS Bulletin 1790-1, “Nondiscrimination Among Beneficiaries of RUS Programs.” RUS is required to implement regulations of the Department of Justice and USDA and to provide for the collection of civil rights data and information from applicants for and recipients of Federal assistance sufficient to permit effective enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (ACTs). RUS Form 268 serves as a compliance report and facilitates RUS' responsibilities in enforcing compliance by electric and telephone borrowers with the requirements of the ACTs.
Requests for copies of this information collection can be obtained from Bob Turner, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, at (202) 720-0696. Fax: (202) 720-4120.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Connecticut Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn 12:00 p.m. on April 18, 2001, at the Omni Hotel, 155 Temple Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06510. The purpose of the meeting is to plan for a follow up forum on civil rights issues in Bridgeport and be briefed by community leaders and Federal officials regarding civil rights developments in Bridgeport since May 2000.
Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Dr. Neil Macy,
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and Constitution, NW., Washington, DC 20230; or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
In preparation for the American Community Survey in Puerto Rico in 2003, the Census Bureau will conduct a feasibility study to assess the operational implications of using the American Community Survey data collection methods in Puerto Rico. The current design of the American Community Survey relies on three methods of data collection: mailout/mailback, computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI), and computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI). We will mail the survey to selected sample households in Puerto Rico. We will use CATI to conduct telephone interviews for all households that do not respond by mail and for which we are able to obtain telephone numbers. We will not use CAPI in Puerto Rico during this feasibility study. We will take advantage of personal visit methods used in Puerto Rico during Census 2000. The primary need for the feasibility study is to determine whether the current data collection procedures used stateside are appropriate for use in Puerto Rico.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, room 6086, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at mclayton@doc.gov).
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the Republic of Korea.
The Department of Commerce has conducted an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the Republic of Korea. This review covers imports of subject merchandise from three producers/exporters. We have determined that sales have been made below normal value during the review period of November 1, 1998, through October 31, 1999.
Based on our review of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculation for all of the reviewed companies. Consequently, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for these firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.” Based on these final results of review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price and normal value on all appropriate entries.
April 11, 2001.
Gregory Campbell or Suresh Maniam, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2239 or 482-0176, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“Department's”) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).
The period of review (“POR”) is November 1, 1998, through October 31, 1999. This review covers the following exporters (referred to collectively as “the respondents”): Hyundai Pipe Co., Ltd. (“HDP”),
On December 6, 2000, the Department published
The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
The merchandise subject to this review is circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4mm (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes, and are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in this order.
All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included within the scope of this review except line pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. In accordance with the Department's
Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
We compared the products sold by the respondents in the comparison market to sales that entered the United States during the POR using the methodology described in the
At the
Furthermore, with respect to HDP, for the final results we have re-coded the end-finish matching criterion.
To determine whether sales of standard pipe from the ROK were made in the United States at less than fair value, we compared the export price (“EP”) or constructed export price (“CEP”) to normal value (“NV”), as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections below. Our calculations followed the methodologies described in the
For the final results we have expanded our window for potential contemporaneous home market sales to include all home market sales that were made within the period three months prior to the sale date of the earliest reported U.S. sale through two months subsequent to the sale date of the last reported U.S. sale. See Comment 3 of the accompanying
For sales to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP in accordance with sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act determined by the methodology described in the
HDP and SeAH reported sales in the home market of “overrun” merchandise (
Since the
Additionally, we stated in the
We used the same methodology in performing the COP analysis as in the
We have added packing expenses to the reported COM for SeAH and Shinho, and recalculated G & A and interest expenses.
We disallowed certain non-production-related income offsets to Shinho's G & A costs. Moreover, because we disallowed these income items, we also excluded the corresponding expenses.
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same LOT as the EP or CEP. When the Department is unable to find sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market.
Sales are made at different levels of trade if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). 19 CFR 412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing.
When CEP sales have been made in the United States, section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f) allow for a CEP offset under two conditions: (1) NV is established at a LOT that is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP; and (2) the data available do not permit a determination that there is a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the comparison market.
We obtained information from each respondent regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel of distribution. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these final results,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the
We determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Because certain importer-specific assessment rates calculated in these final results are above
To calculate the cash-deposit rate for each producer and/or exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that company's sales.
The following deposit requirements will be required on all shipments of standard pipe from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, effective on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates indicated above, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore,
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review.
April 11, 2001.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on industrial nitrocellulose (INC) from the United Kingdom in response to requests by the respondent Imperial Chemical Industries PLC and its affiliates Nobel Enterprises, a business unit of Nobel's Explosives Company, Ltd. (Nobel's) and ICI Americas Inc. (ICIA), (collectively ICI). This review covers sales of this merchandise made by one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise, ICI, to the United States during the period July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000.
We have preliminarily determined the dumping margin for ICI to be 3.52%. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct the United States Customs Service (Customs) to assess antidumping duties, as appropriate.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments are
John Conniff or Michele Mire, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1009 or (202) 482-4711, respectively.
The Department published in the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the respondent requested that we conduct an administrative review for the aforementioned period. The Department is now conducting this administrative review pursuant to section 751 of the Act.
Imports covered by this review are shipments of INC from the United Kingdom. INC is a dry, white amorphous synthetic chemical with a nitrogen content between 10.8 and 12.2 percent, and is produced from the reaction of cellulose with nitric acid. INC is used as a film-former in coatings, lacquers, furniture finishes, and printing inks. The scope of this order does not include explosive grade nitrocellulose, which has a nitrogen content of greater than 12.2 percent.
INC is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) subheading 3912.20.00. While the HTS item number is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.
To determine whether sales of INC from the United Kingdom to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the CEP to the NV, as described in the
For the price to the United States, we used CEP, as defined in sections 772(b),(c) and (d) of the Act, because all sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States took place after importation. We calculated CEP based on packed, factory prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for rebates, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight, U.S. duties, and direct and indirect selling expenses to the extent that they were associated with economic activity occurring in the United States. These included credit expenses and commissions as applicable, in accordance with sections 772(c)(2) and 772(d)(1) of the Act. Finally, we made an adjustment for CEP profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act.
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, because ICI's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that sales in the home market provide a viable basis for calculating NV.
We initiated a below cost investigation on January 26, 2001, in response to a below cost allegation from the petitioner filed on November 27, 2000. The petitioner's COP allegation was company-specific, employed a reasonable methodology, made use of ICI's data on the record, provided evidence of below cost sales, and covered merchandise which is representative of the broader range of INC products sold by ICI in the United Kingdom. Therefore, we determined that petitioner's COP allegation provided a reasonable basis to initiate a COP investigation.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus amounts for home market selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We used the home market sales data and COP information provided by ICI in its questionnaire responses.
After calculating a weighted-average COP, we tested whether home market sales of INC were made at prices below COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific COP's to the reported home market prices less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and indirect selling expenses.
During the POR, ICI sold INC to one affiliated customer; therefore, we conducted an arm's-length test. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all discounts and rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, commissions, and home market packing. Where, for the tested models of subject merchandise, prices to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of ICI's sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (D) where 20 percent or more of home market sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we found that such sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. Because the sales prices would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, we disregarded those below-cost sales and used the remaining sales to determine NV in accordance with section 773(b)(1). For those models of INC for which there were no home market sales available for matching purposes, we compared CEP to CV.
We calculated NV based on packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made adjustments for discounts. Where applicable, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, where applicable, we made deductions from the starting price for inland freight and inland insurance. In addition, we made a circumstance of sale adjustment for imputed credit expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Prices were reported net of value added taxes (VAT) and, therefore, no deduction for VAT was necessary. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and the subject merchandise.
We derived the CEP offset amount from the amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred on sales in the home market.
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of ICI's cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, selling, SG&A and profit incurred and realized in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by ICI in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.
We used the costs of materials, fabrication, and SG&A as reported in the CV portion of ICI's questionnaire response. We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales portion of ICI's questionnaire response. We based selling expenses and profit on the information reported in the home market sales portion of ICI's questionnaire response.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transactions. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on constructed value (CV), that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To evaluate the LOT, we examined information regarding the distribution systems in both the U.S. and U.K. markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses for the respondent. Customer categories such as distributors, retailers, or end-users are commonly used by petitioners and respondents to describe different LOTs, but, without substantiation, they are insufficient to establish that a claimed LOT is valid. An analysis of the chain of distribution and the selling functions substantiates or invalidates the claimed LOTs.
Our analysis of the marketing process in both the home market and the United States begins with goods being sold by the producer and extends to the sale to the final user. The chain of distribution between the producer and the final user may have many or few links, and each respondent's sales occur somewhere along this chain. We review and compare the distribution systems in the home market and the United States, including selling functions, class of customer, and the extent and level of selling expenses for each claimed LOT.
Unless we find that there are different selling functions for sales to the U.S. and home market sales, we will not determine that there are different LOTs. Different LOTs necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but differences in selling functions, even substantial ones, are not sufficient alone to establish a difference in the LOTs. Differences in LOTs are characterized by purchasers at different stages in the chain of distribution and sellers performing qualitatively or quantitatively different functions in selling to them. If the comparison-market sale is at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a
ICI did not claim a LOT adjustment. Nevertheless, we evaluated whether a LOT adjustment was necessary by examining ICI's distribution system, including selling functions, classes of customers, and selling expenses. In reviewing ICI's home market distribution channels, we found that the POR sales of the merchandise under review were made at only one LOT in the home market. With respect to U.S. sales, after making deductions to the CEP sales pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, we found the selling activities performed by ICI for the CEP sales to its affiliate were limited to order processing and arranging transportation. Therefore, we found that the selling functions performed for the NV LOT (
For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department shall determine, and the United States Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales and dividing this amount by the estimated entered value (provided by respondent) of the same merchandise on an importer-specific basis. Upon completion of this review, where the importer-specific assessment rate is above
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
April 11, 2001.
Maisha Cryor at (202) 482-5831 (for Indonesia), Valerie Ellis at (202) 482-2336 (for Poland), or Keir Whitson at (202) 482-1777 (for Ukraine), AD/CVD Enforcement, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations
On January 30, 2001, the Department published the preliminary determinations of the antidumping investigations of rebar from Indonesia, Poland and Ukraine.
Section 734(m) of the Act states that in the case of regional industry investigations, the administering authority shall offer exporters the opportunity to enter into suspension agreements. Proposed and finalized agreements in these cases must comport with the requirements set forth under section 734 of the Act for the suspension of antidumping duty investigations. All exporters participating in the instant investigations were aware of their opportunity to propose suspension agreements. However, the Department did not accept any suspension agreements in these proceedings.
The Department has conducted these investigations in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is all steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 7214.20.00 or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds (
The only issue raised by any party involved the Ukraine investigation and is addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (
In the preliminary determinations of these investigations, the Department preliminarily determined that the application of total adverse facts available was appropriate with respect to each mandatory respondent from Indonesia, Poland, and Ukraine. Specifically, the Department assigned to the mandatory respondents from Indonesia, Poland and Ukraine the highest margins alleged in the amendments to the respective petitions. The interested parties did not object to the use of adverse facts available for the mandatory respondents in the investigations from Indonesia and Poland, or to the Department's choice of facts available, and no new facts were submitted which would cause the Department to revisit this decision. Therefore, for the reasons set out in the
We received comments from the petitioner regarding the margin assigned in the Ukraine investigation. For the reasons set out in the
In the petition, filed on June 28, 2000, the petitioner alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of rebar from Poland. On August 30, 2000, the Department preliminarily determined that critical circumstances exist with respect to exports of rebar from Poland.
In a letter filed on August 22, 2000, the petitioner alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of rebar from Ukraine. On November 27, 2000, the Department preliminarily determined that critical circumstances exist for imports of rebar from Ukraine.
No comments were filed since the preliminary determinations on the issue of critical circumstances by any party in the Poland or Ukraine proceedings, and there were no new facts discovered by the Department. Therefore, for the reasons specified in our preliminary determinations, we continue to find that critical circumstances exist in the cases of Poland and Ukraine.
We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the periods April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000 (for Indonesia and Poland), and October 1, 1999 through March 31, 2000 (for Ukraine):
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are instructing the U.S. Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of rebar from
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determinations. As our final determinations are affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping order directing Customs officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
These determinations are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
This decision is made pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured in the United States.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of partially closed meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Advisory Board (MEPNAB), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), will meet Thursday, May 10, 2001 from 8 am to 3:30 pm. The MEPNAB is composed of nine members appointed by the Director of NIST who were selected for their expertise in the area of industrial extension and their work on behalf of smaller manufacturers. The Board was established to fill a need for outside input on MEP. MEP is a unique program consisting of centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The centers have been created by state, federal, and local partnerships. The board works closely with MEP to provide input and advice on MEP's programs, plans, and policies. The purpose of this meeting is to look at center marketing and sales operations from the national perspective and what NIST MEP is planning and what best practices can be shared across the system. The Board will also hear progress of MEP's new market research project. Discussions scheduled to begin at 8 am and to end at 9:30 am and to begin at 2:30 pm and to end at 3:30 pm on May 10, 2001, on personnel issues and proprietary budget information will be closed.
The meeting will convene May 10, 2001 at 8 am and will adjourn at 3:30 pm on May 10, 2001.
The meeting will be held at the Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, Salon A, 9751 Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878.
Linda Acierto, Senior Policy Advisor, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800, telephone number (301) 975-5033.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration with the concurrence of the General Counsel formally determined on December 18, 2000, that portions of the meeting which involve discussion of proposed funding of the MEP may be closed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), because that portion will divulge matters the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency actions; and that portions of the meeting which involve discussion of the staffing of positions in
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of the draft biological opinion on authorization of the fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks.
NMFS announces the availability of a draft biological opinion on authorization of the fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks.
The draft document is now available. Comments on the draft document will be accepted through 5 p.m. EST on April 18, 2001.
Copies of the draft document may be obtained from Christopher Rogers, Acting Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, (301) 713-2347. Written comments on the document must be mailed to Bruce C. Morehead, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; or faxed to 301-713-1917. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via email or the Internet.
Christopher Rogers, 301-713-2347.
The Endangered Species Act draft biological opinion on authorization of fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks is now available for review. The document is available on the internet at (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/); printed copies are available from NMFS upon request (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0006).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Subcontracting Plans/Subcontracting Reporting for Individual Contracts (Standard Form 294).
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, or obtaining a copy of the proposal, should be submitted to: General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Comments may be submitted on or before May 11, 2001.
Rhonda Cundiff, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 501-0044.
In accordance with the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631,
In conjunction with these plans, contractors must submit semiannual reports of their progress on Standard Form 294, Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts.
Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0006, Subcontracting Plans/Subcontracting Reporting for Individual Contracts (Standard Form 294), in all correspondence.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0125).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Written Refusal of a Utility Supplier to Execute a Utility Contract. A request for public comments was published at 66 FR 2890, January 12, 2001. No comments were received.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted on or before May 11, 2001.
Comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be submitted to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat, 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Julia Wise, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 208-1168.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation requires that contracts comply with the applicable Federal laws and the relevant parts of the FAR. The written and definite refusal by a utility supplier to execute a tendered contract (41.202(c)) is intended to identify those suppliers who refuse to do so and the rationale of the supplier for refusing.
Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0125, Written Refusal of a Utility Supplier to Execute a Utility Contract, in all correspondence.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0123).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Change in Rates or Terms and Conditions of Service for Regulated Services. A request for public comments was published at 66 FR 2889, January 12, 2001. No comments were received.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted on or before May 11, 2001.
Comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be submitted to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat, 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0123, Change in Rates or Terms and Conditions of Service for Regulated Services, in all correspondence.
Julia Wise, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 208-1168.
The FAR clause at 52.241-7 requires the utility to furnish the Government with a complete set of rates, terms and conditions, and any subsequently approved or proposed revisions when proposed.
Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0122).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Scope and Duration of Contract. A request for public comments was published at 66 FR 2888, January 12, 2001. No comments were received.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted on or before May 11, 2001.
Comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be submitted to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat, 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0122, Scope and Duration of Contract, in all correspondence.
Julia Wise, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 208-1168.
The FAR clause at 52.241-3 requires the utility to furnish the Government with a complete set of rates, terms and conditions, and any subsequently approved or proposed revisions when proposed.
Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0122, Scope and Duration of Contract, in all correspondence.
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 11, 2001.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Lauren Wittenberg, Acting Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the internet address Lauren_Wittenberg@omb.eop.gov.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Department of Education.
Correction.
We publish this notice to correct the Federal Student Aid Application File (18-11-01) by restoring a routine use for disclosures to third parties under computer matching programs that was inadvertently deleted when this notice was republished in the
The routine uses added by this notice are effective on April 11, 2001.
John Tressler, Office of Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4050 Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4580. Telephone: (202) 708-8900. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding paragraph.
On June 4, 1999, we republished in the
We recently discovered that we had inadvertently deleted a routine use involving disclosures to third parties under computer matching programs (former routine use j) from the Federal Student Aid Application File (18-11-01) when we republished this notice in the June 4, 1999
In the Notice of New, Amended, Altered and Deleted Systems of Records published in the
Since the March 2, 2000 notice added routine uses numbers 10-15, this routine use is added as number (16)
(16)
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of Application.
Minnesota Power, Inc. (Minnesota Power) has applied for renewal of its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before May 11, 2001.
Comments, protests or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Coal & Power Im/Ex (FE-27), Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350 (FAX 202-287-5736).
Rosalind Carter (Program Office) 202-586-7983 or Michael Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-2793.
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On February 11, 1999, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA-196 authorizing Minnesota Power to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada. Minnesota Power is a Minnesota cooperation, owns electric generation and transmission facilities and sells and distributes electricity within its northern Minnesota service territory.
Minnesota Power proposes to arrange for delivery of electric energy to Canada over transmission facilities owned and operated by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bonneville Power Administration, Citizens Utilities, Detroit Edison, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power and Light Co., Inc., Minnkota Power, New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Northern States Power, and Vermont Electric Transmission Company. That two-year authorization expired on February 11, 2001.
On March 2, 2001, Minnesota Power filed an application with FE for renewal of this export authority and requested that the authorization be granted for a two-year term (or for such other period as the Department deems appropriate) and that the international transmission lines owned by Long Sault, Inc. be added to the list of authorized export points.
Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the date listed above.
Comments on the Minnesota Power request to export to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-196-A. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Steven W. Tyacke, Esq., Minnesota Power, Inc., 30 West Superior Street, Duluth, MN 55802.
DOE notes that the circumstances described in this application are virtually identical to those for which export authority had previously been granted in FE Order No. EA-196. Consequently, DOE believes that it has adequately satisfied its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 through the documentation of a categorical exclusion in the FE Docket EA-196 proceeding.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at
Department of Energy, DOE.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Federal Energy Management Advisory Committee (FEMAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that these meetings be announced in the
Tuesday, April 17, 2001; 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Wednesday, April 18, 2001; 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Loews L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington, DC 20024.
Steven Huff, Designated Federal Officer for the Committee, Office of Federal Energy Management Programs, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-3507.
Take notice that on April 2, 2001, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), tendered for filing and approval a Service Agreement between ANR and Constellation Power Source, Inc. (CPS) pursuant to ANR's Rate Schedule IPLS (IPLS Agreement). ANR states that the filed IPLS Agreement contains a negotiated rate arrangement between ANR and CPS to be effective April 1, 2001 through March 31, 2002 (Negotiated Rate). ANR requests that the Commission accept and approve the Negotiated Rate to be effective April ,1, 2001.
ANR states that copies of filing has been mailed to each of ANR's customers and affected state regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 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
Take notice that on April 2, 2001, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), tendered for filing and approval the following agreements between ANR and Dynegy Marketing and Trade (Dynegy): (1) Two Rate Schedule FTS-1 Service Agreements; (2) two Rate Schedule IWS Service Agreements; (3) a Southeast Area Gathering Service Agreement; and (4) a March 29, 2001 Negotiated Rate Agreement (March 29 Agreement). The March 29 Agreement sets forth a negotiated rate arrangement between ANR and Dynegy to be effective April 1, 2001 through October 31, 2001 (Negotiated Rate). ANR requests that the Commission accept and approve the Negotiated Rate to be effective April 1, 2001.
ANR states that copies of the filing has been mailed to each of ANR's customers and affected state regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This may be viewed on the web at
Take notice that on April 2, 2001, PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation (CTN) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1-A Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 7, with an effective date of April 1, 2001.
GTN states that this sheet is being filed to reflect the implementation of five negotiated rate agreements and the removal of two negotiated rate agreements that have expired.
GTN further states that a copy of this filing has been served on GTN's jurisdictional customers an interested state regulatory agencies.
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
Take notice that on April 2, 2001, Transwestern Pipeline Company (Transwestern) tendered for filing to become part of Transwestern's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, proposed to become effective on April 3, 2001:
Transwestern states that the above sheets are being filed to describe a specific negotiated rate agreement with Reliant Energy Services, Inc., in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement on Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines. In addition, transactions that have expired have been deleted.
Transwestern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed 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 to the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on March 27, 2001, UtiliCorp United Inc. (UtiliCorp) tendered for filing an updated competitive analysis addressing the planned integration of UtiliCorp's Missouri Public Service and St. Joseph Light and Power divisions in compliance with the Commission's order issued July 26, 2000, in
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, American National Power, Inc. (ANP), ANP Funding I, LLC (ANP Funding), ANP Bellingham Energy Company, LLC (ANP Bellingham), ANP Blackstone Energy Company, LLC (ANP Blackstone), ANP Milford Power Company, LLC (ANP Milford), Milford Energy Company, LLC (Milford), and ANP Holding Company (ANP Holding) (collectively, Applicants) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of a disposition of jurisdictional facilities whereby certain Applicants converted their form of business organizations to limited liability companies and Applicants proposed a change in the upstream ownership interests in certain subsidiaries.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, ExTex LaPorte Limited Partnership (ExTex) filed an Application for Determination of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status pursuant to section 32(a)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, all as more fully explained in the Application.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Delta Energy Center, LLC (Delta Energy Center) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Delta Energy Center, a Delaware limited liability company, proposes to own and operate an electrical generating facility within the City of Pittsburgh, California, and to make sales of electric energy exclusively at wholesale. The facilities will consist of three 200-megawatt, natural gas-fired turbine generators; three heat recovery steam generator units; a shared 300-megawatt steam turbine generator; and cooling towers and associated equipment.
Delta Energy Center states that copies of the application were served upon the Securities and Exchange Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, NWP Indian Mesa Wind Farm L.P. (Applicant), a Delaware limited partnership, whose address is 600 Travis, Suite 4200, Houston, Texas 77002, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Applicant intends to construct an approximate 82.5 MW wind power independent power production facility located in Pecos County, Texas (the Facility). The Facility is currently under development and will be owned by Applicant. Electric energy produced by the Facility will be sold by Applicant to the wholesale power market in the United States.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Roseton OP LLC (the Applicant) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
The Applicant is a Delaware limited liability company which is the sole member of Roseton OL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company which has been formed to purchase from Dynegy Roseton, L.L.C. the Roseton Facility, which consists of an approximately 1200 MW gas- and oil-fired facility consisting of two 600 MW steam units as well as an undivided interest in the related common facilities, and to lease the Roseton Facility to Dynegy Roseton, L.L.C under a long-term lease.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Danskammer OL LLC (the Applicant) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
The Applicant is a Delaware limited liability company which has been formed for the benefit of Danskammer OP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, to purchase from Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C. the Danskammer Facility, which consists of two units (Units 3 and 4) of the total four-unit, approximately 500 MW gas- and oil-fired facility, as well as an undivided interest in all common facilities related to Units 3 and 4, and to lease the Danskammer Facility to Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C under a long-term lease.
The Applicant is a Delaware limited liability company which has been formed to purchase the Danskammer Facility, which consists of two units (Units 3 and 4) of the total four-unit, approximately 500 MW gas- and oil-fired facility, as well as an undivided interest in all common facilities related to Units 3 and 4.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Danskammer OP LLC (the Applicant) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
The Applicant is a Delaware limited liability company which is the sole member of Danskammer OL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company which has been formed to purchase from Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C. the Danskammer Facility, which consists of two units (Units 3 and 4) of the total four-unit, approximately 500 MW gas- and oil-fired facility as well as an undivided interest in all common facilities related to Units 3 and 4, and to lease the Danskammer Facility to Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C under a long-term lease.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Roseton OL LLC (the Applicant) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
The Applicant is a Delaware limited liability company which has been formed for the benefit of Roseton OP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, to purchase from Dynegy Roseton, L.L.C. the Roseton Facility, an approximately 1200 MW gas- and oil-fired facility consisting of two 600 MW steam units and an undivided interest in the related common facilities, and to lease the Roseton Facility to Dynegy Roseton, L.L.C under a long-term lease.
Take notice that on March 28, 2001, Electricity Capital, LLC (Electricity Capital), El Cap I, LLC (El Cap I), and El Cap II, LLC (El Cap II), Delaware limited liability companies, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Applicants are engaged directly and exclusively in the business of owning and operating all or part of one or more eligible facilities and selling electric energy and capacity at wholesale. Applicants intend to produce electricity using natural gas-fired generators. El Cap I and El Cap II are wholly owned subsidiaries of Electricity Capital.
Take notice that on April 2, 2001, Energy Systems North East, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission) an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's Regulations.
Take notice that on April 2, 2001, CMS Generation Operating Company, 330 Town Center Drive, Suite 1000, Dearborn, Michigan 48126, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
CMS Generation Operating Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CMS Generation Co., a Michigan corporation, which is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of CMS Energy Corporation, also a Michigan corporation. CMS Generation Operating Company will operate, under an operations and maintenance agreement with the owner, a waste tire-burning electricity generating facility located in Sterling, Connecticut with a net electrical generating capacity of approximately 26 MW.
Take notice that on April 2, 2001, Exeter Energy Limited Partnership, 330 Town Center Drive, Suite 1000, Dearborn, Michigan 48126, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Exeter Energy Limited Partnership is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of CMS Generation Co., a Michigan corporation, which is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of CMS Energy Corporation, also a Michigan corporation. Exeter Energy Limited Partnership owns a waste tire-burning electricity generating facility located in Sterling, Connecticut with a net electrical generating capacity of approximately 26 MW.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) and Michigan Electric Transmission Company (Michigan Transco) tendered for filing a Notice of Succession and several rate schedule and service agreement documents related to the transfer of transmission assets from Consumers to Michigan Transco.
The Notice of Succession, rate schedules and service agreements are to become effective April 1, 2001, with a termination agreement taking effect March 31, 2001.
A full copy of the filing was served upon the Michigan Public Service Commission, and Customers were sent the Notice of Succession and related materials.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (Nine Mile) submitted an application pursuant to section 204 of the Federal Power Act seeking authorization to (1) assume a promissory note entered into by Constellation Nuclear, LLC, Nine Mile's indirect parent company, or execute an intercompany note that mirrors such promissory note; (2) execute an intercompany credit agreement and note in order for Constellation Energy Group, Inc., Nine Mile's ultimate parent company, to provide financial assurances with respect to operation and maintenance expenses; and (3) execute a demand note to evidence Nine Mile's participation in the cash pool operated by Constellation Energy Group, Inc. for the benefit of most of its subsidiaries.
Nine Mile also request a waiver of the Commission's competitive bidding and negotiated placement requirements at 18 CFR 34.2.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Griffin Energy Marketing (Griffin) and Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Wisconsin Electric) tendered for filing a combined updated market power analysis.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd. (Tenaska Frontier) tendered for filing with the Commission its triennial updated market analysis in accordance with Ordering Paragraph J of the Commission's Order in Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd., 82 FERC ¶ 61,323 (1998).
Questions concerning this filing may be directed to counsel for Tenaska Frontier, Neil L. Levy, Kirkland & Ellis, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005, Phone (202) 879-5116, Fax (202) 879-5200, e-mail Neil_Levy@dc.kirkland.com
Take notice that on March 29, 2001, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of the five Entergy Operating Companies: Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (together Entergy), tendered for filing this compliance filing in response to the Commission's March 14, 2001 Order in the above-captioned docket. A copy of this filing has been served upon the state regulators of the Entergy operating companies.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Potomac Electric Power Company, tendered for filing on behalf of itself and the above captioned companies, in compliance with the delegated letter order issued on March 1, 2001, in the above-captioned docket, the following designated rate schedules which have been formatted to comply with the Order No. 614, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,096 (2000) pagination requirements that are applicable to rate schedules: Atlantic City Electric Company Rate Schedule FERC No. 75; Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Rate Schedule FERC No. 58; Delmarva Power & Light Company Rate Schedule FERC No. 124; Metropolitan Edison Company Rate Schedule FERC No. 77; PPL Electric Utilities Corporation Rate Schedule FERC No. 168; PECO Energy Company Rate Schedule FERC No. 123; Potomac Electric Power Company Rate Schedule FERC No. 46; Public Service Electric and Gas Company Rate Schedule FERC No. 166; and, UGI Utilities, Inc. Rate Schedule FERC No. 9.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Potomac Electric Power Company, tendered for filing in compliance with the delegated letter order issued on March 1, 2001, in the above captioned docket, new pages to be added to the following designated rate schedule which have been formatted to comply with the Order No. 614, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,096 (2000) pagination requirements that are applicable to rate schedules: Penelec Rate Schedule FERC No. 63.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Potomac Electric Power Company, tendered for filing in compliance with the delegated letter order issued on March 1, 2001, in the above captioned docket, new pages to be added to the following designated rate schedule which have been formatted to comply with the Order No. 614, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,096 (2000) pagination requirements that are applicable to rate schedules: Penelec FERC Rate Schedule No. 100.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy Services) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission three pages of technical drawings that inadvertently were omitted from Appendix A to the unexecuted Interconnection and Operating Agreement between Entergy Services and Mississippi Delta Energy Agency, et al., when it was filed on March 21, 2001. Entergy Services requests that the pages to the Agreement be accepted for filing effective as of May 1, 2001, and requests waiver of the Commission's regulations to the extent necessary to permit such effective date.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001 Duke Energy Corporation tendered for filing an amendment to its March 26, 2001 filing in the above-captioned docket.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Western Resources, Inc., (Western Resources) tendered for filing an Amended and Restated Electric Power Supply Agreement (Agreement) between Western Resources, Inc. d.b.a. KPL and The Doniphan Electric Cooperative Association, Inc., (Cooperative). Western Resources states that this Agreement incorporates language changes from previous amendments as well as revisions to Exhibits II and III in Order 614 complaint format. Western Resources requests an effective date of June 1, 2001.
Copies of the filing were served upon the Cooperative and the Kansas Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (Nine Mile LLC) tendered for filing, pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and Part 35 of the Commission's regulations, an Application seeking authorization, on an expedited basis, to make sales at market-based rates and for certain waivers and blanket authorizations. Nine Mile LLC also tendered for filing pursuant to section 205 power purchase agreements for the sale of a portion of the output of the Nine Mile Point Unit No. 1 and Nine Mile Point Unit No. 2 nuclear generating facilities.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Bangor Hydro-Electric Company, tendered for filing an executed service agreement for network integration transmission service and an executed network operating agreement with Isle Au Haut Electric Power Company.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Bangor Hydro-Electric Company (Bangor Hydro) tendered for filing an executed form of service agreement for the sale of power between Bangor Hydro-Electric Company (Bangor Hydro) and Swan's Island Electric Co-op under Bangor Hydro's Market-Based Rate Tariff, Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 3.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Bangor Hydro-Electric Company, tendered for filing an executed service agreement for network integration transmission service and an executed network operating agreement with Swan's Island Electric Coop.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Bangor Hydro-Electric Company (Bangor Hydro), tendered for filing an executed form of service agreement for the sale of power between Bangor Hydro-Electric Company (Bangor Hydro) and Isle Au Haut Electric Power Company under Bangor Hydro's Market-Based Rate Tariff, Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 3.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) tendered for filing changes to rate schedules for electric transmission service to the following customers: Bay Area Rapid Transit District, California Department of Water Resources, Dynegy Power Services, Inc., Minnesota Methane LLC, Modesto Irrigation District, Northern California Power Agency, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the City and County of San Francisco, California, the City of Santa Clara, California (also known as Silicon Valley Power), the Transmission Agency of Northern California, Turlock Irrigation District and the Western Area Power Administration for services to Sonoma County Water Agency.
The changes include a change in the existing wholesale transmission rate methodologies and a rate change to reflect the current cost of providing service to the foregoing customers.
Copies of this filing have been served upon the California Public Utilities Commission and the affected customers.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) tendered for filing an Interim Invoicing Agreement with respect to invoicing for coal deliveries from San Juan Coal Company among PNM, Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP), and the other owners of interests in the San Juan Generating Station covering the period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001. The Interim Invoicing Agreement effectively modifies the San Juan Project Participation Agreement (PPA), for that same period and although the PPA is already on file at the FERC, it has not been conformed to the FERC Identification and Numbering requirements set forth in FERC Order No. 614, and PNM has therefore included a revised copy of the PPA with proper Identification and Numbering in this filing and has incorporated the Interim Invoicing Agreement as an attachment the PPA. PNM's filing is available for public inspection at its offices in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
PNM requests waiver of the Commission's notice requirements in order to allow the Interim Invoicing Agreement to be effective as of January 1, 2001.
Copies of the filing have been sent to the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, TEP, and each of the owners of an interest in the San Juan Generating Station.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Kansas Gas & Electric Company (KGE) tendered for filing a change in its Federal Power Commission Electric Service Tariff No. 93. KGE states that the change is to reflect the amount of transmission capacity requirements required by Western Resources, Inc. (WR) under Service Schedule M to FPC Rate Schedule No. 93 for the period from June 1, 2001 through May 31, 2002. KGE requests an effective date of June 1, 2001.
Notice of the filing has been served upon the Kansas Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO), 300 Liberty Street, Peoria, Illinois 61602, tendered for filing with the Commission a substitute Index of Network Transmission Service Customers under its Open Access Transmission Tariff and one network service agreement for one new customer, the Village of Riverton.
CILCO requested an effective date of March 1, 2001 for the service agreement.
Copies of the filing were served on the affected customer and the Illinois Commerce Commission.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824d and 18 CFR Part 35, Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI), tendered for filing a three-month (June 1, 2001 through August 31, 2001) Transaction Agreement between Entergy Gulf States, Inc., (EGS), as seller, and ESI, as buyer, on behalf of those of the Entergy Operating Companies which have authority to enter into this Transaction Agreement (ESI and said Entergy Operating Companies collectively hereinafter referred to as Entergy).
Entergy requests an effective date of June 1, 2001 for the Transaction Agreement. Entergy states that the Transaction Agreement is nearly identical to the agreement filed and accepted for Summer 2000. Entergy renews the same commitments it made to its retail regulators and certain wholesale customers that the Commission relied on in accepting the 2000 agreement for filing.
Entergy has served a copy of this filing on its state and local regulatory commissions, East Texas Cooperatives and Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing a Revised Network Operating Agreement and a Revised Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement with The Village of Pardeeville. ATCLLC requests an effective date of January 1, 2001.
The Service Agreement sets forth the general rates, terms and conditions pursuant to which Southern Companies will supply Monroe Power with unscheduled capacity and energy in connection with sales from its electric generation facility, as a replacement for unintentional differences between the net metered capacity and energy actually delivered by the facility, during a clock-hour, and the capacity and energy the facility is obligated to supply during such clock-hour. The Service Agreement shall terminate upon twelve (12) months prior written notice of either party.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing a Short-Term Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreements between ATCLLC and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC. ATCLLC requests an effective date of April 1, 2001.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing a Revised Network Operating Agreement and a Revised Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement between ATCLLC and The Village of Pardeeville. ATCLLC requests an effective date of January 1, 2001.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Potomac Electric Power Company,
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO), tendered for filing a Meter Service Agreement for Scheduling Coordinators between the ISO and Commonwealth Energy Corporation for acceptance by the Commission.
The ISO states that this filing has been served on Commonwealth Energy Corporation and the California Public Utilities Commission.
The ISO is requesting waiver of the 60-day notice requirement to allow the Meter Service Agreement to be made effective as of March 26, 2001.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO), tendered for filing a Scheduling Coordinator Agreement between the ISO and Commonwealth Energy Corporation for acceptance by the Commission.
The ISO states that this filing has been served on Commonwealth Energy Corporation and the California Public Utilities Commission.
The ISO is requesting waiver of the 60-day notice requirement to allow the Scheduling Coordinator Agreement to be made effective as of March 26, 2001.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), tendered for filing amendments to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff and the Amended and Restated PJM Operating Agreement to add the PJM 2001-2002 Load Response Pilot Program to facilitate load reductions during peak periods. Copies of this filing were served upon all PJM members and each state electric utility regulatory commission in the PJM control area.
PJM requests an effective date of June 1, 2001 for the amendments.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) tendered for filing amended a Power Supply Agreement dated November 2, 1998 between North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) and CP&L, Rate Schedule FERC No. 134 (the PSA). The amendment to the PSA includes a revenue neutral change to the capacity rate and billing determinant for SOR B service during calendar year 2001. The amendment also includes a modification to the assignment provision in Section 15.5 of the PSA. CP&L respectfully requests waiver of the Commission's notice of filing requirements to allow the amendment to become effective on January 1, 2001.
Copies of the filing were served upon NCEMC, the North Carolina Utilities Commission and the South Carolina Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Delmarva Power & Light Company (Delmarva) tendered for filing a Notice of Termination of its Rate Schedule FERC No. 110 with the Town of Berlin, Maryland (Berlin), effective May 31, 2001.
Delmarva has served this filing upon the Town of Berlin and its counsel, Conectiv (which is Delmarva's corporate parent), the Maryland Public Service Commission and the Delaware Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) tendered for filing the Second Amended and Restated SCE-IID Mirage 230 kV Interconnection Agreement (Agreement) between SCE and Imperial Irrigation District (IID), which provides for the terms to reconfigure the Mirage-Coachella 230 kV transmission line by routing the line into a new IID owned substation.
SCE requests that the Agreement become effective on June 1, 2001.
Copies of this filing were served upon the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and IID.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Entergy Solutions Supply Ltd. tendered for filing an application for authorization to sell power at market-based rates. Copies of this filing have been served on the Arkansas Public Service Commission, Mississippi Public Service Commission, Louisiana Public Service Commission, Texas Public Utility Commission, and the Council of the City of New Orleans.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, FPL Energy MH50, L.P. (MH50) tendered for filing, under section 205 of the Federal Power Act, a rate schedule for reactive support services provided to the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection (PJM) transmission grid. MH50 requests an effective date for the proposed rate schedule of April 1, 2001. MH50 states that a copy of this filing has been mailed to PJM.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) tendered for filing a completely revised version of PNM's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) to: (1) incorporate a new Attachment J—Generator Interconnection Procedures, a new Attachment J-1—Request for Interconnection of Generation With The PNM Transmission System, and a new Attachment K—Index of Interconnection Service Customers; and (2) conform its OATT to FERC Order No. 614 “Identification and Numbering” requirements. PNM's filing is available for public inspection at its offices in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Copies of the filing have been sent to all PNM Tariff customers, all entities that have pending interconnection requests with PNM and the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, The Connecticut Light and Power Company tendered for filing, pursuant to section 35.15, 18 CFR 35.15 of the Commission's regulations, a notice of termination of the Rate Schedule FERC No. CL&P 558 and supplements thereto, filed with the Commission by The Connecticut Light and Power Company and accepted for filing on November 9, 1992. The Connecticut Light and Power Company requests that the termination of the rate schedule be made effective the 1st day of April, 2001.
Connecticut Light and Power states that a copy of this filing has been mailed to the Town of Wallingford Department of Public Utilities, the sole customer served under this rate schedule, and the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Ameren Energy Generating Company and Ameren Energy Marketing Company (collectively, Applicants) tendered for filing amendments to two existing power supply agreements to allow sales of certain ancillary services at cost-based rates and to make other clarifying changes. Applicants seek an effective date of April 1, 2001, for the amendments.
Copies of this filing were served on the affected state utility commissions.
Take notice that on March 30, 2001, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company (CG&E) tendered for filing an application for application for reclassification of its transmission and distribution facilities as required by the Ohio Public Utilities Commission. In accordance with the seven-factor test established by the Commission in Order No. 888, CG&E proposes to designate all of its directly-owned Ohio facilities operated at 69 kV and above as FERC-jurisdictional transmission facilities and to designate all of its remaining Ohio facilities as state-jurisdictional distribution facilities.
The sole purpose of this application is to facilitate unbundled retail transmission in the state of Ohio. CG&E does not seek in this application to adjust its service rates.
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
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) to assess the environmental impact associated with the construction of facilities proposed by Florida Gas Transmission Company (FGT) and referred to in this draft EIS as the FGT Phase V Expansion Project in the above-referenced docket. The application, the draft EIS and other supplemental filings in this docket are available for viewing on the FERC Internet website (www.ferc.fed.us). Click on the “RIMS” link, select “Docket #” from the RIMS menu, and follow the instructions.
The draft EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The staff concludes that approval of the FGT Phase V Expansion Project, with appropriate mitigating measures as recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact. The draft EIS evaluates alternatives to the proposal, including system alternatives, route alternatives, and route variations.
The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the proposed facilities in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.
The purpose of the FGT Phase V Expansion Project is to transport up to 112,487 million cubic feet (MMcf) per day of natural gas on an annual basis to seven electric generation customers and others in Florida. Three of these customers, representing 94 percent of proposed transportation capacity, are in the process of developing and constructing additional gas-fired electric generating capacity to serve the growing market for electricity in Florida. FGT estimates the total cost of its Phase V Expansion Project at $452 million.
FGT proposes to construct and operate an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated aboveground facilities under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Title 18, CFR, Part 157. FGT proposes to expand its existing 5,225-mile-long natural gas pipeline transmission system by the
In addition, FGT proposes to acquire from Koch Gateway Pipeline Company (KGPC) an interest in KGPC's Mobile Bay Lateral that would give FGT the rights to about 50 percent of the available capacity on that system. Concurrent with FGT's filing, KGPC filed an application in Docket No. CP00-39-000 for approval to abandon by sale to FGT the interest in its Mobile Bay Lateral. However, the environmental analysis of this action qualifies as a categorical exclusion and is not included in the EIS.
Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
• Send original and two copies of your comments to: David Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
• Reference Docket No. CP00-40-000; and
• Comments must be received in Washington, DC on or before May 29, 2001.
You may mail your comments or file them 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
In addition to accepting written and electronically filed comments, four public meetings to receive comments on this draft EIS will be held at the following times and locations.
Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend and present oral comments on the environmental impacts described in the draft EIS. Transcript of the meetings will be prepared.
After these comments are reviewed, any significant new issues are investigated, and modifications are made to the draft EIS, a final EIS will be published and distributed by the staff. The final EIS will contain the staff's responses to timely comments received on the draft EIS.
Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person may file a motion to intervene on the basis of the Commission Staff's draft EIS (see Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 380.106 and 385.214). You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
All intervenors, agencies, elected officials, local governments, special interest groups, libraries, media, and anyone providing written comments on the draft EIS will receive a copy of the final EIS. If you did not wish to comment on the draft EIS but wish to receive a copy of the final EIS, you must write to the Secretary of the Commission indicating this request.
The draft EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-1371.
A limited number of copies are available from the Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch identified above. In addition, the draft EIS has been mailed to Federal, state, and local agencies; public interest groups; individuals, and affected landowners who requested a copy of the draft EIS; libraries; newspapers; and parties to this proceeding. As previously mentioned, the document is also available for viewing on the FERC website at
Additional information about the proposed project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (202) 208-1088 or on the FERC website described in the preceding paragraph. Access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission with regard to this docket, such as orders and notices, is also available on the FERC website using the “CIPS” link. For assistance with access to CIPS, the CIPS helpline can be reached at (202) 208-2474.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been field with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Mail Stop PJ-12.1, Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
p.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
The requested license amendments for the South Glens Falls Project include temporary closure of the project's recreation facilities, the temporary covering of two public safety signs, and the temporary suspension of the requirement to operate the dam crest gate adjacent to the project intake first during high flows if necessary due to construction activities. The requested license amendments for the Glens Falls Project include temporary closure of the project's recreation facilities and temporary removal and storage of signs in and around the project's public viewing area and picnic overlook. The Glens Falls application also identifies certain measures under consideration in the project's pending relicensing proceeding that may need similar temporary relief if the measures are required in any new license issued for the project.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. Any questions, please contact the Secretary's office. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
Please include the docket number (DI01-7-000) on any comments or motions filed.
k.
When a Notice of Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity, or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design or operation.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
p.
Southwestern Power Administration, DOE
Notice of rate order.
The Secretary of Department of Energy has approved and placed into effect on an interim basis Rate Order No. SWPA-44, which provides the Integrated System Rate Schedules P-98D, Wholesale Rates for Hydro Peaking
Mr. Forrest E. Reeves, Assistant Administrator, Office of Corporate Operations, Southwestern Power Administration, Department of Energy, P.O. Box 1619, Tulsa, OK 74101, (918) 595-6696,
In May 2000, Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) completed its annual review of the adequacy of the current rate schedules for the Integrated System and finalized its FY 2000 Power Repayment (PRS). The FY 2000 Power Repayment for the Integrated System indicates that rates prescribed by Rate Schedules P-98C, Wholesale Rates for Hydro Peaking Power, and NFTS-98C, Wholesale Rates for Non-Federal Transmission Service, are sufficient to meet repayment criteria. However, certain aspects of the terms and conditions set forth in the rate schedules need to be revised. Southwestern proposes to: (1) Revise the Limitations for Energy Imbalance Service provision to better clarify the hours and circumstances in which energy within the authorized bandwidth is to be returned to Southwestern, (2) to change the Power Factor Penalty to charge on an hourly basis to more accurately reflect the actual taking of reactive kilovolt amperes (VARS) from the system of Southwestern, (3) to add a new provision to provide for an Interconnection Facilities Service Charge to recover costs incurred for the use of Southwestern's transmission system, and (4) to make modifications to enhance clarity within the rate schedules. The net results of the 1997 Integrated System Power Repayment Studies, which was the basis for the existing rate schedules, will not be altered. The designations of the aforementioned rate schedules have been changed from P-98C and NFTS-98C to P-98D and NFTS-98D, respectively, to reflect the fact that revisions have been made.
Title 10, Part 903 Subpart A, of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions” (Part 903) have been followed in connection with the proposed revisions to the rate schedules. An opportunity for customers and other interested members of the public to review and comment on the proposed Rate Schedules P-98D and NFTS-98D was announced by notice published in the
Information regarding these rate schedule changes, including revised schedules and other supporting material, is available for public review and comment in the offices of Southwestern Power Administration, Suite 1400, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.
In view of the foregoing and under the authority vested in me as the Secretary of Energy, I hereby confirm and approve Rate Order No. SWPA-44 on an interim basis, through September 30, 2001, or until confirmed and approved on a final basis by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
In the matter of: Southwestern Power Administration Integrated System Rates; Order Confirming, Approving and Placing Revised Power Rate Schedules In Effect on an Interim Basis
Pursuant to sections 301(b) and 302(a) of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, the functions of the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal Power Commission under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825s, for the Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) were transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy. By Delegation Order No. 0204-108, effective December 14, 1983, 48 FR 55664, the Secretary of Energy delegated to the Deputy Secretary of Energy on a non-exclusive basis the authority to confirm, approve and place into effect on an interim basis power and transmission rates, and delegated to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on an exclusive basis the authority to confirm, approve and place in effect on a final basis, or to disapprove power and transmission rates. Amendment No. 1 to Delegation Order No. 0204-108, effective May 30, 1986, 51 FR 19744, revised the delegation of authority to confirm, approve and place into effect on an interim basis power and transmission rates by delegating such authority to the Under Secretary of Energy. This delegation was reassigned to the Deputy Secretary of Energy by Department of Energy (DOE) Notice 1110.29, dated October 27, 1988, and clarified by Secretary of Energy Notice SEN-10-89, dated August 3, 1989, and subsequent revisions. By Amendment No. 2 to Delegation Order No. 0204-108, effective August 23, 1991, 56 FR 41835, the Secretary of the Department of Energy delegated to the Assistant Secretary, Conservation and Renewable Energy, the authority which was previously delegated to the Deputy Secretary in that Delegation Order. By Amendment No. 3 to Delegation Order No. 0204-108, effective November 10, 1993, the Secretary of Energy re-delegated to the Deputy Secretary of Energy, the authority to confirm, approve and place into effect on an interim basis power and transmission rates of the Power Marketing Administrations. By notice, dated April 15, 1999, the Secretary of Energy rescinded the authority of the Deputy Secretary of Energy under Delegation Order No. 0204-108. By Delegation Order No. 0204-172, effective November 11, 1999, the Secretary of Energy again provided interim rate approval authority to the Deputy Secretary of Energy. Because there is no Deputy Secretary at the present time, the Secretary of Energy has exercised his authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on an interim basis the rates in Southwestern Rate Order No. SWPA-44.
In May 2000, Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) completed its annual review of the adequacy of the current rate schedules for the Integrated System and finalized its FY 2000 Power Repayment Studies (PRS). The FY 2000 Power Repayment Studies for the Integrated System indicates that rates prescribed by rate schedules P-98C, Wholesale Rates for Hydro Peaking Power, and NFTS-98C, Wholesale Rates for Non-Federal Transmission Service, are sufficient to meet repayment criteria. However, certain aspects of the terms and conditions set forth in the rate schedules need to be revised. Southwestern proposes to: (1) Revise the Limitations for Energy Imbalance Service provision to better clarify the hours and circumstances in which energy within the authorized bandwidth is to be returned to Southwestern, (2) to change the Power Factor Penalty to charge on an hourly basis to more accurately reflect the actual taking reactive kilovolt amperes (VARs) from the system of Southwestern, (3) to add a new provision to provide for an
Title 10, Part 903 Subpart A, of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions” (Part 903) have been followed in connection with the proposed revisions to the rate schedules. An opportunity for customers and other interested members of the public to review and comment on the proposed Rate Schedules P-98D and NFTS-98D was announced by notice published in the
Rate Schedule P-98D applies to wholesale customers purchasing Federal Hydro Peaking Power and Peaking Energy from the Integrated System. Rate Schedule NFTS-98D applies to wholesale customers purchasing Non-Federal Point-to-Point and Network Integration Transmission Service. Provisions in the rate schedules are being revised to reflect minor corrections and modifications for the purpose of clarification and to address specific issues that have arisen relative to industry restructuring since the last rate schedule approval. Southwestern has clarified the Energy Imbalance Service provision to specify the hours and circumstances in which energy within the authorized bandwidth is to be returned to the providing party, and has revised the Power Factor Penalty to charge on an hourly basis to more accurately reflect the actual taking of reactive kilovolt amperes (VARS) from the system of Southwestern. In addition, Southwestern is adding a new provision for an Interconnection Facilities Service Charge. This charge will be applicable to interconnection requests for which Southwestern does not otherwise receive benefits or compensation for the use of Federal facilities. At this time, Southwestern does not anticipate any substantive change in revenues as a result of these changes which would impact revenue requirements. Southwestern does not forecast for penalties and currently has no contractual arrangements to which the Interconnection Facilities Service Charge would be applied.
Southwestern has revised language in the NFTS-98D rate schedule under the provision for Limitations for Energy Imbalance Service to clarify the hours and conditions in which the use of energy within the authorized bandwidth is to be returned to Southwestern. Energy within the authorized bandwidth for this service is accounted for as an inadvertent flow. The current language specifies that the energy is to be returned “in like hours and similar circumstances.” The lack of clarification of this language has provided an opportunity for transmission customers to use the bandwidth during high-value on-peak demand periods and to return the energy during low-value off-peak demand times. The hours and circumstances in which energy is returned become very important, particularly during summer peak periods when the value of energy is high and the capability of Southwestern to provide such energy from its during those times is typically low. The revised provision provides for a separate inadvertent monthly accumulation for each hour. Each month, any hourly month-end balance that exceeds 12 MWHs will be subject to a penalty. It is anticipated that this process will allow for the use of the authorized bandwidth and yet provide for a method to return the energy within the bandwidth in like hours and within a reasonable time frame.
Southwestern has revised the Power Factor Penalty provision in both the P-98D and NFTS-98D rate schedules to charge for all Demand Periods (the 60-minute period which begins with the change of hour) of a month which contribute to a power factor of less than 95 percent lagging. Currently, this penalty is based on the customer's peak demand in kilowatts at the point of delivery for the month in which a low power factor was calculated. This change will allow Southwestern to better align the penalty with the reactive kilovolt amperes (VARS) taken from the system of Southwestern. This penalty will provide an incentive for customers to look for the cause of their low power factor and take necessary actions to correct the problem.
Southwestern has added a new provision, Interconnection Facilities Service Charge, to the NFTS-98D to provide compensation to Southwestern for the use of the Federal transmission system for those interconnections that do not provide any other compensating benefit. Historically, Southwestern has secured compensating benefits for the use of its facilities to provide an interconnection on its transmission system. The electric industry's transitioning toward a regionally-operated transmission grid, the uncertainty that surrounds many of the impacts on Southwestern, and the need for a mechanism to recover the cost for the use of the System of Southwestern wherein the Federal government receives no compensating benefit, have contributed to the need to establish a charge for interconnections. Pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944, Southwestern must recover its costs for the use of its system.
Southwestern has received no formal written comments regarding these Rate Schedule changes.
There were no other issues raised during the informal meetings or during the formal public participation period. However, during the public participation period, Southwestern re-examined the penalty language included in the Power Factor Penalty provision of the
The revised rate schedules will repay all costs of the Integrated System including amortization of the power investment consistent with the provisions of Department of Energy Order No. RA 6120.2. In accordance with Section 1 of Delegation Order No. 0204-108, as amended November 10, 1993, 58 FR 59717, and Section 5 of the
No additional evaluation of the environmental impact of the proposed rate schedule changes was conducted since no change has been made to the currently-approved Integrated System rates which were determined to fall within the class of actions that are categorically excluded from the requirements of preparing either an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment pursuant to the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 10 CFR 1021.
In view of the foregoing and under the authority vested in me as the Secretary of Energy, I hereby confirm, approve and place in effect on an interim basis, effective April 1, 2001, the Southwestern Integrated System Rate Schedules P-98D and NFTS-98D, which shall remain in effect on an interim basis through September 30, 2001, or until the FERC confirms and approves the rates on a final basis.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document by the Commission has taken the following actions: ordered a hearing to determine whether the station licenses held by Leslie D. Brewer for Amateur Radio Station and General Class Operator License KC4HAZ and General Mobile Radio Service Station KAE1170, Tampa, Florida, should be revoked; suspended Leslie D. Brewer's Amateur radio operator's license; and issued a notice of apparent liability for a forfeiture in the amount of $11,000 for Leslie D. Brewer's apparent willful and/or repeated operation of unlicensed FM radio facilities in Tampa, Florida. The Commission has determined that serious questions exist as to whether Leslie D. Brewer has willfully and repeatedly violated the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission's rules, and the effect thereof on his basic qualifications to be and remain a Commission licensee.
Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. 20554.
Roy Boyce or Dana Leavitt, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division (202) 418-1420.
This is a summary of an Order to Show Cause, Notice of Order of Suspension, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, and Notice of Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture (“Order”) in EB Docket No. 01-61, adopted by the Commission on February 22, 2001, and released on March 5, 2001. The complete text of this Order is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., at 202-857-3800, CY-B400, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC.
1. The Commission has commenced a hearing proceeding to determine whether Leslie D. Brewer (“Brewer”), licensee of Amateur radio station and General Class Operator License KC4HAZ and General Mobile Radio Station KAE1170, Tampa, Florida, is qualified to be or remain a Commission licensee. The record before the Commission indicates that Brewer has apparently willfully and/or repeatedly engaged in unlawful Commission-related activities, including the operation of unlicensed (i.e., “pirate”) FM radio broadcast facilities in the Tampa, Florida area and the marketing of unauthorized FM broadcast transmitting equipment. Pursuant to sections 312(a)(2), 312(a)(4), and 312(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”), Leslie D. Brewer is ordered to show cause why the station licenses for Stations KC4HAZ and KAE1170 should not be revoked, at a hearing proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the following issues:
(a) To determine whether Leslie D. Brewer willfully and/or repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating unlicensed broadcast facilities in 1996, 1997, 1999, and/or 2000, and, if so, the effect thereof on his basic qualifications to be and remain a Commission licensee.
(b) To determine whether Leslie D. Brewer willfully and/or repeatedly violated section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed Studio-to-Transmitter Link in 1999 and/or 2000, and, if so, the effect thereof on his basic qualifications to be and remain a Commission licensee.
(c) To determine whether Leslie D. Brewer willfully and/or repeatedly violated §§ 2.803(a)(1) and/or 15.201(b) of the Commission's rules by marketing and/or selling an unauthorized radio frequency device or devices and, if so, the effect thereof on his basic qualifications to be and remain a Commission licensee.
(d) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, whether Leslie D. Brewer is qualified to be and remain a Commission licensee.
(e) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, whether the licenses for KC4HAZ and KAE1170 should be revoked.
2. The Commission also ordered that it be determined, pursuant to section 503, whether an Order of Forfeiture in an amount not to exceed $11,000 should be issued against Leslie D. Brewer for willfully and/or repeatedly violating section 301 of the Act on March 11, 2000.
3. Furthermore, the Commission ordered that, pursuant to section 303(m)(1)(A) of the Act and § 1.85 of the Commission's rules, Leslie D. Brewer's Amateur radio operator license is suspended for the duration of its term. The suspension shall take effect 15 calendar days after receipt by Brewer of the Order, unless, within such time, Brewer requests in writing a hearing on the matter of the suspension, in which instance, the suspension of operator license KC4HAZ shall be held in abeyance pending conclusion of the hearing. If Leslie D. Brewer timely requests in writing a hearing on the matter of suspension of his Amateur radio operator license, such hearing will be held in a consolidated proceeding to determine the issues in 1(a) through (d) above, and to determine whether Amateur radio operator license
4. The Commission ordered that, to avail himself of the opportunity to be heard and the right to present evidence at a hearing in these proceedings, Leslie D. Brewer, in person or by his attorney, shall file within 15 calendar days after receipt of the Order to Show Cause and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, a written appearance stating that he will appear at the hearing and present evidence on matters specified in the Order. If Brewer fails to file a timely written notice of appearance, his right to a hearing on the matter of his Amateur radio station and GMRS licenses shall be deemed to be waived and the proceeding thereafter shall be conducted in accordance with § 1.92 of the Commission's rules
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
On April 6, 2001, the Commission released a public notice announcing the April 17 and 18, 2001, meeting and agenda of the North American Numbering Council (NANC). The intended effect of this action is to make the public aware of the NANC's next meeting and its agenda.
Deborah Blue, Special Assistant to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at (202) 418-2320 or dblue@fcc.gov. The address is: Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, The Portals, 445 12th Street, SW., Suite 6A207, Washington, DC 20554. The fax number is: (202) 418-2345. The TTY number is: (202) 418-0484.
Released: April 6, 2001.
The North American Numbering Council (NANC) has scheduled a meeting to be held Tuesday, April 17, 2001, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and on Wednesday, April 18, 2001, from 8:30 a.m., until 12 noon. The meeting will be held at the Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC.
This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many participants as possible. The public may submit written statements to the NANC, which must be received two business days before the meeting. In addition, oral statements at the meeting by parties or entities not represented on the NANC will be permitted to the extent time permits. Such statements will be limited to five minutes in length by any one party or entity, and requests to make an oral statement must be received two business days before the meeting. Requests to make an oral statement or provide written comments to the NANC should be sent to Deborah Blue at the address under
1. Approval of the February 20-21, 2001 and March 20-21, 2001 meeting minutes
2. North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) Report
3. Report of NANPA Oversight Working Group
4. Report of Numbering Resource Optimization (NRO) Working Group
5. Industry Numbering Committee Report
6. Report of NANP Expansion/Optimization IMG
7. Report of the Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group
8. Report of Cost Recovery Working Group
9. Report from NBANC
10. Steering Group Meeting
11. Steering Group Report
12. Reseller CIC IMG Report
13. Oversight of LLCs NPAC
14. Action Items
15. Public participation (5 minutes each, if any)
16. Other Business
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (“the Commission”) seeks comment on a Request for Rule Change filed by the Paging and Messaging Alliance of the Personal Communications Industry Association (“PCIA”) to treat certain modifications to paging stations as minor modifications. Further, the Commission conditionally waives its rules governing the classification of filings as major or minor, in order to determine whether prior expansions of paging composite interference contours (“CICs”) over water that licensees carried out on a permissive basis are in compliance with the rules, and to clear up any uncertainty about what procedures should apply to similar future expansions.
Submit comments on or before April 16, 2001, and reply comments not later than May 1, 2001.
Leon Jackler, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-0946.
This Public Notice (“Notice”) in DA 01-688, released on March 15, 2001 is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc. 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800. The document is also available via the Internet at
Comments may be filed via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. In
Interested parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of their comments with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.
In addition, parties should send: one paper copy to Leon Jackler, Room 4B-445, and one paper copy to Policy and Rules Branch, Room 4-A-207, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554; one paper copy to the Public Reference Room, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554; and one paper copy and one diskette copy to ITS, Room CYB-400, 445 Twelfth St,. SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Pursuant to § 1.925 of the Commission's rules, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment on a Request for Rule Change filed by the Paging and Messaging Alliance of the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA). PCIA filed the request seeking amendment of § 1.929(c)(1) of the Commission's rules to treat certain modifications to paging stations as minor modifications. Specifically, PCIA requests that the Commission treat as minor modifications those expansions of paging composite interference contours (CICs) that occur solely (1) beyond the land border of the United States or (2) over large bodies of water (oceans, gulfs, sounds, bays, and the Great Lakes, but not rivers).
According to PCIA, the Commission's historical practice in the paging service has been to allow permissive extensions of CICs over water when processing applications. As a result, PCIA argues that a significant number of paging licensees have considered all extensions over water to be minor and have not filed major modification applications for such extensions. The filing of this Request for Rule Change was precipitated by an order released by the Policy and Rules Branch of the Commercial Wireless Division wherein the Branch concluded that all increases of CICs, including extensions over water, should be treated as major filings under § 1.929(c)(1).
While the PCIA request is pending, the Bureau believes there is good cause to waive the rules conditionally to permit paging contour extensions over water on an interim basis. Licensees providing service in coastal areas often need to relocate or adjust transmitting facilities in order to maintain and improve coverage. While these extensions do not involve expansion of composite contours over land, they may involve expansion of contours over water. Further, CIC expansions that take place solely over water should pose no risk of interference to other systems on land, and processing such modification applications would be a major burden on both licensees and the Bureau. The Bureau concludes that conditional waiver is appropriate to allow licensees to continue to maintain and upgrade their systems while the Commission considers PCIA's request.
We therefore conditionally waive § 1.929(c)(1) of the Commission's rules in order to consider permissive CIC extensions over water subject to the following conditions. First, all such extensions are on a secondary, non-interference basis, and must not cause interference to co-channel licensees. Second, we define “over water” for purposes of this waiver to mean into bodies of water that extend beyond county boundaries, i.e. including but not limited to oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. Third, this waiver does not change our rules and policies regarding expansions over land.
Paging licensees that seek contour expansions over land, or expansions over water on a primary basis, must continue to seek prior Commission approval and request a waiver of the rules.
This matter shall be treated as a “permit but disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
• Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
• Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g. 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.
• Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
• Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.
Thursday, April 19, 2001 at 10:00 A.M.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
• Correction and Approval of Minutes.
• Advisory Opinion 2001-04: Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co Political Action Committee by counsel, Kenneth A. Gross.
• Announcement of Effective Date for Rules on General Public Political Communications /Coordinated with Candidates and Party Committees and Independent Expenditures. (Tenative)
• Administrative Matters.
Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 940. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The Commission gives notice that it has requested that the parties to the below listed agreement provide additional information pursuant to section 6(d) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 1701
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (“Commission”) by Selbuy International, Inc., d/b/a Canyon Enterprises. (“Complainant”) against Guardian Services Group, Ltd. (“Respondent”).
Complainant is in the business of selling automobile spare parts, engines, radiators, transmissions and automobile body parts. Complainant states that the Respondent is a foreign freight forwarder licensed by the Commission. Complainant states that it contracted with Respondent to have certain goods transported from Saudi Arabia to Los Angeles. Complainant alleges that Respondent, instead of delivering certain of these goods to Complainant as agreed upon, refused to release those goods until Complainant paid $32,900 in additional shipping charges over and above the rate previously agreed upon between the parties. Complainant states that the shipping lines refused to release the goods until they received the original bills of lading, sequestered Complainant's goods in warehouses and imposed demurrage charge in the amount of $23,959.57.
Complainant alleges that Respondent violated section 10(d) of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended, (“Shipping Act”) by engaging in unjust and unreasonable practices in connection with the receipt, handling, storing and delivery of Complainant's goods. Complainant alleges that it has been subject to direct injury in connection with these practices by the payment of additional charges; by payment of demurrange charges; by idling the workers Complainant hired to inventory the goods; and by being unable to make timely delivery to its customer, which canceled its order with Complainant, which cost Complainant $150,000 in gross revenues, half of which was anticipated profit.
Complainant asks that Respondent be required to answer its charges and, after due hearing, the Commission make an order commanding Respondent to pay Complainant reparations of $137,859.57 with interest and attorney's fees or such other sum as the Commission may determine to be proper, and such other further order or orders the Commission determines to be proper. Complainant requests that hearing be held in or near Los Angeles, California.
This proceeding has been assigned to the office of Administrative Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing shall include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and cross-examination are necessary for the development of an adequate record. Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by April 5, 2002, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by August 5, 2002.
The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding dates shown below:
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for licenses as Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 515).
Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 25, 2001.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 5, 2001.
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
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 May 4, 2001.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 5, 2001.
General Accounting Office.
Notice.
GAO is publishing Volume IV of
Rider orders must be received by GPO no later than June 6, 2001.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) will shortly publish Volume IV of
GAO will provide one copy of each of these volumes to the heads of federal agencies. Agencies may place advance (rider) orders for additional copies of these volumes with their account representatives at the Government Printing Office (GPO). At the present time, agencies may only place rider orders for Volume IV. A separate announcement will be issued later this year when rider orders may be placed for Volume V.
This notice is not intended to solicit orders from the general public for single copies or small orders of these volumes. GPO will offer volumes IV and V for sale to the general public at a later time.
Rider orders for Volume IV should be placed on a Standard Form 1 and should specify GAO Requisition No. 1-00050. Agency orders for Volume IV must be received by GPO no later than June 6, 2001. Rider requisitions for Volume IV will not be accepted after this date, and additional copies will have to be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents. All rider requisitions must be submitted to GPO through each agency's Washington, DC headquarters printing procurement office. We are advised that GPO will return all requisitions sent directly from field or regional offices.
In compiling your agency's total order, GAO suggests that you take into consideration the needs of legal offices, finance offices, contracting offices, libraries, Inspector General offices, field and regional offices, and any other elements of your agency that might use this publication.
As with the previous three volumes of this series, Volume IV of
31 U.S.C. 717, 719, 3511, 3526-29.)
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) announces the following subcommittee and committee meetings.
Written comments are welcomed and should be received by the contact person listed below prior to the opening of the meeting.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 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 at (404) 639-7090.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques for other forms of information technology. Send comments to Anne E. O'Connor, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Evaluation of Viral Hepatitis B Educational Slide Materials—New—National Center for Infectious Disease (NCID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The purpose of the proposed study is to assess the usefulness of the Hepatitis B and You, an educational slide set located on the website of the Hepatitis Branch, NCID, CDC. The Hepatitis B and You educational slide set is used to educate persons about hepatitis B in general and more specifically the importance of hepatitis B vaccination to prevent perinatal transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV). An estimated 1.25 million Americans are chronically infected with HBV and 4,000 to 5,000 die each year due to resultant cirrhosis and liver cancer. The estimated cost associated with HBV infections is $700 million a year in medical care and lost work days. The only cost to respondents is their time to participate which is estimated at $4,140.00 (414 hours × $10.00 per hour).
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting:
Agenda items are tentative and subject to change.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following Federal advisory committee meeting.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following conference call committee meeting.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) announce the following meeting:
In addition, a memo was signed in October 1990 and renewed in November 1992, 1996, and in 2000, between the ATSDR and DOE. The MOU delineates the responsibilities and procedures for ATSDR's public health activities at DOE sites required under sections 104, 105, 107, and 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or “Superfund”). These activities include health consultations and public health assessments at DOE sites listed on, or proposed for, the Superfund National Priorities List and at sites that are the subject of petitions from the public; and other health-related activities such as epidemiologic studies, health surveillance, exposure and disease registries, health education, substance-specific applied research, emergency response, and preparation of toxicological profiles.
All agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Health Care Financing Administration, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name or OMB control number and be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 8226, Washington, DC 20410.
Judson L. James, Office of Research, Evaluation and Monitoring, Program Evaluation Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-3700 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of the proposed forms and other available documents to be submitted to OMB may be obtained from Mr. James.
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimated burden; (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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection, including the number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., L'Enfant Plaza Building, Room 8001, Washington, DC 20410.
Linda Katz, Office of Assistant General Counsel for New England, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 60 Causeway Street, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02122, telephone (617) 996-8250 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 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; (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 the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Announcement of noncompetitive funding awards.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in response to unsolicited proposals for funding of organizations providing housing counseling services. This announcement contains the names and addresses of the agencies selected for funding and the award amount.
Margaret Burns, Director, Program Support Division, Room 9166, Office of Single Family Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2121. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number by calling the Federal Information Relay Service on 1-800-877-8339 or (202) 708-9300. (With the exception of the “800” number, these are not toll free numbers.)
The Housing Counseling Program is authorized by Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x). HUD enters into agreement with qualified public or private nonprofit organizations to provide housing counseling services to low- and moderate-income individuals and families nationwide. The services include providing information, advice and assistance to renters, first-time homebuyers, homeowners, and senior citizens in areas such as pre-purchase counseling, financial management, property maintenance and other forms of housing assistance to improve the clients' housing conditions and meet the responsibilities of tenancy and homeownership.
The purpose of the grant is to offer financial assistance to organizations that offer housing counseling services to meet priority housing needs, as identified by HUD. The availability of housing counseling program grants depends upon the appropriation of funds by the U.S. Congress for this purpose, the amount of those funds, and
The 2000 grantees announced in this Notice were selected for funding based on the submission of unsolicited proposals. The selected grantees submitted proposals to undertake housing counseling activities that met two priority needs identified by HUD and Congress: assisting victims of and preventing predatory lending and ensuring that counseling is available for clients interested in HUD's Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program. Applicants were selected for funding on the strength of their proposals and their ability to serve a significant number of clients in need of assistance.
HUD awarded $1.85 million in non-competitive housing counseling grants to 13 service providers: 11 local housing counseling agencies, 1 national housing counseling intermediary, and 1 national foundation.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and award amounts as provided in Appendix A.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Announcement of funding awards.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in a SuperNOFA competition for funding of HUD-approved counseling agencies to provide counseling services. This announcement contains the names and addresses of the agencies selected for funding and the amount.
Margaret Burns, Director, Program Support Division, Room 9166, Office of Single Family Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2121. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number by calling the Federal Information Relay Service on 1-800-877-8339 or (202) 708-9300. (With the exception of the “800” number, these are not toll free numbers.)
The Housing Counseling Program is authorized by section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x). HUD enters into agreement with qualified public or private nonprofit organizations to provide housing counseling services to low- and moderate-income individuals and families nationwide. The services include providing information, advice and assistance to renters, first-time homebuyers, homeowners, and senior citizens in areas such as pre-purchase counseling, financial management, property maintenance and other forms of housing assistance to improve the clients' housing conditions and meet the responsibilities of tenancy and homeownership.
The purpose of the grant is to assist HUD-approved housing counseling agencies in providing housing counseling services to HUD-related and other clients. HUD funding of approved housing counseling agencies is not guaranteed and when funds are awarded, a HUD grant does not cover all expenses incurred by an agency to deliver housing counseling services. Counseling agencies must actively seek additional funds from other sources such as city, county, state and federal agencies and from private entities to ensure that they have sufficient operating funds. The availability of housing counseling program grants depends upon whether the U.S. Congress appropriates funds for this purpose, the amount of those funds, and the outcome of the competitions for award.
The 2000 grantees announced in this Notice were selected for funding through a competition announced in a
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and award amounts as provided in Appendix A.
Office of the Secretary—Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.
Announcement of funding award.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of a funding decision made by the Department to the National Center for Lead Safe Housing. This announcement contains the name and address of the awardee and the amount of the award.
Joey Zhou, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20410, telephone (202) 755-1785, ext. 153 (this is not a toll free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number by calling the Federal Information Relay Service TTY at 1-800-877-8339.
The Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant for the National Center for Lead Safe Housing was issued pursuant to Pub. L. 102-550, Title X; FY 2000 budget; House Appropriations Committee Report 2684-21.
This notice announces the award of $2,999,986.00 to the National Center for Lead Safe Housing which will be used to provide subgrants to National Public Interest Groups, and State and Local agencies to deliver Lead-Based Paint Training.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program is 14.900.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the name, address, and amount of the award as follows: National Center for Lead Safe Housing, 10227 Wincopin Circle, Suite 205, Columbia, MD 21044.
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Notice of delegation of concurrent authority.
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is delegating to the Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, concurrently with the Secretary, the power and authority vested in or delegated or assigned to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, with the exception of the power to sue and be sued.
April 4, 2001.
Sam E. Hutchinson, Associate General Counsel for Human Resources Law, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 10164, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0888. 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.
Under section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may delegate any of the Secretary's functions, powers and duties to such officers and employees of the Department as the Secretary may designate, and may authorize successive redelegations of such functions, powers and duties as determined to be necessary or appropriate. In the delegation of authority issued today, the Secretary is delegating to the Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development all the power and authority vested in or delegated or assigned to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, to be exercised concurrently with the Secretary, with the exception of the power to sue and be sued.
Accordingly, the Secretary delegates as follows:
The Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is hereby authorized, concurrently with the Secretary, to exercise all the power and authority vested in or delegated or assigned to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
There is excepted from the authority delegated under Section A., above, the authority to sue and be sued.
The Delegation of Authority published in the
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)).
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the Pueblo de Cochiti Liquor Ordinance. This Ordinance regulates the control of, the possession of, and the sale of liquor on the Pueblo de Cochiti trust and restricted fee lands, and is in conformity with the laws of the State of New Mexico, where applicable and necessary. This Ordinance is intended to amend the original Pueblo de Cochiti Liquor Ordinance that was published in the
This Ordinance is effective on April 11, 2001.
Kaye Armstrong, Office of Tribal Services, 1849 C Street, NW, MS 4631-MIB, Washington, DC 20240-4001; telephone (202) 208-4400.
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
This notice is being published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 Departmental Manual 8.1.
I certify that by Resolution No. 2000-032, the Pueblo de Cochiti Liquor Ordinance, was duly adopted by the Pueblo de Cochiti Tribal Council on November 20, 2000.
The Pueblo de Cochiti Tribal Council Liquor Ordinance, Resolution No. 2000-032, reads as follows:
This amended ordinance duly enacted this 20th day of November 2000, by the Council of the Pueblo of Cochiti, the duly authorized and recognized governing body of the Pueblo de Cochiti, a federally recognized Indian Tribe.
Nothing in the Liquor Control Act applies to:
D. * * * the sale, service, possession or public consumption of alcoholic beverages by any person within the boundaries of lands over which an Indian nation, tribe or pueblo has jurisdiction if the alcoholic beverages are purchased from New Mexico wholesalers and if the sale, service, possession or public consumption of alcoholic beverages is authorized by the laws of the Indian nation, tribe or pueblo having jurisdiction over those lands and is consistent with the ordinance of the Indian nation, tribe or pueblo certified by
(a) Except as set forth in (b) of this Section, and to the extent required by Federal law, such introduction, sale and possession is in conformity with the laws of the State of New Mexico;
(b) The sale of intoxicating beverages within such Indian country by any person other than the Pueblo de Cochiti shall be pursuant to license and regulations issued by the Pueblo de Cochiti Council;
(c) Except as permitted in subsection (d) the introduction, possession, consumption, sale, purchase, or use of intoxicating beverages as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1154 shall again be unlawful as provided by 18 U.S.C. 1154 and 1156 within the following location within the territorial jurisdiction of the Pueblo de Cochiti: all lands and waters encompassed by the easement granted by the Pueblo de Cochiti to the United States of America through the United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Army Engineer District, Albuquerque, New Mexico, in connection with the Cochiti Dam and Reservoir as set forth in the Amended Easement Grant and Agreement included in the Master Plan Design Memorandum No. 13, Cochiti Lake, Rio Grande, New Mexico, U.S. Army Engineer District, Albuquerque (May 1973);
(d) This subsection shall not prohibit the transportation in a moving motor vehicle of unopened containers of intoxicating beverages, with the cap, pop top or seal intact, across the area described above; and
(e) The effect of this amended ordinance shall be to reinstate the application of 18 U.S.C. 1154 and 1156 as to all lands and waters within the public area and project area of the Cochiti Dam and Reservoir.
B. Because this Ordinance is intended to protect the health, safety or welfare of the people of the Pueblo de Cochiti by prohibiting conduct that directly affects the health, safety and welfare of the Tribe, non-Indian violators, as well as Indian violators, shall be subject to the Pueblo's civil jurisdiction for the enforcement of this Ordinance.
C. For purposes of this Section, “Indian” shall be defined as a person who is a member of a federally recognized tribe, or an Alaskan Native, and who would be an Indian for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1152 and 1153.
B. Violations of this ordinance by Indians may also be subject to such criminal penalties as may be established from time to time by the Pueblo de Cochiti Tribal Council, subject to the limitations imposed by 25 U.S.C. 1302(7). Repeat violators of this Ordinance may be subject to permanent expulsion from the territorial jurisdiction of Pueblo de Cochiti upon notice and a hearing on the matter before a Pueblo de Cochiti tribunal.
C. For purposes of this Section, “Indian” shall be defined as a person who is a member of a federally recognized tribe, or an Alaskan Native, and who would be an Indian for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1152 and 1153.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Kremmling Field Office, Department of Interior.
Notice of intent to conduct public scoping and prepare an environmental analysis (EA) to develop the travel management plan.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing an Environmental Analysis to address management of roads and trails on lands administered by the Kremmling Field Office in Colorado.
Written comments will be accepted until May 30, 2001. The following public scoping meetings are scheduled:
Comments should be sent to the Kremmling Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, P.O. Box 68 Kremmling, Colorado, 80459.
The use of OHVs, snowmobiles, mountain bikes and horses, an important use of the public lands, has risen tremendously in recent years creating numerous management concerns:
These concerns, along with those identified by the public and listed in BLM guidance will be considered in the EA. The BLM critical elements of the human environment include: air quality; areas of critical environmental concern; cultural resources; prime farmland; flood plains; Native American religious concerns; threatened and endangered species; hazardous and solid wastes; water quality; wetlands; wild and scenic rivers; and wilderness.
The public is asked to identify issues they believe should be assessed in the EA and provide ideas and suggestions on alternatives to the proposed action they think should be considered. The EA scoping meetings will provide one such opportunity to provide issues and alternatives.
John Arkins, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Kremmling Field Office (970) 724-3437.
Northwest California Resource Advisory Council; Arcata, CA; Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of meeting location change.
Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committees Act (Public Law 92-463) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Northwest California Resource Advisory Council will meet Wednesday and Thursday, April 18 and 19, 2001, for a business meeting and field tour. The meeting and tour are open to the public, but anyone attending must provide their own transportation and lunch. The location of the field tour has been changed from the proposed Lost Coast Headlands Project to the Falk town site in the Headwaters Forest Reserve.
The original meeting notice was published in the
Lynda J. Roush, Arcata Field Manager, at (707) 825-2300.
Bureau of Land Management, Spokane District.
A meeting of the Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council will be held on April 27, 2001. The meeting will convene at 9 am, at the Spokane District Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1103 North Fancher Road, Spokane, Washington, 99212-1275. The meeting will adjourn upon conclusion of business, but no later than 4 pm. Public comments will be heard from 10 am until 10:30 am. If necessary, to accommodate all wishing to make public comments, a time limit may be placed upon each speaker. At an appropriate time, the meeting will adjourn for approximately one hour for lunch. Topics to be discussed include Election of Chair, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project Status Report, BLM Work Plan for FY 2001, BLM/Forest Service Fire Program, Charter Renewal and Next Meeting Scheduling.
Bureau of Land Management, Spokane District Office, 1103 N. Fancher Road, Spokane, Washington, 99212; or call 509-536-1200.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The next meeting of the Northwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council will be held on Monday, May 14, and Tuesday, May 15, 2001, at the Colorado Northwestern Community College, Rangely, Colorado.
Monday, May 14, and Tuesday, May 15 , 2001.
For further information, contact Lynn Barclay, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 455 Emerson Street, Craig, Colorado 81625; Telephone (970) 826-5096.
The Northwest Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet on Monday, May 14, 2001, and Tuesday, May 15, 2001, at the Colorado Northwestern Community College, 500 Kennedy Drive, Rangely, Colorado 81648. The meeting will start at 1:00 p.m. on Monday, May 14, ending at 4:30 p.m. that same day. The meeting will reconvene Tuesday, May 15, at 9:00 a.m. ending at 4:00 p.m. Discussion will include: National strategy for motorized off-highway vehicle use; updates on Bangs Canyon jeep route, charter amendments and oil, gas, and mineral development; weed management; and wildlife issues. A field tour is planned for the afternoon of Tuesday, May 15, 2001.
The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make oral statements or submit written statements at the meeting. Time for public comment will be at 4:00 p.m., Monday, May 14, 2001. Per-person time limits for oral statements may be set to allow all interested persons an opportunity to speak.
Summary minutes of council meetings are maintained at the Bureau of Land Management Offices in Craig and Grand Junction, Colorado. They are available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Front Range Resource Advisory Council (Colorado) will be held on May 10 in Canon City, Colorado. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 9:15 a.m. at the Holy Cross Abbey Community Center, 2951 E. Highway 50, Canon City, Colorado. Topics will include a workshop to identify potential statewide RAC issues and discuss how the three Colorado RACs can more efficiently and effectively address statewide issues. All Resource Advisory Council meetings are open to the public. Interested persons may make oral statements to the Council at 9:30 a.m. or written statements may be submitted for the Council's consideration. The Center Manager may limit the length of oral presentations depending on the number of people wishing to speak.
The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 10, 2001 from 9:15 am to 4 pm.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Front Range Center, 3170 East Main Street, Canon City, Colorado 81212.
For further information contact Ken Smith at (719) 269-8500.
Summary minutes for the Council meeting will be maintained in the Canon City Center Office and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting.
Bureau of Land, Management, Interior.
Resource advisory council's meeting location and time.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C., the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Council meetings will be held as indicated below. The agenda for this meeting includes: Field trip on May 3, 2001, to look at hazardous fuels reduction issues and implementation of rangeland health standards and guidelines; May 4, 2001, review and approval of minutes from January 5, 2001 meeting; discussion of any proposed acquisitions under the southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act; discussion on current status of wild horses and burro gathers and Tactical Plan implementation; update on status of proposed weed free hay certification regulations and current status of the 3809 regulations; discussion of BLM and Forest Service Resource Advisory Councils (RACs); RAC subcommittee reports on Guidelines for Vegetation Management and Off-Highway Vehicles; Field Office updates including any proposed land disposal actions and the California Trail Interpretive Center update.
All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. The public comment period for the Council meeting is listed below. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below.
Diane Murray, Public Affairs Specialist, Battle Mountain Field Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, NV 89820, telephone (775) 635-4000.
The purpose of the 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 the public lands.
Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of the amended protraction diagram accepted March 23, 2001, of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Montana State Office, Billings Montana, thirty (30) days from the date of this publication.
The plat, representing the Amended Protraction Diagram 23 of unsurveyed Townships 15 and 16 North, Ranges 18 and 19 West, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted March 23, 2001.
The plat, representing the Amended Protraction Diagram 23 of unsurveyed Township 15 North, Range 18 West, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted March 23, 2001.
The plat, representing the Amended Protraction Diagram 23 of unsurveyed Township 15 North, Range 19 West, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted March 23, 2001.
The plat, representing the Amended Protraction Diagram 23 of unsurveyed Township 16 North, Range 18 West, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted March 23, 2001.
The plat, representing the Amended Protraction Diagram 23 of unsurveyed Township 16 North, Range 19 West, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted March 23, 2001.
The amended protraction diagrams were prepared at the request of the U.S. Forest Service to accommodate Revision of Primary Base Quadrangle Maps for the Geometronics Service Center.
A copy of the preceding described plats of the amended protraction diagrams accepted March 23, 2001, will be immediately placed in the open files and will be available to the public as a matter of information.
If a protest against these amended protraction diagrams, accepted March 23, 2001, as shown on these plats, is received prior to the date of the official filings, the filings will be stayed pending consideration of the protests.
These particular plats of the amended protraction diagrams will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been accepted or dismissed and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, P.O. Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107-6800.
Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of the amended protraction diagram accepted March 23, 2001, of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Montana State Office, Billings Montana, thirty (30) days from the date of this publication.
The plat, representing the Amended Protraction Diagram 1 Index of unsurveyed Townships 5, 6, and 7 South, Ranges 2, 3, and 4 East, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted March 23, 2001.
The plat, representing Amended Protraction Diagram 1 of unsurveyed Township 5 South, Range 3 East, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted March 23, 2001.
The plat, representing Amended Protraction Diagram 1 of unsurveyed Township 6 South, Range 3 East, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted March 23, 2001.
The plat, representing Amended Protraction Diagram 1 of unsurveyed Township 7 South, Range 2, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted March 23, 2001.
The plat, representing Amended Protraction Diagram 1 of unsurveyed Township 7 South, Range 4 East, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted March 23, 2001.
The amended protraction diagrams were prepared at the request of the U.S. Forest Service to accommodate Revision of Primary Base Quadrangle Maps for the Geometronics Service Center.
A copy of the preceding described plats of the amended protraction diagrams accepted March 23, 2001, will be immediately placed in the open files and will be available to the public as a matter of information.
If a protest against these amended protraction diagrams, accepted March 23, 2001, as shown on these plats, is received prior to the date of the official filings, the filings will be stayed pending consideration of the protests.
These particular plats of the amended protraction diagrams will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been accepted or dismissed and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, P.O. Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107-6800.
Bureau of Land Management, Miles City Field Office, Interior.
Notice.
The following land has been found suitable for direct sale under Section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2750, 43 U.S.C. 1713), at no less than the estimated fair market value of $64,000. The lands are to be used for the expansion of the existing Class II regional landfill operated by Fallon County. The land will not be offered for sale until at least 60 days after the date of this notice.
Containing 640 acres.
The land described is hereby segregated from appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, pending disposition of this action or 270 days from the date of publication of this notice, whichever occurs first.
This land is being offered by direct sale to Fallon County under the following terms and conditions:
1. All minerals will be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove the minerals. A more detailed description of this reservation, which will be incorporated in the patent document, is available for review at this office.
2. A right-of-way is reserved for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States under the authority of the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 291: 43 U.S.C. 945).
3. The patent will be subject to existing rights-of-way.
4. The patent will be subject to the terms and conditions of grazing lease, number 2625, issued to Truman Gary Rusley, until April 10, 2002.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 29, 2001.
All comments concerning this Notice of Realty Action should be
Brian Lynnes, Bureau of Land Management, 111 Garryowen Road, Miles City, Montana 59301, or by calling (406) 233-2822.
Detailed information concerning these reservations as well as specific conditions of the sale are available for review at the above address. In the absence of timely objections, this proposal shall become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
This action terminates the segregation in effect on a portion of Airport Lease N-12640. The land will be opened to the operation of the public land laws, including location and entry under the mining laws, subject to valid existing rights.
May 11, 2001.
Mary Figarelle, Realty Specialist, Winemucca Field Office, 5100 E. Winnemucca Boulevard, Winnemucca, Nevada 89445 or call (775) 623-1500.
The segregative effect for Airport Lease N-12640, also known as the Empire Airport, was made on March 10, 1982. The public lands affected by the above segregative actions, are described as follows:
Sec. 15: NE
Totaling 320 acres more or less in Washoe County.
The segregation was made pursuant to the Act of May 24, 1928 (49 U.S.C. 211-214) as amended by the Act of August 16, 1941 (55 Stat. 621).
On March 6, 2001, prior to the relinquishment by the original Lessees, an application for a Public Airport Lease was submitted by the U.S. Gypsum Company for a portion of the original 320 acres segregated under Airport Lease N-12640. This application was serialized as Public Airport Lease Application N-74312. Public Airport Application N-74312 proposed to encumber only 75 acres of the original 320 acres of public lands segregated for airport purposes, and would encompass all of the existing facilities.
On March 17, 2001, the original Lessees (Elwood and Wanda Heiss) voluntarily relinquished Public Airport Lease N-12640.
The segregative effect is hereby terminated for all public lands encumbered by Public Airport Lease N-12640, except those portions of the following described lands, which were applied for and will remain segregated under Public Airport Lease N-74312:
The portion of public land that continues to remain under segregation is further described as: The existing north-south runway which is approximately 4,270′ long by 200′ wide on either side of the runway centerline and totals approximately 39.2 acres, the existing east-west runway which is approximately 3,420′ long by 200′ wide on either side of the runway centerline and totals approximately 31.4 acres, and the existing displaced threshold which is approximately 400′ long by 470′ wide and totals approximately 4.3 acres. Totaling approximately 75 acres more or less in Washoe County.
At 9 a.m. on May 11, 2001, the land encumbered by Airport Lease N-12640, except the above described lands which will remain segregated under Public Airport Lease N-74312, will be opened to location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregation of record, and the requirements of applicable law. All valid applications received at or prior to 9 a.m. May 11, 2001 shall be considered as simultaneously filed at that time. Those received thereafter shall be considered in the order of filing. Appropriation of any of the land described in this order under the general mining laws prior to the date and time of restoration is unauthorized. Any such attempted adverse possession under 30 U.S.C. 38 (1988), shall vest no rights against the United States. Acts required to establish a location and to initiate a right of possession are governed by State law where not in conflict with Federal law. The Bureau of land management will not intervene in disputes between rival locators over possessory rights since Congress has provided for such determinations in local courts.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Amended notice of intent to prepare a land use plan amendment and amended notice of exchange proposal.
This notice amends a previously published notice which appeared in the
In order to be considered in the preparation of the environmental assessment for the proposed land exchange, comments must be received on or before May 29, 2001.
Additional information may be obtained by writing the BLM Idaho Falls Field Office, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 83401.
On August 12th, 19th, 26th, and September 2nd, 1998, a notice was published in The News Examiner, Montpelier, Idaho announcing the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) intent to amend the BLM's Pocatello Resource Management Plan. The plan amendment is required in order for BLM to consider a land exchange proposal submitted by Hartman Ranch LLC, Jerry R. Taft Family Limited Partnership, and John Taft Corporation. The lands proposed for exchange as listed in the original publication notice are as follows:
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the original legal notice is hereby amended to include an additional 80 acres of selected public land. The additional 80 acres is located in the vicinity of Crow Creek. This public land is adjoined on three sides by land in private ownership and on the fourth side by public land already included in the land exchange proposal. The additional acreage is legally described as follows:
All other information contained in the original publication notice remains the same. The Offered and Selected land acreage proposed for exchange may be adjusted to equalize values as determined by a Real Estate Appraisal.
Comments regarding the amended selected land acreage should be sent to Joe Kraayenbrink, Field Manager, Idaho Falls Field Office, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ's”) initial determination (“ID”) granting complainant's motion for summary determination that it satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement of 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3).
Timothy P. Monaghan, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3152.
The Commission instituted this patent-based section 337 investigation on October 11, 2000, based on a complaint filed by PCTEL, Inc. (“PCTEL”). The respondents named in the investigation are ESS Technology, Inc., Smart Link Ltd., and Smart Link Technologies, Inc.
On March 6, 2001, complaint PCTEL moved pursuant to rule 210.18 for partial summary determination that it satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement of section 337 for the patents in the investigation. The Commission investigative attorney supported the motion. The respondents did not file a response to the motion.
On March 21, 2001, the ALJ granted the unopposed motion for summary determination on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and Commission rule 210.42, 19 CFR 210.42. Copies of the public version of the ALJ's ID and all other nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
On the basis of the information in this investigation, the Commission unanimously determines, pursuant to section 204(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2254(c)), that action under section 203 of the Trade Act with respect to imports of wheat gluten continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and that there is evidence that the domestic wheat gluten industry is making a positive adjustment to import competition.
Following receipt of a petition filed on behalf of the Wheat Gluten Industry Council, the Commission, effective November 30, 2000, instituted investigation No. TA-204-4, Wheat Gluten: Extension of Action, under section 204(c) of the Trade Act to determine whether action under section 203 of the Trade Act with respect to imports of wheat gluten continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and whether there is evidence that the domestic wheat gluten industry is making a positive adjustment to import competition.
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation 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 determination in this investigation to the President on April 2, 2001. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3407 (April 2001), entitled Wheat Gluten: Extension of Action, Investigation No. TA-204-4.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Department of Justice.
Notice of availability of the finding of no significant impact and the environmental assessment.
The Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”) announces the availability of the environmental assessment. This assessment, which is available to the public, concludes that the methamphetamine investigation and clandestine laboratory closure activities of the Methamphetamine/Drug Hot Spots Program will not have significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
For copies of the Environmental Assessment and the Finding of No Significant Impact, please contact: COPS Grants Administration Division, 1100 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530; Phone: (202) 616-3031 or 1-800-421-6770.
In Fiscal Year 2000, the COPS Office collaborated with the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, to prepare an Environmental Assessment for methamphetamine law enforcement programs, and with specific application for the Methamphetamine/Drug Hot Spots Program. This Environmental Assessment was prepared as required by the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508), implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321,
For the purposes of this program, law enforcement may include training of law enforcement officers in methamphetamine-related issues; collection and maintenance of intelligence and information relative to methamphetamine trafficking and traffickers; investigation, arrest and prosecution of producers, traffickers and users of methamphetamine; interdiction and removal of laboratories, finished products, and precursor chemicals and other elements necessary to produce methamphetamine; and preventive efforts to reduce the spread and use of methamphetamine. Individual projects will reflect a concentration on program areas consistent with congressional appropriations language.
Among the many challenges faced by law enforcement agencies in the Methamphetamine/Drug Hot Spots Program will be discovery, interdiction, and dismantling of clandestine drug laboratories. These lab sites, as well as other methamphetamine crime venues, must be comprehensively dealt with in compliance with a variety of health, safety and environmental laws and regulations. The COPS Office requires that recipients, when encountering illegal drug laboratories, use grant funds to effect the proper removal and disposal of hazardous materials located at those laboratories and directly associated sites in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
The COPS Office will award grants to State and local criminal justice agencies for the FY 2001 COPS Methamphetamine/Drug Hot Spots Program. The Environmental Assessment concludes that the funding of this program will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared for the funding of this program.
In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that, on April 2, 2001, a proposed Consent Decree Between the United States of America and Rexam Beverage Can Company, Inc. and Primerica, Inc. (the decree) in
The decree resolves claims for injunctive relief and response costs under sections 106 and 107(a)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Corporation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9606 and 9607(a)(3), against Rexam Beverage Can Company, Inc. and Primerica, Inc. arising out of the disposal and subsequent clean-up of wastes at the Bliss-Ellisville Superfund Site in St. Louis County, Missouri. Pursuant to the decree, Rexam and Primerica will pay $1,750,000 to the Hazardous Substances Superfund. The monies paid by the settling defendants under the decree will reimburse past federal costs at the Site. The decree provides the settling defendants with releases from civil liability for injunctive relief and response costs at the Site.
For thirty (30) days following this publication, the Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the Environmental and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The proposed decree may be examined at the offices of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of Missouri, United States Court and Custom House, 111 S. 10th Street-20th Floor, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency—Region VII, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas, 66101. The decree may also be obtained by mail from the United States Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $5.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost).
Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that, for a period of 30 days, the United States will receive public comments on proposed Consent Decrees in
These proposed Consent Decrees were lodged simultaneously with the Complaint in this national, multi-facility Clear Air Act (“Act”) enforcement action against Motiva Enterprises LLC, Equilon Enterprises LLC, and Deer Park Refining Limited Partnership, a petroleum refining alliance (“the Companies”), pursuant to section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. 7413(b) (1983),
Under the settlement, the Companies will implement pollution control technologies to greatly reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (“NO
The proposed Consent Decree will also resolve alleged violations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 6901
In addition, the Companies will pay a civil penalty of $9.5 million, and spend $5.5 million on Supplemental Environmental Projects (“SEPs”). The states of Delaware and Louisiana, and the Washington state Northwestern Air Pollution Authority (“NWAPA”) will join in this settlement as Plaintiff-Interveners and signatories to the Consent Decrees and each will benefit from the Companies' performance of the SEPs in the communities where the refineries are located. Delaware and Louisiana will share in the civil penalty.
Comments should be addressed to the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decrees may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Southern District of Texas, U.S. Courthouse, 515 Rusk, Houston, Texas 77002, and at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A copy of the Consent Decrees may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $107.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Notice is hereby given that, on March 20, 2001, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and AAF Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 28, 2000, AAF Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on June 29, 2000. A notice was published in the
The Department of Labor has submitted the Bloodborne Pathogens standard (Needlestick Safety) information collection request (ICR), utilizing emergency review procedures, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). OMB approval has been requested by April 18, 2001. A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor Departmental Clearance Officer, Ira Mills on 202-693-4122. Comments and questions about the ICR listed below should be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202-395-7316), and be received by April 18, 2001.
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under the EB Program for Alaska. The following change has occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the State's EB status:
• March 4, 2001. Alaska triggered “on” EB. Alaska's 13-week insured unemployed rate for the week ending February 17, 2001, rose above the 6.0 percent threshold necessary to be triggered “on” to EB effective for the week beginning March 4, 2001.
The duration of benefits payable in the EB Program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the States by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a State beginning an EB period, the State employment security agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)).
Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB, or who wish to inquire about their rights under the program, should contact the nearest State employment service office or unemployment compensation claims office in their locality.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice of availability of funds and solicitation for grant applications (SGA).
This Notice Contains All of the Necessary Information and Forms Needed to Apply for Grant Funding.
The U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (DOL/ETA) announces the availability of approximately $2.8 million in competitive grant funds for information technology skills training for people with disabilities.
Applicants will be accepted commencing on the date of publication. The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is Tuesday, May 15, 2001 at 4 pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) at the address below.
Applications shall be mailed to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Federal Assistance, Attention: B. Jai Johnson, SGA/DFA 01-107. 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-4203, Washington, DC. 20210. Applications that do not meet the conditions set forth in this notice will not be honored. Telefacsimile (FAX) applications will not be honored.
• Was sent by U.S. Postal Service registered or certified mail not later than the fifth calendar day before the date specified for receipt of applications (
• Was sent by the U.S. Postal Service Express Mail Next Day Service, Post Office to Addressee, not later than 5:00 p.m. at the place of mailing two working days prior to the deadline date specified for receipt of applications in this SGA. The term “working days” excludes weekends and Federal holidays.
The only acceptable evidence to establish the date of mailing of an application received after the deadline date for the receipt of proposals sent by the U.S. Postal Service and on the original receipt from the U.S. Postal Service. The term “Post marked” means a printed, stamped or otherwise placed impression (exclusive of a postage meter machine impression) that is readily identifiable, without further action, as having been supplied or affixed on the date of mailing by an employee of the U.S. Postal Service.
Questions should be faxed to B. Jai Johnson at (202) 693-2879 (this is not a toll-free number). All inquiries should include the SGA number 01-107, and a contact name, fax, and telephone numbers. This solicitation is also being published on the Internet at ETA's home page at
Funds made available for this Solicitation for Grant Application are authorized under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, section 171 (c) and (d). Approximately $1.16 million of the total funds available for this grant award are dislocated worker funds.
This announcement consists of five parts:
Eligible applicants must be a consortium of public, private non-profit and for-profit entities. The Local Workforce Investment Board(s) (Local Boards) and the local One-Stop Center(s) must be included in the consortium. Applicants must obtain and provide letters of commitment from Local Boards. Representatives from the information technology business community, and representatives from the disability advocacy community or with expertise in services to people with disabilities should also be represented in the consortium.
The consortium members should contribute substantively to the overall goals and objectives of this solicitation. Representation should include corporate and academic entities that possess a sound grasp of the information technology job market in the region, are able to address the issue of information technology skill shortages, and have expert knowledge of the academic, professional, technical or other training requirements for information technology careers. Such organizations may include private for-profit information technology business enterprises—including small and medium-size businesses; Business Leadership Networks; industry associations such as local Chambers of Commerce and small business federations; local affiliates of national associations such as Information Technology Association of America (ITAA); and labor unions. Disability representation may include participation of Centers for Independent Living, Disability Business and Technical Assistance Centers, Rehabilitation Technology Centers, and national or regional non-profit organizations which are advocates for, or provide services to, people with disabilities. Consortia members may also include other Workforce Investment Act programs partners.
Local Workforce Investment Boards that share common economic goals may band together as one applicant rather than applying individually. Applicants may also submit grant applications for multi-site projects, i.e., projects that will provide employment and training services in different areas of the country.
Indian and native Tribal entities, or consortia of Tribes, may apply for Information Technology Initiative Grants. In such cases, letters of commitment from Local Boards may not be applicable because of sovereignty and self-governance of Tribal entities established under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act allowing for the government to government relationship between the Federal and Tribal Governments.
All applications must clearly identify the lead agent and fiscal agent, and other members of the Consortium applying for the grant. The application must identify who the grant recipient (and/or fiscal agent) is and describe its capacity to administer this project. It must indicate that the project is consistent with and will be coordinated with the workforce investment system(s) that are involved in technical skills activities in the region(s) encompassed by the application.
Except as specifically provided, DOL/ETA acceptance of a proposal and an award of federal funds to sponsor any program(s) does not provide a waiver of any grant requirements and/or procedures. For example, the OMB circulars require an entity's procurement procedures must require that
Applicants must submit four (4) copies with original signatures. A proposal shall consist of two (2) separate and distinct sections. Section I, the Financial Proposal shall contain the SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” (Appendix A) and Budget Information Form (Appendix B).
In addition, the budget shall include on a separate page a detailed cost analysis of each line item. Administrative costs should not exceed 15 percent of total proposed costs. Justification must be provided on the need for administrative costs that exceed this limit. Approval of a budget by DOL is not the same as approval of actual costs. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 17.261. Applicants shall indicate on the SF-424 the organization's IRS status, if applicable. According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, section 18, an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which engages in lobbying activities shall not be eligible for the receipt of federal funds constituting an award, grant or loan. The individual signing the SF-424 on behalf of the applicant must represent the responsible financial and administrative entity for a grant should that application result in an award. The budget must include, on a separate page, a detailed breakout of each line item. Section II, the Technical Proposal, will demonstrate the applicant's capabilities in accordance with the Statement of Work in Part III of this solicitation. This must be organized to follow the evaluation criteria. No cost data or reference to costs shall be included in the Technical Proposal. In addition, the Technical Proposal shall be limited to 20 doubled-spaced, single-side, 8.5 inch x 11 inch pages with 1 inch margins. Appendices shall not exceed 10 pages, and may include charts, graphs, staff resumes, composition of advisory boards, and other supporting documents. Required letters of commitment from Local Boards should be included in the appendix rather than in Section I. Letters of commitment from other partnered entities should also be included. Text type shall be 12 point or larger. Applications not meeting these requirements may not be considered. The Technical Proposal must also contain participant, activity and outcome information.
DOL/ETA anticipates making approximately 5-9 awards, ranging from $300,000 to $600,000. Proposals are not to exceed $600,000.
The initial period of performance will be 12 months from the date of execution by the Government. Based on the availability of funds, project performance and needs, the Department may elect to exercise its option to extend these grants for up to two additional option years for a total not to exceed 36 months.
This initiative builds upon similar ETA initiatives that address increasing
The Department of Labor also recognizes the critical importance of a highly skilled workforce to the continued economic progress and well-being of the United States. ETA is the administering agency for the H1-B visa program and the resulting grant programs designed to train America's workers in those occupations experiencing skill shortages, in particular in the technology programming and technical support areas. With expectations that computer related applications will be a dominate force in the economic infrastructure of the United States in the foreseeable future, ETA is fostering relationships with technology related stakeholders such as the Information Technology Association of America and CompTIA to connect the workforce delivery system in a variety of capacities. These efforts include capacity building and linkage of the information technology business community with local providers and community based organizations who are important stakeholders in the delivery of training and employment services. ETA considers this Information Technology Skills Training solicitation to be aligned with these overarching goals of workforce readiness.
According to the White Paper entitled the IT Workforce Shortage and the Skills Gap, published jointly by the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA), the Technology Workforce Coalition (TWC), and the National Cristina Foundation (NCF), the societal costs of the information technology skills gap are significant. Businesses lose opportunities, customers are not serviced, and opportunities are unmet. The information technology skills gap results in reduced economic prosperity, and suppresses wage growth, corporate earnings, and the tax base. The White Paper also points out that by simply focusing on the 300,000 positions that do not require a computer science degree, American society stands to benefit substantially if it can create effective programs to fill those positions. Training and certification for positions in the technology workforce such as computer technicians, networking, and Internet professional can be completed in 3-12 months.
There are approximately 54 million Americans with disabilities, 30 million of whom are of working age. Only 26% of working age adults with significant disabilities have a job or a business compared to 82% of those without disabilities (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1997). The US Department of Labor report, Futureworks points out that while educational attainment made some difference in the rate of unemployment for people with disabilities, the employment figures for workers with severe disabilities lie in sharp contrast to those for workers without disabilities. Among workers with college degrees, only 52% of those with severe disabilities reported labor market activity compared to 90% of those with no disability—a gap of 38 percentage points.
Title IV of the Workforce Investment Act, which amends the Rehabilitation Act, included several findings relating to ethnic and racial minorities as traditionally under-served populations in the vocational rehabilitation system (29 U.S.C. 718). Ethnic and racial minorities tend to have disabling conditions at a disproportionately high rate. The rate of work-related disability for Native Americans is about one and one-half times that of the general population. African-Americans are also one and one-half times more likely to be disabled than whites and twice as likely to be significantly disabled. According to the US Census Bureau's 1994-1995 data approximately 85.5% of African-Americans with severe disabilities and 75.4% of Hispanics with severe disabilities are not working. Individuals with disabilities who are members of other minority groups are also disproportionately represented among the unemployed. Among the reasons for the disproportionately high rate of unemployment are disparities in the rehabilitation services provided to minorities with disabilities, fewer educational opportunities, poor outreach to minority communities, and inadequate transportation and housing.
The primary purpose of this award is to expand opportunities for information technology training and improve access to employment with long-term career potential in the information technology industry for people with disabilities, particularly those with severe disabilities. In addition, this solicitation seeks to foster the commitment and experience of the One-Stop system in the training and successful attainment of employment for people with disabilities, including supporting partnerships with (1) the business community to achieve quality program designs and placement outcomes, (2) academic institutions with expertise in information technology skill requirements, (3) and non-profit entities which may provide expertise regarding accessible technologies and accommodations or outreach. Non-duplication of existing services, and leveraging of scarce resources are also important factors.
DOL is seeking applications that address one or more of the following concerns: Strategies for training and employment of individuals with severe disabilities in the information technology industry, including those with a specific disabling condition or who also may be members of a subgroup (
DOL expects the awardee to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation strategies and refine their proposed project as it progresses. Refinements impacting the agreed upon Statement of Work must be coordinated with ETA. Any formal evaluation process will be performed by DOL; therefore, proposals need not identify evaluation strategies.
A careful evaluation of applications will be made by a technical review panel who will evaluate the applications against the established criteria listed in this SGA. The panel results are advisory in nature and are not binding on the Grant Officer. The Government may elect to award the grant with or without discussions with the offeror. In situations without discussions, an award will be based on the offeror's signature on the SF-424, which constitutes a binding offer. All applications must include the required elements. The Grant Officer will make final award decisions based upon what is most advantageous to the Federal Government in terms of geographic mix, technical quality, justification and evidence of activities included in the management and design of the projects.
Each criteria listed below incorporates the statement of work components/elements.
Describe the specific purpose or purposes of the proposed project. Explain how the proposed project will be applicable to disability issues of national scope and the potential for replication in other workforce areas. Also describe whether or how the proposed project is similar to or differs from the applicant's prior and current activities.
The program design should describe training, and services to be provided from the time of participant selection through placement in unsubsidized employment and follow-up. The design should describe in detail the kinds of skill training that will be offered, the method by which the training will be provided, and whether training will culminate in certification in one or more information technology concentrations. Training leading to employment in the following occupations may include, but is not limited to:
• Computer Support Specialist; Computer Operator; Computer Service Technician; Computer Aided Design Specialist; Network Control Operator; Electrical/Electronic Engineering Technician and Technologist; Data Processing Equipment Repairer, and Central Office and PBX Repairer.
Certifications in the following areas will be considered, but are not limited to:
• Computer Architecture and Structure, such as CompTIA's A+; Internet Skills, such as Website Development, CompTIA's i-Net+, Net+, HTML, and Java; Languages, such as Cobol, C, and C++; Networking, such as Help Desk, TCP/IP; Desktop Operating Systems, such as Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows NT Workstation, Linux, and Unix; Local Area Network (LAN) Administration, such as Microsoft NT Server, Novell Netware, and Ethernet; and Software Applications, such as Microsoft Office Suite, and Corel WordPerfect Suite.
The use of exit competencies to detail specific technical knowledge and skill sets attained will also be considered. The scope and intensity of training curricula should also be clearly articulated to achieve desired goals and outcomes.
Design description should describe the role of the business community in an advisory capacity to the project, the extent to which they may provide internships or possible employment for successful participants, the extent to which they may serve as mentors, and their input into decisions on curricula and identification of trends and skill shortages.
Design description should include a rationale for additional activities and services in terms of overall project design, overcoming employment barriers of planned participants, and achieving quality employment outcomes in the information technology industry. Narratives should provide a clear understanding of services and supports needed for successful placement and job retention in the information technology industry. Descriptions should detail how the consortium will work together to achieve project goals and should also detail linkages with State and Local Workforce Investment Boards. Linkages may also include DOL's Work Incentive Grant programs, programs under Social Security's Ticket-To-Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, and other work related incentives.
The program design must provide information on planned activities and services to participants, including per site if applicable. This must include the number of participants to be served in basic educational training, job skill training, or any job search assistance, on-the-job training, work readiness and work experience, and post-placement training and job retention services. Include how other employment barriers such as inadequate access to housing, transportation, medical coverage, and personal assistance services will be addressed.
Describe how project design has potential for replication in the workforce system at large and how it meets potential needs which are not available otherwise.
Program design may include a component which addresses aggressive employment outreach for individuals with disabilities who have previously acquired academic credentials or certifications in the skill areas identified above, but who have not been able to secure competitive employment because of their disability or the lack of effective linkages with the corporate and business community.
Planned outcome information should be provided, including site specific information if applicable: (1) Number of terminees completing program; (2) number of placements in unsubsidized employment; (3) number of placements in full time employment (35 hours per week or more); and (4) the average hourly wage, and placements with durations of 180 days and more.
Applicants are also requested to provide an explanation, if applicable, on “temporary job” placements; and the extent to which program participants and/or recipients of SSDI/SSI are expected to transition to economic self-support in the mainstream workforce.
Applicants are requested to describe methods of ongoing assessment of “customer satisfaction” and how results will be used in project operation. The Department of Labor expects that applicants will achieve an entered employment rate of 55%. If applicant does not anticipate achieving this competitive placement level, an explanation should be provided on why this level may not be reached.
Identify and describe consortium members which must include the Local Board or One-Stop Center(s) in a public/private partnership with the information technology business sector, academic and other institutions of learning who are qualified to deliver the applicable skill training defined in Section III, A, 4 (Training and Supportive Services), and disability representation to address access and accommodations or outreach. Descriptions should include the following information for each consortium member:
1. Name of the consortium member.
2.The type of organization the consortium member represents and the member's primary mission.
3. Consortium member's area of expertise.
4. Consortium member's level of commitment to serve people with disabilities.
5. Consortium member's specific area of focus and contributions to the goals and objectives of this project.
6. Additional resources and funds the consortium member will bring to this project.
Describe the roles of consortium partners and their contribution to the project if not previously addressed. This should include how private non-profit and for-profit consortium members will work together to achieve the goals of this project. Describe the role of the business community and information technology associations in this project, including how information technology representatives and other members of the business community will serve in a business advisory capacity. If a business advisory board is established, identify the representatives expected to be on the board.
Describe any additional coordination with state and local entities, consumer organizations, and/or others in the design and implementation of the proposed project as appropriate. Applications should identify any planned coordination strategies with adult, dislocated worker and youth programs authorized under the Workforce Investment Act, Bureau of Apprenticeship Training, educational institutions, such as community colleges and vocational training schools, labor organizations, and information technology associations.
Other coordination efforts should address major employment obstacles such as insufficient medical coverage and/or other barriers to employment (e.g., access to assistive technology, transportation, personal assistance needs, job coach requirements, housing). Identify funds or resources to be contributed to the project by the applicant and/or partnership entities. Evidence should be presented demonstrating the cooperation of coordinating entities and the program design should include a reasonable method of assessing and reporting on the impact of that coordination. Consultation with and/or review by appropriate labor organizations, where applicable, is encouraged and should be documented.
Participants for the proposed project must be individuals with disabilities (i.e., physical, sensory, emotional, or mental functional impairments) as defined in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act at 42 U.S.C. 12102. Describe the characteristics of the client population to which proposal is targeted including, where applicable: (1) Specific type(s) of disability, (e.g., psychiatric disorders, neurologic disorders); (2) specific subgroup of disabled population, (e.g., minority, youth, older workers); (3) why the project design will result in quality career and/or employment outcomes in the information technology industry; and (4) what innovative and coordinated approaches will be used to serve the target population. It is anticipated that a significant percentage of the population will require the use of assistive technology in both training and in the workplace.
Proposals must also provide the following planning information on the participants to be served in project design, in total and by project site:
• The number of participants,
• The age range of participants (e.g., under 22, 23-50, 51-65),
• The number of participants who receive Supplemental Security Income and/or Social Security Disability Income (SSI/SSDI),
• The number and percent of participants that will be qualified as dislocated workers.
Applicants may also provide other information about participants considered important such as
Describe how outreach and recruitment addresses the overall design of the project. Outreach and recruitment may address public service announcements, use of media, use of community-based organizations, and other service groups. Identify how workforce development systems, disability consumer organizations, and information technology associations will be used in the recruitment process. Describe how the target population will be recruited for participation at each site if utilizing a multi-site approach.
Describe the eligibility process for project participants. This includes the process for determining whether a participant is an individual with a disability and those with a significant disability (see Definitions).
Describe the process for evaluating participants' skill levels, education levels, career interests, accommodation requirements, training and services, and other barriers and needs. Narrative should identify whether assessment will be conducted by the awardee or another service provider. Applicants should indicate whether and how the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) or an alternative assessment tool will be used to assess reading, mathematical skills, and other employment readiness skills to participate in this project, as applicable. Applicants should include how the project will address the remedial or preparatory training needs of the participants and how the project will address possible Learning Disabilities. Please note, the implementation of these assessments may require reasonable accommodation and use of Assistive Technology.
Describe the management structure for the proposed project. Applicants must identify the lead agency, provide a staffing plan from each of the Consortium entities, showing each position and the percentage of time assigned to the project. Provide an organizational chart showing the relationship between the management and operational components of the project and the overall organization. Include staff and operations projected for the project. Include resumes of current key staff. For each of the key staff not identified at the time of application, provide a job description or the qualifications sought for the position. Specific information on staff and organizational structure may be provided in the Appendix.
Describe the mechanisms to be used to ensure financial and program accountability in record keeping and reporting. The design must demonstrate oversight of project implementation and progress benchmarks. Describe how the project will keep records of activities and satisfy the administrative requirements set out under 29 CFR parts 95-99 as applicable.
The design must include a comprehensive discussion describing in detail, the types of information to be collected, methods and frequency of collections, and ways information will be used to implement and manage the program. The following must be covered:
(1) Program data collection and reporting systems to determine the achievement of project outcomes;
(2) Financial management systems to ensure fiscal accountability in accordance with statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements;
(3) Communication processes and technology that will be utilized;
(4) Administrative process for each project site; and
(5) Grievance procedure.
Awardee will be responsible for management and oversight of all activities under the grant. Identify the information on project performance and financial management to be collected on a short-term basis by project staff. Describe the process of on-site monitoring of each project site, including employer site visits, if applicable. Describe the process and procedures to be used to obtain feedback from participants, employers, and any other appropriate parties on the responsiveness and effectiveness of the services provided.
Describe the grievance procedure to be used for grievances and complaints from participants, contractors, and other interested parties, consistent with requirements at 20 CFR part 667 subpart F.
Provide objective evidence of the grant applicant's ability to manage this project, ensure the integrity of the grant funds, and deliver the proposed performance. Indicate the grant applicant's past management experience, particularly regarding oversight and operating functions including financial management and relevant audit or grant reviews of the organization. Provide references and/or contact persons of former or current funding organizations.
Applicants receiving awards under this solicitation will be required to submit financial, program, and participant reports on a quarterly and annual basis. Grantees will be required to submit (1) Activity and Placement Report (APR) on the number of participants being served, activities and services provided, and placement outcomes; and (2) Participant Characteristics Report (PCR) on age, race, type of disAbility, etc., of participants enrolled in the grantee's program. Narrative information on the grant program should be submitted quarterly with the APR. The narrative may include information on the status of project implementation, participant success stories during the reporting period, conferences or job fairs planned or held, meetings with employers related to placements, or other information of interest about the grant project. In addition to the APR and PCR, grantees are required to submit a Financial Status Report (FSR), SF 269. Report submissions to the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) are quarterly for the APR and FSR, and annually for the PCR following the end of the Fiscal Year. The APR, PCR and FSR forms and related instructions can be downloaded from ETA's disAbility Online website at: http://wdsc.org/disability (click on “Grantee Communication” to access these forms). Reports are due to ETA no later than 30 days after the last day of the report period.
The Department of Labor may conduct a quantitative and qualitative evaluation that provides an in-depth analysis and assessment of the grant program.
DOL reserves the right to conduct programmatic and financial oversight/monitoring of grant and project sites.
Federal funds cannot be used to support activities that would be
Grantees must comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, administrative requirements and OMB Circulars. For example, OMB Circular A-122, which applies to nonprofit organizations, requires prior approval for certain capital expenditures to be allowable as direct costs. Requests for prior approval, if applicable, may be included in the grant budget application or submitted after grant award.
For the purpose of this demonstration project, the following definitions apply to the specified terms, as used in this SGA:
(A) The evaluation of the assistive technology needs of an individual with a disability, including a functional evaluation of the impact of the provision of appropriate assistive technology and appropriate services to the individual in the customary environment of the individual;
(B) Services consisting of purchasing, leasing, or otherwise providing for the acquisition of assistive technology devices by individuals with disabilities;
(C) Services consisting of selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacing assistive technology devices;
(D) Coordination and use of necessary therapies, interventions, or services with assistive technology devices, such as therapies, interventions, or services associated with education and rehabilitation plans and programs;
(E) Training or technical assistance for an individual with disabilities, or, where appropriate, the family members, guardians, advocates, or authorized representatives of such an individual; and
(F) Training or technical assistance for professionals (including individuals providing education and rehabilitation services), employers, or other individuals who provide services to, employ, or are otherwise substantially involved in the major life functions of individuals with disabilities.
(A)(i) Has been terminated or laid off, or who has received a notice of termination or layoff, from an employment;
(ii)(I) Is eligible for or has exhausted entitlement to unemployment compensation; or
(II) Has been employed for a duration sufficient to demonstrate, to the appropriate entity at a one-stop center referred to in section 134(c), attachment to the workforce, but is not eligible for unemployment compensation due to insufficient earnings or having performed services for an employer that were not covered under a State unemployment compensation law; and
(iii) Is unlikely to return to a previous industry or occupation;
(B)(i) Has been terminated or laid off, or has received a notice of termination or layoff, from employment as a result of any permanent closure of, or any substantial layoff of, a plan, facility, or enterprise;
(ii) Is employed at a facility at which the employer has made a general announcement that such a facility will close within 180 days; or
(iii) For purposes of eligibility to receive services other than training services described in section 134(d)(4), intensive services described in section 134(d)(3), or supportive services, is employed at a facility at which the employer has made a general announcement that such a facility will close;
(C) Was self-employed (including employment as a farmer, a rancher, or a fisherman) but is unemployed as a result of general economic conditions in the community in which the individual resides or because of natural disaster; or
(D) Is a displaced homemaker.
(1) Orientation to the world of work;
(2) Training/Job-related counseling and testing;
(3) Employability assessment (other than that involved during intake);
(4) Job development;
(5) Job search assistance;
(6) Job referral and placement.
(A) Provides knowledge or skills essential to the full and adequate performance of the job;
(B) Provides reimbursement to the employer of up to 50 percent of the wage rate of the participant, for the extraordinary costs of providing the training and additional supervision related to the training; and
(C) Is limited in duration as appropriate to the occupation for which
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Submit comments on or before June 11, 2001.
Send comments to Brenda C. Teaster, Acting Chief, Records Management Division 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 709a, Arlington, VA 22203-1984.
Commenters are encouraged to send their comments on a computer disk, or via Internet E-mail to bteaster@msha.gov, along with an original printed copy. Ms. Teaster can be reached at (703) 235-1470 (voice), or (703) 235-1564 (facsimile).
Brenda C. Teaster, Acting Chief, Records Management Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Room 709A, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203-1984. Ms. Teaster can be reached at bteaster@msha.gov (Internet E-mail), (703) 235-1470 (voice), or (703) 235-1563 (facsimile).
The Self-Rescue devices are subjected to harsh in-mine conditions that may result in damage to the device which could cause the device to malfunction or provide less than adequate protection. The 90-day examination of the device is necessary in order to provide for early detection of potential problems that would otherwise go undetected. Requiring the mine operator to certify the examination was made and to record any identified defects gives credibility to the program and decreases the likelihood of a person being required to use a device that may not function as designed. In addition, this information is useful in determining how durable a device may be when subjected to the harsh conditions that are encountered during in-mine use. This allows for early detection of design problems that may require the manufacturer to make changes to a device in order to assure the device will continue to function as designed and provide adequate protection in the event of an emergency.
Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension. MSHA is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
A copy of the proposed information collection request may be viewed on the Internet by accessing the MSHA Home Page (
In 1997, a large number of problems were identified with SCSR devices that indicated either the 90-day examinations were not being conducted, or defective devices were not being removed from service. As a result of these problems, MSHA issued a Program Information Bulletin reminding the industry of the standard requiring the 90-day examination and certification of the self-rescuer devices, and requiring devices that fail the 90-day examination to be removed from service. In addition, MSHA increased the inspection effort to include quarterly evaluation of the mine operators records as well as a physical examination of a representative number of self-rescue devices. However, due to the large number of devices in use in the mining industry, (approximately 50,000 devices) it is essential that mine operators continue to certify that the 90-day examination was conducted on each device, and record the results for devices that failed the 90-day examination. Although MSHA has increased the enforcement effort, the large number of devices in use in the mining industry make it impractical for MSHA to be able to examine each of the devices quarterly.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
Submit comments on or before June 11, 2001.
Send comments to Brenda C. Teaster, Acting Chief, Records Management Division, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 709A, Arlington, VA 22203-1984. Commenters are encouraged to send their comments on a computer disk, or via Internet E-mail to bteaster@msha.gov, along with an original printed copy. Ms. Teaster can be reached at (703) 235-1470 (voice), or (703) 235-1563 (facsimile).
The proposed information collection request may be viewed on the Internet by accessing the MSHA Home Page (
Title 30, CFR 75.1716, 75.1716-1 and 75.1716-3 require operators of underground coal mines to notify MSHA of proposed mining under bodies of water and to obtain a permit to mine under a body of water if, in the judgment of the Secretary, it is sufficiently large to constitute a hazard to miners. This is a statutory provision contained in section 317(r) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. The regulation is necessary to prevent the inundation of underground coal mines with water which has the potential of drowning miners.
The coal mine operator submits an application for the permit to the District Manager in whose district the mine is located. Applications contain the name and address of the mine; projected mining and ground support plans; a mine map showing the location of the river, stream, lake or other body of water and its relation to the location of all working places; a profile map showing the type of strata and the distance in elevation between the coal bed and the water involved.
Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the information collection related to Operations Under Water. MSHA is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Section 317(r) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 requires that when a mine operator mines coal from a mine that requires construction, operation, and maintenance of tunnels under any river, stream, lake or other body of water that could potentially pose a hazard to miners, such operator is required to obtain a permit from the Secretary, which shall include such terms and conditions as deemed appropriate to protect the safety of miners working or passing through such tunnels from cave-ins and other hazards. This section of the Act is enforced through application 30 CFR 75.1716, which requires the underground mine operators to notify MSHA prior to mining under any body of water (30 CFR 75.1716-1) and to submit a permit application to mine under a body of water (30 CFR 75.1716-3) for the MSHA District Manager's approval prior to mining under the body of water. MSHA is obligated to respond in writing to the notice (30 CFR 75.1716-2) and to the permit application (30 CFR 75.1716-4). MSHA routinely receives the notice and the permit application as a single correspondence due to the annual review of the mine ventilation plan map one year mining projections [30 CFR 75.371(b)(14)] and the annual submittal of a certified mine map, which is required to show the locations of mines above and below and bodies of water above the active mine [30 CFR 75.1200-(I and j) and 30 CFR 75.1203]. The annual review of these maps provide early detection of potential inundation hazards and as a result reduce or eliminate the need for a separate notice under 30 CFR 75.1716-1.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463 as amended) notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel of the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will be held at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, in Room 714, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., on Monday, May 7, 2001.
The purpose of the meeting is to review applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities for exhibitions beginning after July 1, 2001.
Because the proposed meeting will consider financial and commercial data and because it is important to keep values of objects, methods of transportation and security measures confidential, pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that the meeting would fall within exemption (4) of 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and that it is essential to close the meeting to protect the free exchange of views and to avoid interference with the operations of the Committee.
It is suggested that those desiring more specific information contact the Advisory Committee Management Officer, Laura S. Nelson, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/606-8322.
Moisture Protection Systems Analysts, Inc. (the Licensee or MPSA), 1350 Beverly Road, Suite 223, McLean, Virginia 22101, formerly was the holder of Byproduct Materials License No. 45-24851-02 (the license), which was issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30 on January 30, 1992. The license authorized MPSA to possess byproduct material, i.e., a Siemens Model R-50 portable roofing gauge that contains a nominal 40 millicuries (mCi) of Americium-241, for use in measuring moisture density of roof surfaces in accordance with the conditions specified in the license. On February 3, 1997, the NRC attempted to inspect MPSA's facilities at 1350 Beverly Road, Suite 223, McLean, Virginia, 22101, the address listed on MPSA's license. At that time, the inspector learned that MPSA had vacated the premises in December, 1996, without prior notice to the NRC. The inspector was provided with a forwarding address for MPSA of 2811 12th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20017-2402. NRC representatives subsequently made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact MPSA by telephone and to inspect the premises at the forwarding address. On February 27 1997, the NRC issued an Order Suspending License (Effective Immediately) to MPSA based upon non-payment of annual fees required pursuant to 10 CFR 171.16. The Order was reissued on May 15, 1997.
On April 30, 1998, the NRC issued a “Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty—$5,500, Notification of Consideration of the Imposition of Daily Civil Penalties, and Order Modifying Order Suspending License (Effective Immediately) and Order Revoking License (Notice),” to MPSA. The Notice described a violation of NRC requirements identified as a result of the NRC's review of the circumstances associated with attempts to perform an inspection of MPSA's material, facilities, and records. The Notice stated the nature of the violation, the provision of the NRC's requirements that MPSA had violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for the violation.
MPSA has not responded to the Notice, nor has it complied with the requirements of the Order that it maintain the licensed material in safe storage, immediately notify the NRC of its current business location and the status of the licensed material, test the sealed source for leak tightness, and transfer the licensed material to an authorized recipient within 30 days of the date of the Order. The NRC has made numerous additional attempts to contact MPSA, including issuing two subpoenas to Mr. Virgil J. Hood, Sr., Radiation Safety Officer and President of MPSA and Mr. Virgil J. Hood, Jr., Vice President of MPSA, compelling their appearance for interviews at NRC headquarters on September 16, 1998, and December 3, 1999. The President and Vice President failed to appear for these interviews, and have been unresponsive to repeated attempts to discuss licensed activities associated with MPSA.
After consideration of MPSA's unresponsiveness, the NRC staff has determined that the violation occurred as stated and that the penalty proposed for the violation designated in the Notice should be imposed.
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205,
MPSA pay a civil penalty in the amount of $5,500 within 30 days of the date of this Order, in accordance with NUREG/BR-0254. In addition, at the time of making the payment, MPSA shall submit a statement indicating when and by what method payment was made, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738.
MPSA may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will
A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. A request for a hearing should be clearly marked as a “Request for an Enforcement Hearing” and shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, and to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303-8931.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of the hearing. If MPSA fails to request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order (or if written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing has not been granted), the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings. If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
In the event MPSA requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
(a) Whether MPSA was in violation of the Commission's requirements as set forth in the Notice referenced in Section II above, and
(b) Whether, on the basis of such violation, this Order should be sustained.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has issued Amendment 1 to Materials License No. SNM-2509 held by Portland General Electric Company (PGE) for the receipt, possession, storage, and transfer of spent fuel at the Trojan Nuclear Plant independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), located in Columbia County, Oregon. The amendment is effective as of the date of issuance.
By letter dated February 19, 2001, as supplemented by letter dated March 9, 2001, PGE submitted an application to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR part 72 requesting an amendment of the Trojan ISFSI license (SNM-2509). PGE sought Commission approval to revise the Trojan ISFSI Technical Specifications (Appendix A to the license) to conform to a change in the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 72.48) which will become effective on April 5, 2001, and to make editorial corrections.
This amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
In accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(2), a determination has been made that the amendment does not present a genuine issue as to whether public health and safety will be significantly affected. Therefore, the publication of a notice of proposed action and an opportunity for hearing or a notice of hearing is not warranted. Notice is hereby given of the right of interested persons to request a hearing on whether the action should be rescinded or modified.
The Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11), neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is warranted for this action.
Documents related to this action are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, One White Flint North Building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, or from the publicly available records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web Site at
Paige Rowland was employed as a nuclear medicine technician at Central Michigan Community Hospital (Licensee) in Mount Pleasant, Michigan. Central Michigan Community Hospital holds License No. 21-08966-01, Amendment 37, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 35 on August 10, 1998. The license authorizes the medical use of byproduct material for diagnostic and therapy purposes in accordance with the conditions specified therein. Ms. Rowland was authorized to use byproduct material under the supervision of an authorized user.
On June 22 to July 2, 1998, an inspection was conducted at the licensee's facility to determine whether activities were performed safely and according to NRC requirements. During the inspection, hospital staff informed the NRC that on August 2, 1996, an emergency lung scan, using technetium-99m, was conducted by an unqualified individual who was not under the supervision of an authorized user. Ms. Rowland, the on-call nuclear medicine technician (NMT), was unable to respond to the hospital's page and arranged for another hospital technician to conduct the lung scan, with Ms. Rowland on the telephone talking the other technician through the nuclear medicine procedure. While all activities were properly performed, the second individual was not qualified to perform the procedure and was not under the supervision of an authorized user in accordance with NRC requirements.
Based on the inspection results, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) conducted an investigation to determine whether Ms. Rowland conspired with another hospital technician to deliberately violate NRC requirements by having the unqualified technician
A predecisional enforcement conference was held with Ms. Rowland on January 26, 1999, to discuss the incident and obtain her perspective on the issue. Based on the information provided by Ms. Rowland during the conference, OI conducted a supplemental investigation to determine whether she provided inaccurate information to NRC staff during the conference. The OI investigation concluded that Ms. Rowland provided false information to the NRC relating to who performed the lung scan on August 2, 1996.
The OI investigators coordinated the results of their investigation with the U.S. Attorney's Office, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Ms. Rowland was subsequently prosecuted for providing false information to the NRC. On November 30, 2000, Ms. Rowland pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan to a criminal charge involving knowingly providing false statements to the NRC.
Based on the above, it appears that Paige Rowland, while an employee of the Licensee, engaged in deliberate misconduct that caused the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 35.11(b) and her in violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1). It further appears that Ms. Rowland has deliberately provided to NRC staff information that she knew to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC, in violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(2). The NRC must be able to rely on the licensee and its employees to comply with NRC requirements and to provide information that is complete and accurate in all material respects. Ms. Rowland's deliberate action causing the licensee to violate 10 CFR 35.11(b) and her misrepresentations to the NRC have raised serious doubt whether she can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements, to refrain from deliberately violating NRC rules and regulations, and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC.
Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Ms. Rowland were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Ms. Rowland be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years from November 30, 2000 (the date of her conviction). Additionally, Ms. Rowland is required to notify the NRC of her first employment in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years following the prohibition period. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of Ms. Rowland's conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be immediately effective.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 CFR 150.20,
1. Paige Rowland is prohibited for five years from November 30, 2000, from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20.
2. If Ms. Rowland is currently involved with another licensee in NRC-licensed activities, she must immediately cease those activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this order to the employer.
3. For a period of five years after the five-year period of prohibition has expired, Ms. Rowland shall, within 20 days of acceptance of her first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or her becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where she is, or will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities. In the notification, Ms. Rowland shall include a statement of her commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Commission should have confidence that she will now comply with applicable NRC requirements.
The Director, OE, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Ms. Rowland of good cause.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Ms. Rowland must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Ms. Rowland or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351, and to Ms. Rowland if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Ms. Rowland. If a person other than Ms. Rowland requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).
If a hearing is requested by Ms. Rowland or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Ms. Rowland, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
NRC plans to issue an amendment to NRC Byproduct Materials License 13-26398-01, authorizing use of carbon-14 (C-14) in field studies at the Dow AgroSciences Midwest U.S. Research Center located in Fowler, Benton County, IN.
Binesh K. Tharakan, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Mail Stop T8F5, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 415-7138, e-mail: bkt@nrc.gov.
This environmental assessment (EA) is being performed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed amendment to Dow AgroSciences' NRC Byproduct Materials License 13-26398-01, which would permit the use of radioactive materials in field studies at the Dow AgroSciences' field research station known as the Midwest U.S. Research Center (hereafter referred to as the Center). The Center is located at 1736 N 1200 E in Fowler (Benton County), IN.
In 1993 and again in 1996, this licensee (previously known as DowElanco) was approved for similar radiolabeled field studies at its former field research site known as the DowElanco Greenfield Field Research Station in Greenfield, IN. All radioisotope use ceased at the Greenfield Station and the site was decommissioned in 1998. Two previous
The proposed action is to amend NRC's Dow AgroSciences Byproduct Materials License No. 13-26398-01, which was originally issued to DowElanco on September 21, 1992, to allow a maximum of 1110 megabecquerels (30 millicuries) of C-14 radiolabeled pesticides to be used in a year for outdoor agricultural field studies at the Center. The plots where the material will be used are described in the site characterization section of this document. The overall objective of these small plot field studies is to use radioactivity to identify the metabolic pathway for a given agrochemical after its application to a particular crop or to the soil in which the crop is grown. Once the metabolites have been isolated and structurally identified, it will then be possible to conduct non-radiolabeled studies, using large-scale field applications, to provide quantitative data on the metabolic residues found in the plants studied.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires these Center studies so it can make regulatory decisions on the registration of biologically active chemicals as pesticides, according to the criteria set forth in the amended Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The use of radiolabeled materials is specifically required, in 40 CFR 158.240 and 158.290, to determine: (1) the “nature of residue” in crops after treatment with a biologically active chemical; and (2) the “uptake” of a soil-applied, biologically active chemical by crops grown in the treated soil. The analytical sensitivity afforded through the use of radioisotope labels in field studies is essential for isolation and identification of metabolites present in trace amounts in complex biological matrices. In the absence of such radiolabeled molecules, it would be extremely difficult to trace, isolate, and identify a single chemical in these complex matrices. EPA specifically identifies the use of radiolabeled test materials, in 40 CFR 158.240, to determine the “nature-of-residue” studies; no alternatives are given. The current amendment request proposes to perform studies at the Center similar to the C-14 field studies that were performed at the Greenfield Research Station.
These studies are being completed, as required by EPA, for registering the pesticide and permitting sale of the pesticide in the United States and abroad. Specifically, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as amended) requires pesticides intended for use on agricultural commodities to be registered by EPA under FIFRA (as amended).
The Center's land is fully owned by Dow AgroSciences and, as private land, it does not have a U. S. Bureau of Land Management designation. It is located in rural agricultural Benton County, IN. The Center's location consists of the following legal description: NE
The Center is approximately 1.25 square kilometers (310 acres). The crop area covers 0.97 square kilometers (240 acres), whereas the non-crop areas cover 0.28 square kilometers (70 acres), including a 0.026-square-kilometer (6.5-acre) man-made basin used to contain irrigation water. There are approximately 0.029 square kilometers (7.25 acres) of apples and grapes. The buildings and lawn take up approximately 0.03 square kilometers (7.5 acres) and the grassed alleys and ditch bank cover approximately 0.23 square kilometers (56 acres). Two areas within the borders of the Center will be designated for radiolabeled field studies. The northwest corner of section W-6 will be designated for radiolabeled row crop studies, and individually identified trees in the orchard area, N-1, may occasionally be used, as well. At any time, less than 1 percent of the land is designated for radiolabeled field studies.
The Center is Class I and II capability agricultural land, according to the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. The site ecosystem is tilled farmland, and the property has been in agricultural production for as long as records have been kept in Benton County, IN. A geological investigation was made in 1997 when the present domestic water well was installed. The Center's soil consists of thick deposits of glacial origin. Extensive glaciers of Illinois and Wisconsin age covered this area during the Pleistocene period.
The geographically closest human community to the Center is Otterbein, located approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) to the south in Benton County, IN. The population of Otterbein is 1291 (1990 Census). The population of Benton County is 9441 (1990 Census). The location of the maximally exposed individual is 450 meters (1475 feet) to the north of N1. The nearest farms (property line) are located 295 meters (955 feet) to the west of W6 plot and 21.6 meters (70 feet) to the north of N1.
There are no Federally listed endangered species within Benton County, IN.
The Dow AgroSciences site is not situated on or near any registered historical, archaeological, or cultural site, according to the National Park Service registry, and the State of Indiana, Department of Resources, Division of Historical Preservation and Archaeology.
As stated above, the location of the closest human dwelling is 450 meters (1475 feet) to the north of N1, and the maximum radioactivity released in 1 year will be 1110 megabecquerels (30 millicurie). Using this information, impacts on water supplies and the dose to the maximally exposed individual are assessed. The radiological impact from the performance of field studies with radiolabeled materials at the Center has been calculated using both EPA's SCREEN 3 (a Gaussian Dispersion model) and COMPLY models.
The plants grown in radiolabeled studies will not be available for incorporation into the food chain. Test areas will be enclosed by a 2.1-meter (7-foot) chain link fence, and wire mesh or bird netting will be used to restrict bird and small rodent access to grain crops. All plant material generated will be used for laboratory research purposes or disposed of as radioactive waste. All contaminated soil will be removed from the site after harvest and disposed of as radioactive waste. Because of the precautions taken during application, the physical barriers in place to prevent wildlife access, and the removal of all soil and plant materials at the conclusion of the study, it is reasonable to conclude that the radiolabeled plant material is unlikely to enter the food chain by either direct human ingestion or indirect animal ingestion.
The following profile of soil layers is provided by the domestic Well Log for the Center: 0-0.6 meters (0-2 feet) of topsoil; 0.6-11.7 meters (2-38 feet) of clay; 11.7-14.5 meters (38-46 feet) of coarse sand and gravel; 14.5-16.7 meters (46-54 feet) of gray clay; and 16.7-18.8 meters (54-61 feet) of coarse sand and gravel. The well is screened at 17.3-19.1 meters (56-62 feet). The underlying geography for the site does not include a principal aquifer.
The fields at the Center are equipped with drainage tiles, spaced approximately 18-meters (60-feet) apart and 91-122 centimeters (36-48 inches) deep. The tile system providing drainage for W6 slopes to the east and dumps into Jackmon Ditch, approximately 12.4 meters (40 feet) south of Co. Rd. 200 N, which eventually dumps into Big Pine Creek. The tile system providing drainage for the orchard (N1) flows west into a trunk line that flows south and dumps into Big Pine Creek. Big Pine Creek is supplied by runoff from farms and roadways both upstream and downstream from the Center, which would significantly dilute any contribution from the Center.
Dow AgroSciences will use the same application precautions, when applying radiolabeled pesticides at the Center, as were used during the Greenfield station applications. As a result of the precautions taken at Greenfield station during application of the radiolabeled test materials (e.g., 0.9-1.8-meter (3-6-foot)- wide sheets of plastic placed on the ground outside the plot borders during application; applications made only when wind speeds were <4.8 kilometers(<3 miles) per hour; etc.), 100 percent of the applied radioactivity was initially accounted for on the soil and/or plants within the test plot. Since wood borders, extending 15.2 centimeters (6 inches) above the soil surface and 10.2-15.2 centimeters (4-6 inches) below surface, surround the immediate plot area, there was minimal chance for lateral movement of the applied radioactivity from runoff. Combustion analyses of soil samples collected from outside plot borders at the Greenfield station at the termination of each study conducted there confirmed that no radioactivity was ever found outside the plots. Based on those results, it is not anticipated that any of the applied radioactivity will be found in the soil outside of the test plots at the Center.
Vertical movement of radioactivity in the soil column within a treated plot was monitored at the Greenfield site, to give an idea of the potential for movement of radioactivity into subsurface water. For most materials at the time the plots were remediated, the bulk of the applied radioactivity (75-90 percent) remained in the top 15.1 centimeters (6 inches) of the soil profile, whereas most of the remaining residues were usually accounted for in the 15-30-centimeter (6-12-inch) segments. For more mobile compounds, small amounts of the total applied radioactivity (1-10 percent) were
The tile system would remove the majority of water that infiltrates the soil, minimizing that which enters the ground or well-water supplies. Periodic monitoring of water in the field tiles that drained the radioactive plot area at the Greenfield location showed no detectable radioactivity in the drainage water. Based on those results, use of similar field tile systems, and the fact that the similar soil type at the Center site is also considered to have a low vulnerability to leaching, it is not anticipated that any of the applied radioactivity will be found in the water from the plot area. Past radiolabeled tests at the Greenfield location showed only minimal amounts of radiolabeled material at a maximum depth of 45-60 centimeters (18-24 inches) in the soil profile, and no radiolabeled material was ever found in “grab samples” collected from the field-tile drainage water.
Given these observations from the Greenfield station, the use of the same application precautions, use of similar wooden borders, similar soil types, and presence of a similar drainage field-tile system, it is not anticipated that any of the applied radioactivity will be found in the soil outside of the test plots, and it is not considered likely that radiolabeled material from the Center will contaminate ground water.
An unrealistic worst-case and bounding radiological assessment can be estimated based on a severe rainfall event that washes all the applied activity from the plant or soil. Since both the crop and the soil would be expected to contain radioactive pesticides or their metabolites, a release of all of the applied activity could occur only if both the crop and the soil were washed over the 15.1-centimeter (6-inch) wooded border and away from the plot. The maximum activity to be used per application is 370 megabecquerels (10 millicuries), with a maximum per year, for the site, of 1110 megabecquerels (30 millicuries).
The 30-year average rainfall in the nine counties in the northwest district, including Benton County, is 96.2 centimeters (37.86 inches), usually evenly distributed over the course of the year. The greatest monthly rainfall from 1972 to 1996 occurred in June 1993, when 25.8 centimeter (10.15 inches) were recorded. If 25.8 centimeters (10.15 inches) of rain were to fall over the 70-meter by 70-meter (230-foot by 230-foot) W6 research plot, where 1110 megabecquerels (30 millicurie) of C-14 had been applied, a volume of 1260 x 10
The plot runoff would be significantly diluted by the surface-water runoff from the rest of the Center and further diluted after it entered Big Pine Creek, which would also contain a large volume of runoff from the road and surrounding farms. It is reasonable to assume that significant dilution would occur and greatly reduce any potential dose to an individual off-site.
The EPA SCREEN model was used to estimate potential airborne concentrations of C-14 inhalation doses to the maximally exposed individual (i.e., the nearest resident located 450 meters (1475 feet) downwind from the test plot). This is a worst-case scenario, using unrealistically constant meteorological conditions and extremely conservative assumptions in the estimations. The scenario modeled assumed that the release of the maximum amount of C-14 applied in one year is 1110 megabecquerels (30 millicurie); that 100 percent of the applied C-14 is emitted as carbon dioxide; that there are constant meteorological conditions for the entire year [D-stability class during the day and F-stability class during the night, 1 meter per second (3.3 feet per second) wind speed, and the wind direction is constant in the direction of the nearest resident]. Under these conditions, the annual average concentration resulting from the use of C-14 radiolabeled material at the Center would be 0.345 picograms per cubic meter(.345 attograms per ml) of air. This corresponds to a worst-case and bounding air concentration of 0.056 microbecquerel per ml (0.0015 femtocurie per ml) at the receptor site and a maximum annual intake, by the maximally exposed individual, of 0.7 kilobecquerel (11 nanocuries). ]
To put these values into perspective, they are compared with values in Part 20. The air concentration value is a small fraction of the Part 20 limit,110000 microbecquerel per ml (300 femtocurie per ml), for carbon dioxide effluent release which, if inhaled continuously over the course of a year, would result in a total effective dose equivalent of 0.5 millisievert (50 millirem). The annual intake value is a small fraction of the Part 20 annual limit on the intake value of 74 megabecquerels (2 millicuries) which would result in a dose of 0.5 millisievert (50 millirem). In fact, based on the estimated annual intake value determined from the EPA SCREEN model, the estimated dose to a member of the public is less than 0.0005 millisievert (0.0001 millirem).
The EPA COMPLY model was also used to evaluate the worst-case and bounding dose to the general public from all pathways, including inhalation, ingestion of contaminated food, immersion, and ground deposition. Again, the maximum activity of 1110 megabecquerels (30 millicuries) of C-14 was assumed to be released in 1 year, at a distance of 450 meters (1475 feet) from the nearest residence. The COMPLY program calculated the maximum effective whole body dose for the maximally exposed individual to be 0.00069 millisievert per year (0.069 millirem per year), an amount well below the NRC regulatory limit of 1 millisievert (100 millirem) per year and EPA's clean air act concentration limit of 0.1 millisievert (10 mrem).
Further evaluation of the offsite analysis was not considered necessary.
As required by Section 102(2)(E) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [(42 U.S.C. 4322(2)(E)], possible alternatives to the final action have been considered. One alternative to the field studies is the treatment of greenhouse-grown plants with the radiolabeled research chemical. A second alternative is not to perform the studies. However, these alternatives are not feasible for two reasons. First, not all plants can be grown successfully in a greenhouse. Second, EPA requires the C-14 field studies to be conducted at the Center.
Dow AgroSciences is already authorized to conduct studies on greenhouse-grown plants with radiolabeled research chemicals at its Indianapolis research facility; however, this is not a viable alternative to collecting data generated by outdoor field studies. Greenhouse studies provide an unnaturally stable environment void of normal weathering field conditions, which traditionally leads to non-representative metabolic profiles. Photolysis, heat, humidity, and other conditions influence the degradative processes that occur in the soil and on the plant surface. EPA requires the identities of the degradates formed as a result of these natural outdoor conditions.
NRC contacted Dow AgroSciences; the Bloomington, IN, field office of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; the National Park Service Registry; the State of Indiana, Department of Resources, Division of Historical Preservation and Archaeology; and the State of Indiana, Department of Health, Indoor & Radiological Health Division. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service provided information regarding Federally listed endangered species. The National Park Service Registry and the State of Indiana, Department of Resources, provided information on registered historical and archaeological sites. The State of Indiana, Department of Health, Indoor & Radiological Health Division agrees with the proposed action and has no additional comments.
1. Letter dated September 10, 1999, from Dow AgroSciences to U.S. NRC Region III, Lisle, IL, requesting amendment of Byproduct Materials License Number 13-26398-01.
2. Letter dated May 3, 2000, from Dow AgroSciences to U.S. NRC, Washington, DC, providing clarification to the amendment request.
3.
4.
5.
Pursuant to NEPA and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, the Commission has determined that there will not be a significant effect on the quality of the human environment resulting from the use of C-14 in field studies at the Dow AgroSciences' Midwest U.S. Research Center located in Fowler, Benton County, IN. Accordingly, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the amendment to Byproduct Materials License 13-26398-01, which will authorize the use of C-14 in field studies at the Center. This determination is based on the foregoing EA performed in accordance with the procedures and criteria in Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”
The Dow AgroSciences amendment request and related documents are available for inspection and copying for a fee in the Region III Public Document Room, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351. The documents may also be viewed on the Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System located on the NRC website at
Any person whose interest may be affected by the issuance of this action may file a request for a hearing. Any request for hearing must be filed with the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
These requirements, which the request must address in detail, are:
1. The interest of the requestor in the proceeding;
2. How that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding (including the reasons why the requestor should be permitted a hearing);
3. The requestor's areas of concern about the licensing activity that is the subject matter of the proceeding; and
4. The circumstances establishing that the request for hearing is timely—that is, filed within 30 days of the date of this notice.
In addressing how the requestor's interest may be affected by the proceeding, the request should describe the nature of the requestor's right under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to be made a party to the proceeding; the nature and extent of the requestor's property, financial, or other (i.e., health, safety) interest in the proceeding; and the possible effect of any order, that may be entered in the proceeding, on the requestor's interest.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), and 72.214 to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC). The requested exemption would allow EGC to deviate from the requirements of Certificate of Compliance 1014 (the Certificate), Appendix B, Table 2.1-3, “BWR Fuel Assembly Characteristics,” which describes the acceptable fuel design characteristics. Some of the fuel assemblies EGC plans to store in the HI-STORM casks have parameters outside those specified in the Certificate, Appendix B, Table 2.1-3. The requested exemption would allow, in addition to the parameters in Appendix B, Table 2.1-3, boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel assemblies with the following fuel assembly characteristics:
The requested exemption would also allow EGC to deviate from the requirements of the Certificate, Appendix B, Items 3.4.6.a, 3.4.6.b and 3.4.6.d and place HI-STORM 100 Cask Systems, loaded with spent nuclear fuel, on a concrete storage pad with a concrete thickness of less than or equal to 28 inches, concrete compressive strength of less than or equal to 6,000 psi at 28 days, and soil effective modulus of elasticity of less than or equal to 16,000 psi at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station (Dresden) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
EGC plans to use the HI-STORM 100 Cask System to store spent nuclear fuel, generated at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, at an ISFSI located in Morris, Illinois, on the Dresden Nuclear Power Station site. The Dresden ISFSI has been constructed for interim dry storage of spent nuclear fuel.
By exempting EGC from 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B), and 72.214, EGC will also be authorized to load HI-STORM 100 Cask Systems with fuel assemblies with the following characteristics:
The fuel assembly characteristics specified above would be in addition to those specified in Certificate of Compliance 1014, Appendix B, Table 2.1-3.
By exempting EGC from 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B), and 72.214, EGC will also be authorized to place loaded HI-STORM 100 Cask Systems on cask storage pads that include the following characteristics:
The storage pad characteristics specified above would be in lieu of those specified in Certificate of Compliance 1014, Appendix B, Items 3.4.6.a, 3.4.6.b, and 3.4.6.d, respectively. The proposed action before the Commission is whether to grant this exemption under 10 CFR 72.7.
The NRC staff has reviewed the exemption requests and determined that loading fuel assemblies with the revised characteristics and placement of HI-STORM 100 Cask Systems on storage pads with the revised characteristics would have minimal impact on the design basis and would not be inimical to public health and safety.
The HI-STORM 100 Cask System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an ISFSI include tornado winds and tornado generated missiles, design basis earthquake, design basis flood, accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.
The HI-STORM 100 Cask System consists of a stainless steel multi-purpose canister and a concrete and steel overpack. The welded MPC provides confinement and criticality control for the storage and transfer of spent nuclear fuel. The overpack provides radiation shielding and structural protection of the MPC during storage. Special design feature requirements for the cask and for the site are specified in Certificate of Compliance 1014, Appendix B. These include the storage pad design characteristics.
Considering the specific cask and site design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. Without the loss of either containment, shielding, or criticality control, the risk to public health and safety is not compromised.
The staff performed a safety evaluation of the proposed exemption. The staff found that the proposed exemption is consistent with the criticality, shielding, thermal and cask drop and tipover analyses presented in the revised Safety Analyses Report for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System and does not reduce the safety margin. The staff has determined that loading fuel assemblies that include the following design characteristics does not pose any increased risk to public health and safety.
The staff has also determined that placement of loaded HI-STORM 100 Cask Systems on storage pads with a (1) concrete thickness of less than or equal to 28 inches, (2) concrete compressive strength of less than or equal to 6,000 psi at 28 days, and (3) soil effective modulus of elasticity less than or equal to 16,000 psi does not pose any increased risk to public health and safety. Furthermore, the proposed action now under consideration would not change the potential environmental effects assessed in the initial rulemaking (65 FR 25241, 05/01/00).
Therefore, the staff has determined that there is no reduction in the safety margin nor significant environmental impacts as a result of loading fuel assemblies with the revised characteristics (as specified above) and placing loaded HI-STORM 100 Cask Systems on storage pads with a concrete thickness of less than or equal to 28 inches, concrete compressive strength of less than or equal to 6,000 psi at 28 days, and soil effective modulus of elasticity less than or equal to 16,000 psi.
The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the foregoing EA, the Commission finds that the proposed action of granting an exemption from 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), and 72.214 so that EGC may load HI-STORM 100 Cask Systems with revised (as specified above) fuel assembly characteristics and place loaded HI-STORM 100 Cask Systems on concrete storage pads with a concrete thickness of less than or equal to 28 inches, concrete compressive strength of less than or equal to 6,000 psi at 28 days, and soil effective modulus of elasticity less than or equal to 16,000 psi at the Dresden ISFSI will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
The request for exemption was docketed under 10 CFR Part 72, Docket 72-37. For further details with respect to this action, see the exemption requests dated January 11, February 16, and March 2, 2001, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, One White Flint North Building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, or from the publicly available records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC web site at
Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b)(4) “Public notice of receipt of an application,” please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the following applications for export licenses. Copies of the applications are available electronically through ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the
The information concerning the application follows.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of additional scoping meeting.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announces its intent to conduct an additional scoping meeting associated with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for construction, operation and deactivation of a proposed Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility (Facility) to be constructed at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. The NRC published a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility (NOI) in the
The public scoping process required by the National Environmental Policy Act began with publication of the NOI in the
The public scoping meetings are to assist the NRC in defining the appropriate scope of the EIS, including the significant environmental issues to be addressed. The meeting dates, times and locations are listed below. Prior to the Scoping Meetings, NRC staff will be available to informally discuss the MOX project and answer questions in an “open house” format.
To register for a meeting, to provide comments or suggestions on the scope of the EIS, or to make requests for special arrangements to enable participation at scoping meetings (e.g., an interpreter for the hearing impaired), please contact: Tim Harris at (301) 415-6613 or Betty Garrett at (301) 415-5808.
For general or technical information pertaining to the proposed MOX Facility, please contact: Tim Johnson at (301) 415-7299 or Andrew Persinko at (301) 415-6522. For general information on the NRC environmental review process, please contact: Jennifer Davis at (301) 415-5874 or Tim Harris at (301) 415-6613.
Information and documents associated with the MOX project, including the Duke Cogema Stone & Webster Environmental Report submitted in December 2000, and the Construction Authorization Request, may be obtained from the internet on NRC's MOX web page:
One purpose of the NOI and this notice is to encourage public involvement in the EIS process and to solicit public comments on the proposed scope and content of the EIS.
Scoping is an early and open process designed to determine the range of actions, alternatives, and potential impacts to be considered in the EIS, and to identify the significant issues related to the proposed action. It is intended to solicit input from the public and other agencies so that the analysis can be more clearly focused on issues of genuine concern. The principal goals of the scoping process are to:
Written comments may be mailed to Mike Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop T6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555. Interested parties may e-mail comments to
Following the scoping meetings, NRC will make the scoping summaries available for public review through our electronic reading room:
The EIS for the MOX Facility will be prepared according to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and NRC's NEPA Implementing Regulations (10 CFR part 51).
The draft EIS is scheduled to be published in February 2002. A 45-day comment period on the draft EIS is planned, and public meetings to receive comments will be held approximately three weeks after distribution of the draft EIS. Availability of the draft EIS, the dates of the public comment period, and information about the public meetings will be announced in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Appointment to Performance Review Boards for Senior Executive Service.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has announced the following appointments to the NRC Performance Review Boards.
The following individuals are appointed as members of the NRC Performance Review Board (PRB) responsible for making recommendations to the appointing and awarding authorities on performance appraisal ratings and performance awards for Senior Executives and Senior Level Service members:
The following individuals will serve as members of the NRC PRB Panel that was established to review appraisals and make recommendations to the appointing and awarding authorities for NRC PRB members:
All appointments are made pursuant to Section 4314 of Chapter 43 of Title 5 of the United States Code.
April 11, 2001.
Carolyn J. Swanson, Secretary, Executive Resources Board, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415-7530.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
This gives notice of positions placed under Schedule C in the excepted service, as required by Civil Service Rule VI, Exceptions from the Competitive Service.
Pam Shivery, Director, Washington Service Center (202) 606-1015.
The Office of Personnel Management published its last monthly notice updating appointing authorities established or revoked under the Excepted Service provisions of 5 CFR 213 on February 22, 2001 (66 FR 11189). Individual authorities established under Schedule C between January 1, 2001, and January 31, 2001, appear in the listing below. Future notices will be published on the fourth Tuesday of each month, or as soon as possible thereafter. A consolidated listing of all authorities as of June 30, is published each year.
The following Schedule C authorities were established during January 2001:
Special Assistant to the Staff Director. Effective January 18, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Business Liaison. Effective January 8, 2001.
Deputy Director of Advance to the Deputy Chief of Staff for External Affairs. Effective January 8, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Public Affairs and Press Secretary. Effective January 11, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Business Liaison. Effective January 11, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Director of Public Affairs and Press Secretary. Effective January 12, 2001.
Confidential Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for External Affairs. Effective January 16, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Domestic Operations. Effective January 16, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Director, White House Liaison. Effective January 17, 2001.
Senior Advisor to the Director, Secretariat for Electronic Commerce. Effective January 18, 2001.
Confidential Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Constituent Relations. Effective January 2, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary. Effective January 12, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Management and Administration. Effective January 12, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Management and Administration. Effective January 12, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. Effective January 12, 2001.
Special Assistant for Communications to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. Effective January 12, 2001.
Director of Communications to the Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Effective January 12, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Policy. Effective January 17, 2001.
Staff Assistant to the Director of Executive Scheduling. Effective January 4, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Effective January 2, 2001.
Senior Congressional Liaison Officer to the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs. Effective January 11, 2001.
Communications Specialist to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Effective January 2, 2001.
Communication Specialist to the Assistant Administrator for Water. Effective January 2, 2001.
Attorney-Advisor (Civil Rights) to the Chairwoman. Effective January 18, 2001.
Executive Assistant to a Member, Farm Credit Administration Board. Effective January 11, 2001.
Confidential Assistant to the Deputy to the Chairman. Effective January 12, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Chairman. Effective January 19, 2001.
Confidential Assistant to a Commissioner. Effective January 19, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Executive Assistant for Governmental Relations. Effective January 16, 2001.
Staff Assistant to a Member. Effective January 18, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Executive Assistant for Governmental Relations. Effective January 18, 2001.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Congressional and White House Liaison. Effective January 2, 2001.
Confidential Assistant to a Member (Commissioner), Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Effective January 17, 2001.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., P.218.
Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.
Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in writing by April 30, 2001, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549-0609, and serve a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) at the address(es) specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in the matter. After April 30, 2001, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.
The Southern Company (“Southern”), 270 Peachtree Street, NW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, a registered public utility holding company, has filed a declaration under sections 6(a), 7 and 12(e) and rules 54, 62(d) and 65 of the Act.
Southern proposes, from time to time through May 22, 2011, to grant Incentive Stock Options, Nonqualified Stock Options, Stock Appreciation Rights, Restricted Stock, Restricted Stock Units, Performance Shares, Performance Units and Cash Based Awards and to issue up to 30 million shares of its common stock, par value $5.00 per share (“Common Stock”), under the Southern Company Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (“Plan”).
A committee appointed by the Board of Directors of Southern (“Committee”) will administer the Plan. The composition of the Committee must comply with section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Internal Revenue Code”). Currently, the Committee consists of two directors of Southern who are not employees of Southern or its subsidiaries. The Committee will have exclusive authority to interpret the Plan. The Plan will terminate May 22, 2011, unless terminated sooner by the Board of Directors.
Southern states the purpose of the Plan is to optimize the profitability and growth of Southern through annual and long-term incentives that are consistent with Southern's goal and that link the personal interest of participants to those of Southern's stockholders, to provide participants with an incentive for excellence in individual performance, to promote teamwork among participants and to provide flexibility to Southern in its ability to motivate, attract and retain key individuals with outstanding ability.
The Plan permits the Committee to grant, in its discretion, Incentive Stock Options and Nonqualified Stock Options (collectively, “Stock Options”), Stock Appreciation Rights, Restricted Stock, Restricted Stock Units, Performance Shares, Performance Units and/or Cash Based Awards to directors of Southern or certain of its subsidiaries and those employees, as determined by the Committee, who have a significant impact on the long-term performance and success of Southern. The Committee has determined that the approximate number of participants under the Plan initially will be 24,000, but may be changed at the Committee's discretion. Southern states that each award made under the Plan will be evidenced by an award agreement.
Nonqualified Stock Options entitle the participant to purchase up to the number of shares of Common Stock specified in the grant at a specified price (“Option Price”). The Committee will
Stock Options designated by the Committee as Incentive Stock Options are intended to comply with section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code. They will be granted only to employees and entitle the participant to purchase the specified number of shares of Common Stock at the Option Price not to more than 10 years from the date of the grant. The aggregate fair market value of Common Stock determined at the time of each grant for which any participant may vest in Incentive Stock Options under the Plan for any calendar year shall not exceed $100,000.
Stock Options must be paid in full when exercised by the participant. The Committee, in its discretion, may permit the Option Price to be paid in whole or in part through the transfer to Southern of shares of Common Stock previously acquired by the participant.
Stock Appreciation Rights are rights that, when exercised, entitle the participant to the appreciation in value of the number of shares of Common Stock specified in the grant, from the date granted to the date exercised. The exercised Stock Appreciation Right may be paid in cash and/or Common Stock, as determined by the Committee. Stock Appreciation Rights may be granted in the sole discretion of the Committee in conjunction with an Incentive Stock Option or Nonqualified Stock Option. Stock Appreciation Rights may not be exercised more than 10 years after the date granted.
Restricted Stock awards are grants of shares of Common Stock that are held by Southern for the benefit of the participant without payment of consideration by the participant. There are restrictions or conditions on the participant's right to transfer or sell such shares. The Committee will establish a restriction period for each Restricted Stock award made. Subject to the terms of an award agreement, the participant may be entitled to dividends paid on the Restricted Stock and may have the right to vote such shares.
Restricted Stock Units are awards that entitle the participant to the value of shares of Common Stock at the end of a designated restriction period. Except for voting rights, Restricted Stock Units may have all of the characteristics of Restricted Stock, as described above. Restricted Stock Units may be paid out in cash or shares.
Performance Units, Performance Shares, Performance Stock Awards and Cash-Based Awards (collectively, “Performance Awards”) are awards that entitle the participant to a level of compensation based on the achievement of pre-established performance goals over a designated performance period. Performance Units shall have an initial value determined by the Committee. The value of a Performance Share will be the fair market value of Common Stock on the grant date. A Cash-Based Award will have the value determined by the Committee. At the beginning of the performance period the Committee will determine the number of Performance Units or Performance Shares awarded or the target value of Cash-Based Awards; the performance period; and the performance goals. At the end of the performance period, the Committee will determine the degree of achievement of the performance goals which will determine the level of payout. The Committee may set performance goals using any combination of the following criteria: (1) Earnings per share; (2) net income or net operating income (before or after taxes and before or after extraordinary items); (3) return measures (including, but not limited to, return on assets, equity or sales); (4) cash flow return on investments which equals net cash flows divided by owners equity; (5) earnings before or after taxes; (6) gross revenues; (7) gross margins; (8) share price (including, but not limited to, growth measures and total shareholder return); (9) economic value added, which equals net income or net operating income minus a charge for use of capital; (10) operating margins; (11) market shares; (12) revenue growth; (13) capacity utilization; (14) increase in customer base; (15) environmental health and safety; (16) diversity; and (17) quality.
Performance Awards may be paid in cash or shares of Common Stock or a combination of cash and shares of Common Stock, in the Committee's discretion.
The maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be granted in the form of Stock Options, under any award granted in any one fiscal year to any one single participant, shall be 5,000,000 shares.
The maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be granted in the form of Stock Appreciation Rights, under any award granted in any one fiscal year to any one participant, shall be 5,000,000 shares.
The maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be granted with respect to awards of Restricted Stock granted in any one fiscal year to any one participant shall be 1,000,000 shares.
The maximum amount payable (determined at the end of the applicable restriction period) in any one fiscal year to any one participant for Restricted Stock Units is the higher of $10,000,000 or 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock.
The maximum amount payable (determined as of the end of the applicable performance period) with respect to an award of Performance Shares granted in any one fiscal year to any one participant shall be equal to the larger of $10,000,000 or 1,000,000 shares.
The maximum amount payable (determined as of the end of the applicable performance period) with respect to Performance Units or Cash-Based Awards awarded in any one fiscal year to any one participant shall be $10,000,000.
If a change in control occurs all Stock Options, Stock Appreciation Rights, Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units will vest immediately and if the Plan is not continued or replaced with a comparable plan, pro-rata payments of all Performance Awards at not less than target-level performance will be paid.
The Board of Directors of Southern has adopted the Plan, subject to stockholder approval. Approval of the Plan requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of Common Stock represented in person or by proxy at the annual meeting.
Southern further proposes to solicit proxies from its stockholders and to submit the Plan for consideration and action by its stockholders at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held on May 23, 2001. Southern may employ professional proxy solicitors to assist in the solicitation of proxies and pay their expenses and compensation for such assistance which, it is estimated, will not exceed $30,000.
Southern proposes to mail the notice of meeting, statement relating to the Plan, proxy statement and proxy to its shareholders for the annual meeting, and has filed its proxy solicitation materials relating to the Plan. Southern requests that an order authorizing the solicitation of proxies be issued as soon as practicable under rule 62(d). It appears to the Commission that Southern's declaration as it pertains to the proposed solicitation of proxies should be permitted to become effective immediately under rule 62(d).
The proposed transactions are subject to rule 54. Southern currently meets all the conditions of rule 53(a) under the Act, except for clause (1). Southern
Southern states that, as of December 31, 1995, the most recent fiscal year preceding the April 1 Order, Southern's consolidated capitalization consisted of 49.3% equity (including mandatorily redeemable preferred securities) and 50.7% debt (including $1.68 billion of long-term, nonrecourse debt and short-term debt related to EWGs and FUCOs). As of December 31, 2000, that ratio was 58.1% equity
Fees, commissions and expenses to be incurred in connection with the proposed transactions are estimated to be $675,000. Southern states that no state or federal commission, other than this Commission, has jurisdiction over the proposed transactions.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”).
Notice of Application for an Order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act” or “Act”) granting exemptions from the provisions of section 2(a)(32), and 27(i)(2)(A) and Rule 22c-1 thereunder.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants, c/o Patrick W. Garcy, Jackson National Life Insurance Company of New York, One Corporate Way, Lansing, Michigan 48951.
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. Jackson National NY is a stock life insurance company organized under the laws of the State of New York. Jackson National NY serves as depositor of Separate Account I-NY. Jackson National NY may in the future establish one or more Future Accounts for which it will serve as depositor.
2. Separate Account I-NY was established in 1997 as a segregated asset account of Jackson National NY. The Separate Account is registered with the Commission as a unit investment trust investment under the Act. The Separate Account will fund the variable benefits available under the Contracts. Units of interest in Separate Account I-NY under the Contracts they fund will be registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”). Jackson National NY may in the future issue Future Contracts through Separate Account I-NY or through Future Accounts. That portion of the assets of Separate Account I-NY that is equal to the reserves and other Contract liabilities with respect to Separate Account I-NY
3. JNLD is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Jackson National Life Insurance Company, an affiliate of Jackson National NY, and will be the principal underwriter of Separate Account I-NY and distributor of the Contracts. JNLD is registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a member of the NASD. The Contracts will be offered through unaffiliated broker-dealers who have entered into agreements with JNLD. JNLD, or any successor entity, may act as principal underwriter for any Future Accounts and distributor for any Future Contracts issued by Jackson National NY in the future. A successor entity also may act as principal underwriter for Separate Account I-NY.
4. The Contract is an individual deferred variable and fixed annuity contract. The Contract may be issued under a qualified plan, specially sponsored program or an individual retirement annuity or as a non-qualified contract. The Contract is designed to provide for the accumulation of assets and for income through the investment, during an accumulation phase. Premium payments may be made any time during the accumulation phase. The minimum initial premium is $5,000 under most circumstances and $2,000 for a qualified plan contract. Additional premiums of at least $500 can be made ($50 under the automatic investment plan).
5. The Contracts permit premiums to be allocated to guaranteed accounts of Jackson National NY (“Guaranteed Accounts”). The Guaranteed Accounts are not registered with the Commission.
6. Separate Account I-NY currently is divided into 37 accounts (“Investment Divisions”), each of which will be available under the Separate Account I-NY Contracts. Each Investment Division will invest in a series of JNL Series Trust (“Trust”) or JNLNY Variable Fund LLC (“Fund”). The Investment Divisions and the Guaranteed Accounts will comprise the initial “Investment Options” under the Contract. Not all Investment Divisions may be available. Jackson National NY, at a later date, may determine to create additional Investment Divisions of Separate Account I-NY to invest in any additional series, or other such underlying portfolios or other investments as may now or in the future be available. Similarly, Investment Division(s) of Separate Account I-NY may be combined or eliminated from time to time.
8. The Contract provides for transfer privileges among Investment Divisions and the Guaranteed Accounts, dollar cost averaging, rebalancing, and other features. The following charges are assessed under the Contract: (i) annual asset-based charges (applied to the daily net asset value of the Investment Divisions) as follows: 1.25% for mortality and expense risks, plus 0.15% for administration expenses; (ii) a $30 contract maintenance charge per year during the accumulation phase; (iii) a transfer fee of $25 for each transfer in excess of 15 in a Contract year; (iv) a contract enhancement charge, during the first seven years, equal to 0.425%, on an annual basis, of amounts into the Investment Divisions (the charge assessed against the Guaranteed Accounts will result in a credited interest rate of .425% less than the annual credited interest rate that would apply if the Contract Enhancement had not been elected); and (v) under certain circumstances, a recapture charge applies if an owner makes a withdrawal, exercises the free look provision or receives income payments. The Trust and Fund also impose a management and administrative fee which varies depending upon which Series is selected.
9. The Contract also imposes a withdrawal charge, which starts at 7% in the first year, and declines 1% a year thereafter to 0% after 7 years with a 10% free withdrawal option. The Withdrawal Charge (as a percentage of premium payments equals:
10. If the Contract Enhancement Option is elected, each time a Contract owner makes a premium payment during the first Contract year, Jackson National NY will add an additional amount to the Contract (“Contract Enhancement”). The Contract Enhancement will equal 3% of the premium payment. Jackson National NY will fund the Contract Enhancement from its general account assets. Jackson National NY will allocate the Contract Enhancements to the Guaranteed Accounts and/or Investment Divisions in the same proportion as the premium payment allocation. Jackson National NY will recapture, in accordance with the recapture charge below, Contract Enhancement only under the following circumstances: (i) If the Contract owner exercises the right to return the Contract under the free-look provision of the Contract; (ii) if a Contract owner makes a withdrawal; or (iii) if a Contract owner receives payments under an income option.
11. Applicants seek exemption pursuant to section 6(c) from sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder to the extent necessary to permit Jackson National
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 summarized above with respect to the Contracts and any Future Contracts funded by separate Account I-NY or Future Accounts, that are issued by Jackson National NY and underwritten or distributed by JNLD or Jackson National NY Broker-Dealers. Applicants state that Future Contracts funded by Separate Account I-NY or any Future Accounts will be substantially similar in all material respect to the Contracts. 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 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 any registered separate account funding variable insurance contracts or a sponsoring insurance company of such account to sell a contract funded by the registered separate account unless, among other things, 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 proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent thereof.
3. Applicants submit that the Contract Enhancement recapture provisions of the Contract would not deprive an owner of his or her proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets. Applicants state that an owner's interest in the amount of the Contract Enhancement allocated to his or her Contract value upon receipt of first year premium payments 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 Contract Enhancement is not completely vested for seven years from the receipt of the premium, in accordance with the recapture charge percentage. Until or unless the amount of any Contract Enhancement is vested, Applicants submit that Jackson National NY retains the right and interest in the Contract Enhancement amount, although not in the earnings attributable to that amount. Thus, Applicants argue that when Jackson National NY recaptures any Contract Enhancement it is simply retrieving its own assets, and because an owner's interest in the Contract Enhancement is not vested, the owner has not been deprived of a proportionate share of the Separate Account's assets,
4. In addition, with respect to Contract Enhancement recapture upon the exercise of the free-look privilege, Applicants state that it would be unfair to allow an owner exercising that privilege to retain a Contract Enhancement amount under a Contract that has been returned for a refund after a period of only a few days. Applicants state that if Jackson National NY could not recapture the Contract Enhancement, individuals could purchase a Contract with no intention of retaining it, and simply return it for a quick profit.
5. Furthermore, Applicants state that the recapture of Contract Enhancements relating to premiums made within seven years of a withdrawal of corresponding premium or the receipt of income payments is designed to provide Jackson National NY with a measure of protection. Applicants state that the risk is that an owner will make very large premiums shortly before making withdrawals or receiving income payments, thereby leaving Jackson National NY less time to recover the cost of the Contract Enhancements applied. Again, the amounts recaptured were provided by Jackson National NY from its own general account assets as a Contract Enhancement, and any gain would remain as part of the Contract's value.
6. Applicants represent that it is not administratively feasible to track the Contract Enhancement amount in the Separate Account after the Contract enhancement is applied. Accordingly, the asset based charges applicable to the Separate Account will be assessed against the entire amounts held in the Separate Account, including the Contract Enhancement. As a result, 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 Contract Enhancement.
7. Applicants represent that the Contract Enhancement will be attractive to and in the interest of investors because it will permit owners to put 103% of their first year premiums to work for them in the selected Investment Options and/or Guaranteed Accounts. Also, any earnings attributable to the Contract Enhancement will be retained by the owner, and the principal amount of the Contract Enhancement will be retained if the contingencies set forth in the application are satisfied.
8. Applicants submit that the provisions for recapture of any applicable Contract Enhancement under the Contracts do not, and any such Future Contract provisions will not, violate section 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act. Nevertheless, to avoid any uncertainties, Applicants request an exemption from those Sections, to the extent deemed necessary, to permit the recapture of any Contract Enhancement under the circumstances described herein with respect to the Contracts and any Future Contracts, without the loss of the relief from Section 27 provided by Section 27(i).
9. Section 22(c) of the 1940 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 contemplated by section 22(a) of the Act. Rule 22c-1 thereunder prohibits a registered investment company issuing any redeemable security, a person designated in such issuer's 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 rice based on the current net asset value of such security which is next computed after receipt of a tender of such security for redemption or of an order to purchase or sell such security.
10. Arguably, Jackson National NY's recapture of the Contract Enhancement 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 Separate
11. Applicants submit that their request for an order 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 expenses and maximizing the efficient use of Applicants' resources. Applicants argue 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 their application described herein. Applicants submit that having them file additional applications would impair their ability effectively to take advantage of business opportunities as they arise. Further, Applicants state that if they were required repeatedly to seek exemptive relief with respect to the same issues addressed in the application, investors would not receive any benefit or additional protection thereby.
Applicants submit, based on the grounds summarized above, that their exemptive request meets 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.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”.
The Section 26 Applicants request an order pursuant to section 26(b) of the 1940 Act to permit certain registered unit investment trusts to substitute Class A shares of the MetLife Stock Index Portfolio (the “Replacement Portfolio”) of the Metropolitan Series for shares of the Westpeak Stock Index Series (the “Substituted Portfolio,” and together with the Replacement Portfolio, the “Portfolios”) of the Zenith Fund currently held by those unit investment trusts. The Section 17(b) Applicants request an order pursuant to section 17(b) of the 1940 Act to permit certain in-kind transactions in connection with the substitution.
New England Life Insurance Company (“NELICO”), New England Variable Life Separate Account (“Separate Account 1”), Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”), The New England Variable Account (“Separate Account 2”) (together with Separate Account 1, the “Separate Accounts”), the Metropolitan Series Fund, Inc. (“Metropolitan Series”), and the New England Zenith Fund (the “Zenith Fund”). NELICO, MetLife, and the Separate Accounts are collectively referred to herein as the “Section 26 Applicants.” The Section 26 Applicants, the Metropolitan Series, and the Zenith Fund are collectively referred to herein as the “Section 17(b) Applicants” or “Applicants.”
The application (“Application”) was filed on December 19, 2000 and amended and restated on April 5, 2001.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 26, 2001, 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 may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants, c/o Thomas Lenz, Esq. and Marie C. Swift, Esq., New England Life Insurance Company, 501 Boylston Street, Massachusetts 02116. Copy to Stephen E. Roth, Esq. and Kimberly J. Smith, Esq., Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, 1275 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004-2415.
Harry Eisenstein, Senior Counsel, or Keith Carpenter, Branch Chief, Division of Investment Management, Office of Insurance Products, 202-942-0670.
The following is a summary of the application; the complete application may be obtained for a fee from the Public Reference Branch of the Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549 (tel. (202) 942-8090).
1. NELICO is a life insurance company that is domiciled in Massachusetts. Its operations include both life insurance and annuity products as well as financial and retirement services. As of September 30, 2000, NELICO had assets of approximately $8.1 billion. NELICO is authorized to operate as a life insurance
2. Separate Account 1 is a separate investment account of NELICO and is registered under the 1940 Act as a unit investment trust. Separate Account 1 serves as a funding vehicle for certain variable life insurance contracts issued by NELICO (collectively, “NELICO Life Contracts”). Separate Account 1 is a “separate account” as defined in Section 2(a)(37) of the 1940 Act.
3, MetLife is a life insurance company that is domiciled in New York, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc., a publicly traded company that provides insurance and financial services to individual and group customers. With approximately $301 billion of assets under management as of September 30, 2000, MetLife provides individual insurance and investment products to approximately nine million households in the United States. MetLife also provides group insurance and investment products to corporations and other institutions employing over thirty three million employees and members. MetLife operates as a life insurance company in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all provinces of Canada. MetLife is the depositor and sponsor of Separate Account 2.
4. Separate Account 2 is a separate investment account MetLife and is registered under the 1940 Act as a unit investment trust. Separate Account 2 serves as a funding vehicle for certain variable annuity contracts originally issued by New England Mutual Life Insurance Company, and subsequent to its merger with and into MetLife, by MetLife (“MetLife Va Contracts”) (together with the NELICO Life Contracts, the “Variable Contracts”). Separate Account 2 is a “separate account” as defined in Section 2(a)(37) of the 1940 Act.
5. New England Securities Corporation “NES”, serves as principal underwriter and distributor for the Variable Contracts. NES is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of NELICO. NES is registered as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. NES may enter into selling agreements with other broker-dealers registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 whose representatives are authorized by applicable law to sell the Variable Contracts.
6. The Zenith Fund is registered as an open-end management investment company under the 1940 Act (File No. 811-3728) and currently offers sixteen separate investment portfolios, one of which would be involved in the proposed substitution. The Zenith Fund issues a separate series of shares of beneficial interest in connection with each portfolio, and has registered such shares under the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”) on form N-1A (File No. 2-83538). New England Investment Management, LLC (“NEIM”) serves as the investment manager to each portfolio except the Capital Growth Series, which is managed by Capital Growth Management Limited Partnership. NEIM (formerly named TNE Advisers, Inc.) is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of NELICO. NEIM receives an investment advisory fee from each portfolio it manages. NEIM has contracted with subadvisers to make the day-to-day investment decision for all portfolios it manages. Subadvisers are compensated by NEIM, and not by the Zenith Fund. NEIM derives the amounts that it pays the subadvisers from its own investment advisory fees. Westpeak Investment Advisors, L.P. (“WIA”) is the subadviser to the Substituted Portfolio.
7. The Metropolitan Series is registered as an open-end management investment company under the 1940 Act (File No. 811-3618) and currently offers twenty separate investment portfolios, one of which would be involved in the proposed substitution. The Metropolitan Series issues a separate series of shares of beneficial interest in connection with each portfolio, and has registered such shares under the 1933 Act on Form N-1A (File No. 2-80751). MetLife serves as the investment manager to each portfolio, for which it receives investment advisory fees. MetLife is also responsible for the day-to-day investment decisions for certain portfolios it manages, including the Replacement Portfolio. MetLife has contracted with subadvisers to make the day-to-day investment decisions for other portfolios it manages. Subadvisers are compensated by MetLife, and not by the Metropolitan Series. MetLife derives the amounts that it pays the subadvisers from its own investment advisory fees.
8. The following chart sets out the investment objectives and certain policies of the Substituted Portfolio and the Replacement Portfolio, as stated in their respective prospectuses and statements of additional information.
9. The following chart compares the fees payable for advisory and subadvisory services for the year ending December 31, 2000, expressed as an annual percentage of average daily net assets, by the Substituted Portfolio and the Replacement Portfolio.
10. The following chart compares the total operating expenses (before and after any waivers and reimbursements) for the year ended December 31, 2000, expressed as an annual percentage of average daily net assets, of the Substituted Portfolio and the Replacement Portfolio. Neither the Substituted Portfolio nor Class A shares of the Replacement Portfolio have adopted any plan pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act.
11. Pursuant to their authority under the respective Variable Contracts and the prospectuses describing the same, and subject to the approval of the Commission under section 26(b) of the 1940 Act, NELICO and MetLife propose to substitute Class A shares of the Replacement Portfolio for shares of the Substituted Portfolio in the Separate Accounts (the “Substitution”). Following this transaction, the Separate Accounts will each have two subaccounts holding shares of the Replacement Portfolio. The Separate Accounts will each combine the two subaccounts holding shares of the Replacement Portfolio by transferring shares on the same date from one of the subaccounts holding shares of the Replacement Portfolio to the other subaccount holding shares of the Replacement Portfolio. The net effect will be to eliminate one of the subaccounts in each Separate Account. The Replacement Portfolio would receive monies or in-kind securities from the Substituted Portfolio as a result of the Substitution.
12. The Section 26 Applicants state that the investment objectives and policies of the Replacement Portfolio are substantially similar to those of the Substituted Portfolio so that Variable Contract owners will have reasonable continuity in investment and risk expectations. In addition, the Section 26 Applicants state that the types of investment advisory and administrative services provided to the Replacement Portfolio are comparable to the types of investment advisory and administrative services provided to the Substituted Portfolio.
13. The Section 26 Applicants state that the Substitution is part of efforts by NELICO and MetLife to make their Variable Contracts more efficient to administer and oversee and, thus, more cost-efficient and attractive to customers. According to the Section 26 Applicants, the Substitution reflects a determination by NELICO and MetLife that Variable Contract owners should have available under their Variable Contracts a more cost efficient mutual fund with good prospects for growth to help Variable Contract owners meet their investment goals under the Variable Contracts. In particular, the Section 26 Applicants point out that replacing the Substituted Portfolio with the Replacement Portfolio is appropriate
14. NELICO and MetLife will effect the Substitution on or about April 27, 2001 following the issuance of the requested order as follows: As of the effective date of the Substitution (“Effective Date”), shares of the Substituted Portfolio will be redeemed in cash or in-kind by NELICO and MetLife. The proceeds of such redemptions will then be used to purchase shares of the Replacement Portfolio either by cash purchases or in-kind purchases, with each subaccount of the Separate Accounts investing the proceeds of its redemption from the Substituted Portfolio in the Replacement Portfolio.
15. All redemptions of shares of the Substituted Portfolio and purchases of shares of the Replacement Portfolio will be effected in accordance with Rule 22c-1 of the 1940 Act. The Substitution will take place at relative net asset value with no change in the amount of any Variable Contract owner's contract value or death benefit or in the dollar value of his or her investments in any of the subaccounts. Variable Contract owners will not incur any additional fees or charges as a result of the Substitution, nor will their rights or NELICO's and MetLife's obligations under the Variable Contracts be altered in any way. All expenses incurred in connection with the Substitution, including legal, accounting, transactional, and other fees and expenses, including brokerage commissions, will be paid by NELICO and MetLife. In addition, the Substitution will not impose any tax liability on Variable Contract owners. The Substitution will not cause the Variable Contract fees and charges currently paid by existing Variable Contract owners to be greater after the Substitution than before the Substitution. Neither NELICO nor MetLife will exercise any right it may have under the Variable Contracts to impose restrictions on transfers under the Variable Contracts for a period of at least thirty days following the Substitution.
16. For each period (not to exceed a fiscal quarter) during the 24 months following the date of the Substitution, NELICO and MetLife will reimburse (on the last business day of any such period) any subaccount available through a Variable Contract and investing in the Replacement Portfolio such that the sum of the Replacement Portfolio operating expenses (taking into account expense waivers and reimbursements) together with subaccount expenses
In addition, for those Variable Contract owners who owned a Variable Contract for which mortality and expense risk charges are not subaccount expenses (
17. Each of NELICO and MetLife reserves the right to substitute shares of one portfolio for shares of another, under the NELICO Life Contracts and the MetLife VA Contracts, respectively, and this right has been disclosed in the prospectuses. Variable Contract owners were notified of the Application by means of a supplement to the prospectus for each of the Variable Contracts that disclose that the Section 26 Applicants intended to file the Application and seek approval for the Substitution.
18. Further, before the Effective Date, a notice (“Pre-Substitution Notice”), in the form of an additional supplement to the prospectuses for the Variable Contracts, will be mailed to Variable Contract owners setting forth the scheduled Effective Date and advising Variable Contract owners that contract values attributable to investments in the Substituted Portfolio will be transferred to the Replacement Portfolio, without charge and, when relevant, without counting toward the number of transfers permitted without charge, on the Effective Date. The Pre-Substitution Notice will state that, from the date the Application was filed with the Commission through the date 30 days after the substitution, Variable Contract owners may make a transfer of contract value from the subaccount corresponding to the Substituted Portfolio (before the Substitution) and make a transfer of contract value from the subaccount corresponding to the Replacement Portfolio (after the Substitution) to any other subaccount without charge and without those transfers counting toward the number permitted without charge under the Variable Contract (regardless of whether during the accumulation period or the annuity period). In addition, within five days after the Substitution, any Variable Contract owners who were affected by the Substitution will be sent a written notice informing them that the Substitution was carried out and advising them of their transfer rights (“Post-Substitituon Notice”).
1. Section 26(b) of the 1940 Act prohibits any depositor or trustee of a unit investment trust that invests exclusively in the securities of a single issuer from substituting the securities of another issuer without the approval of the Commission. Section 26(b) provides that such approval shall be granted by order of the Commission, if the evidence establishes that the substitution is consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes of the 1940 Act.
2. Section 26(b) was intended to provide for Commission scrutiny of proposed substitutions which could, in effect, force shareholders dissatisfied with the substitute security to redeem their shares, thereby possibly incurring a loss of the sales load deducted from initial purchase payments, an additional sales load upon reinvestment of the
3. The Section 26 Applicants assert that the replacement of the Substituted Portfolio with the Replacement Portfolio is consistent with the protection of Variable Contract owners and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act and, thus, meets the standards necessary to support an order pursuant to section 26(b) of the 1940 Act. The Section 26 Applicants contend that the investment objectives, policies, and strategies of the Replacement Portfolio are substantially comparable to those of the Substituted Portfolio.
4. NEIM currently serves as investment adviser for the Substituted Portfolio. Investment management decisions for the Substituted Portfolio are made by WIA in its capacity as subadviser. Prior to August 1, 1993, Back Bay Advisors served as subadviser to the Substituted Portfolio. The investment adviser for the Replacement Portfolio is MetLife, who also oversees the daily investment management decisions. Effective May 1, 2000, NEIM, which will have been renamed MetLife Advisers, LLC, will become the investment adviser for the Replacement Portfolio, and MetLife will become the subadviser.
5. The Section 26 Applicants state that the Replacement Portfolio had significantly more assets as of December 31, 2000 as compared to the Substituted Portfolio, which has not gathered as many assets as expected by NELICO and MetLife. The Section 26 Applicants state that the Replacement Portfolio, accordingly, benefits from greater economies of scale. Further, the expense ratio for the Replacement Portfolio as of December 31, 2000 was lower than the expense ratio for the Substituted Portfolio. The Section 26 Applicants state that, since both portfolios hold all 500 securities in the S&P Index in the same proportion as the index, the respective expense ratios of the portfolios are the primary cause of tracking error (
6. The following table compares the respective asset levels and expense ratios of the two portfolios as of December 31, 2000. The table also compares performance data as of December 31, 2000 for the two portfolios as well as for the S&P 500 Index.
7. Apart from the replacement of the underlying investment vehicle, the rights of the Variable Contract owners and the obligations of NELICO and MetLife under the Variable Contracts would not be altered by the Substitution except, of course, that Variable Contract owners will not have the right to allocate contract value to subaccounts that invest in the Substituted Portfolio. Variable Contract owners will not incur any additional tax liability as a result of the Substitution. NELICO and MetLife will bear the costs of any legal or accounting fees of the Substitution and transactional expenses, including brokerage commissions, in liquidating or transferring the assets of the Substituted Portfolio and purchasing shares of the Replacement Portfolios to be able to make payment to the Separate Accounts in connection with the Substitution.
8. From the date the Application is filed with the Commission to the date 30 days after the Effective Date, Variable Contract owners will have the right to make a transfer of contract value from the subaccounts invested in the Substituted Portfolio (before the Substitution) and to make a transfer of contract value from the subaccount corresponding to the Replacement Portfolio (after the Substitution) to any other subaccount without charge and without those transfers counting toward the number permitted under the Variable Contracts (regardless of whether during the accumulation period or the annuity period). Each Variable Contract owner has received a prospectus supplement regarding the Substitution and will, prior to the Effective Date, receive a prospectus for the Replacement Portfolio. A Pre-
9. The Section 26 Applicants note that, in accordance with the terms of each of the Variable Contracts, no sales charges or surrender charges will apply to transfers in connection with the Substitution, and NELICO and MetLife represent that no such charge shall be imposed. In addition, within five days after the Substitution, any Variable Contract owners who were affected by the Substitution will be sent a Post-Substitution Notice informing them that the Substitution was carried out and advising them of their transfer rights. The Section 26 Applicants assert that the procedures to be implemented are sufficient to assure that each Variable Contract owner's cash values immediately after the Substitution shall be equal to the cash value immediately before the Substitution, and that the Substitution will not affect the value of the interests of those owners of other NELICO and MetLife variable contracts (other than the Variable Contracts) who currently have contract value allocated to any of the portfolios of the Zenith Fund or Metropolitan Series.
10. Any in-kind redemptions and purchases for purposes of the Substitution will be effected in a manner consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Substituted Portfolio and the Replacement Portfolio. MetLife will review the securities holdings of the Substituted Portfolio and determine which portfolio holdings of the Substituted Portfolio would be suitable investments for the Replacement Portfolio in the overall context of such portfolio's investment objectives and policies and consistent with its management of the Replacement Portfolio. The Section 17(b) Applicants state that securities to be paid out as redemption proceeds and subsequently contributed to the Replacement Portfolio to effect the contemplated in-kind purchases of shares will be valued based on the normal valuation procedures of the redeeming and purchasing Portfolios. The redeeming and purchasing values will be the same. Consistent with Rule 17a-7(d) under the 1940 Act, no brokerage commissions, fees or other remuneration will be paid in connection with the in-kind transactions.
11. Section 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the 1940 Act generally prohibit any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of an affiliated person, from selling any security or other property to such registered investment company and from purchasing any security or other property from such registered investment company. NELICO and MetLife anticipate that the Substitution will be done by redeeming shares of the Substituted Portfolio in-kind rather than in cash and then using those assets to purchase shares of the Replacement Portfolio. Redemptions and purchases in-kind involve the purchase of property from a registered investment company and the sale of property to a registered investment company by NELICO and MetLife, each an affiliated person of those investment companies.
12. Pursuant to section 17(a)(1) of the 1940 Act, the section 17(b) Applicants may be considered affiliates of one another based upon the definition of “affected person” under section 2(a)(3) of the 1940 Act. Because the Substitution may be effected, in part, by means of in-kind redemptions and subsequent purchases of shares, and also by means of in-kind transactions, the Substitution may be deemed to involve one or more purchases or sales of securities or property between affiliates.
13. Section 17(b) of the 1940 Act provides that the Commission may, upon application, grant an order exempting any transaction from the prohibitions of Section 17(a) if the evidence establishes that: (i) The terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (ii) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policy of each registered investment company concerned, as recited in its registration statement and records filed under the 1940 Act; and (iii) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the 1940 Act.
14. The Section 17(b) Applicants assert that the terms under which the in-kind redemptions and purchases will be effected are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person. According to the Section 17(b) Applicants, the use of in-kind redemptions of such subaccounts is intended to reduce costs and thereby benefit Variable Contract owners. The Section 17(b) Applicants further contend that the transactions will not cause Variable Contract owner interests to be diluted, and represent that the proposed transactions will take place at relative net asset value in conformity with the requirements of section 22(c) of the 1940 Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder with no change in the amount of any Variable Contract owner's contract value or death benefit or in the dollar value of his or her investment in any of the Separate Accounts. Variable Contract owners will not suffer any adverse tax consequences as a result of the Substitution. Fees and charges under the Variable Contracts will not increase because of the Substitution.
15. The Section 17(b) Applicants state that the in-kind redemptions and purchases will be transacted in a manner consistent with the policies of both the Substituted Portfolio and the Replacement Portfolio, as recited in their registration statements. According to the section 17(b) Applicants, MetLife will review the securities holdings of the Substituted Portfolio and determine which portfolio holdings of the Substituted Portfolio would be suitable investments for the Replacement Portfolio in the overall context of such Portfolio's investment objectives and policies and consistent with the management of the Replacement Portfolio.
16. The Section 17(b) Applicants assert that the Substitution, as described herein, is consistent with the general purposes of the 1940 Act as stated in the Findings and Declaration of Policy in Section 1 of the 1940 Act and that the proposed transactions do not present any of the conditions or abuses that the 1940 Act was designed to prevent. The Section 17(b) Applicants represent that the securities to be paid out as redemption proceeds and subsequently contributed to the Replacement Portfolio to effect the contemplated in-kind purchases of shares will be valued based on the normal valuation procedures of the redeeming Substituted Portfolio and purchasing Replacement Portfolio. The Section 17(b) Applicants state that there will accordingly be no change in value to any Variable Contract owner as a result of the Substitution.
17. The Section 17(b) Applicants request that the Commission issue an order pursuant to section 17(b) of the 1940 Act exempting the Substitution from the provisions of section 17(a) to the extent necessary to permit the Substitution effected, in part, by means of in-kind redemptions and purchases of shares, and also by means of in-kind transactions. The Section 17(b) Applicants submit that, for all of the reasons stated above, the terms of the proposed in-kind redemptions and purchases of shares described above,
For purposes of the approval sought pursuant to section 26(b) of the 1940 Act, the Substitution described in the Application will not be completed, unless all of the following conditions are met.
1. The Commission shall have issued an order (i) approving the Substitution under section 26(b) of the 1940 Act, and (ii) exempting any in-kind redemptions and purchases from the provisions of section 17(a) of the 1940 Act as necessary to carry out the transactions described in the Application.
2. Each Variable Contract owner will have been sent (i) copy of the effective prospectus relating to the Replacement Portfolio and any necessary amendments to the prospectuses relating to the Variable Contracts, (ii) prior to the Effective Date, a Pre-Substitution Notice describing the terms of the Substitution and the rights of the Variable Contract owners in connection with the Substitution, and (iii) if affected by the Substitution, a Post-Substitution Notice within five days after the Substitution informing them that the Substitution was carried out and advising them of their transfer rights.
3. NELICO and MetLife shall have satisfied themselves that (i) the Variable Contracts allow the substitution of portfolios in the manner contemplated by the Substitution and related transactions described herein, (ii) the transactions can be consummated as described in this Application under applicable insurance laws, and (iii) that any applicable regulatory requirements in each jurisdiction where the Variable Contracts are qualified for sale, have been complied with to the extent necessary to complete the transaction.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Nasdaq is herewith filing with the Commission a proposed rule change amending the NASD Rules to reflect certain internal changes in the Nasdaq office that will receive, acknowledge, and maintain records regarding reviews by the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council and the NASD Board of Governors. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. New language is italicized, and deletions are bracketed.
(a) No change.
(b) The issuer may initiate the Listing Council's review of any Panel Decision by making a written request within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision. Requests for review should be addressed to the Listing Council in care of the Nasdaq Office of [General Counsel]
(c) No change.
(d) The Listing Council will consider the written record and, at its discretion, hold additional hearings. Any hearing will be scheduled, to the extent practicable, within 45 days of the date that a request for review initiated by either the issuer or one or more members of the Listing Council, is made. The Listing Council may also recommend that the NASD Board of Governors (“NASD Board”) consider the matter. The record of proceedings before the Listing Council will be kept by the Nasdaq Office of [General Counsel]
(e) No change.
(a) No change.
(b) If the NASD Board conducts a discretionary review, the review generally will be based on the written record considered by the Listing Council. However, the NASD Board may, at its discretion, request and consider additional information from the issuer and/or from Nasdaq staff. Should the Board consider additional information, the record of proceedings before the NASD Board will be kept by the Nasdaq Office of [General Counsel]
(c) No change.
(d) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in
The NASD Rule 4800 Series provides procedures for the independent review of determinations that prohibit or limit the listing of an issuer's securities on the Nasdaq. Securities of issuers that do not meet the quantitative or qualitative listing standards set forth in the Rule 4000 Series are subject to delisting from, or denial of initial inclusion on, the Nasdaq. Currently, pursuant to Rule 4840, the Nasdaq Office of General Counsel receives and acknowledges requests for review of Listing Qualifications Panel Decisions. Additionally, pursuant to Rules 4840 and 4850, the Nasdaq Office of General Counsel maintains the record on review for the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council and the NASD Board. This proposed rule change gives effect to a decision by the NASD to transfer these responsibilities to a new unit with Nasdaq's Listing Qualifications Department, the Office of Appeals and Review. Accordingly,the proposed rule change modifies NASD Rules 4840(b), 4840(d), and 4850(b) to indicate that requests for review should be addressed to, and will be acknowledged by, the Nasdaq Office of Appeals and Review, and that the record on review will be maintained by the Nasdaq Office of Appeals and Review.
Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
The NASD 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.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All submissions should refer to file number SR-NASD-01-02 and should be submitted by May 2, 2001.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq filed a proposed rule change to revise the fees associated with appeals of Nasdaq listing determinations. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
(a) No change
(b) No change
(c) Within 15 calendar days of the date of the Staff Determination, but in no event after the time of the hearing, the issuer must submit a hearing fee to The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., to cover the cost of holding the hearing, as follows:
(1) where consideration is on the basis of an written submission from the issuer, $[1,400]
(2) where consideration is on the basis of an oral hearing, whether in person or by telephone, $[2,300]
(a) No change
(b) The issuer may initiate the Listing Council's review of any Panel Decision by making a written request within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision. Requests for review should be addressed to the Listing Council in care of the Nasdaq Office of General Counsel. The request will not operate as a stay of the Panel Decision. Also
(c)-(e) No change
In his filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Determinations by the Listing Qualifications Department or the Listing Investigations Department to limit or prohibit the initial or continued listing of an issuer's securities may be appealed by the issuer to the Listing Qualification Panel (the “Panel”) and thereafter to the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council (the “Listing Council”). The proposed rule change revises the current fee schedules for issuer requests for the review of listing determinations to both the Panel and the Listing Council to cover the costs associated with such review.
Currently, the fee for an appeal to the Panel based on a written submission from the issuer is $1,400, and the fee for an oral hearing before the Panel is $2,300. In addition, the fee for an appeal to the Listing Council is $1,400.
The fees associated with appeals to the Panel were last revised in 1996.
The proposed fee for an appeal to the Panel includes all costs of the Office of Listing Qualifications hearings attributable to the processing of hearing requests and the associated expenses of the Panel.
Nasdaq believes that the allocation of a large portion of the proposed fees associated with the Office of Appeals and Review and the Listing Council is appropriate because all decisions of the Panel are subject to call for review, and the Office of Appeals and Review supports the Listing Council in connection with its call for review function. Furthermore, the Listing Council sets policy applicable to all Panel decisions. For these reasons and in order to ensure that the cost for review by the Listing Council will not be so high as to effectively foreclose the opportunity for review by the Listing Council, Nasdaq believes it is appropriate to allocate a large portion of the expenses associated with the Office of Appeals and Review and the Listing Council to all issuers who request an appeal to the Panel.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(5)
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Nasdaq has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
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. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All submissions should refer to the File No. SR-NASD-01-17 and should be submitted by May 2, 2001.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
This statement amends Part S of the Statement of the Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority that covers the Social Security Administration (SSA). Chapter S4 covers the Deputy Commissioner for Systems. Notice is given that Chapter S4 is being amended to reflect the establishment of a new subchapter S4N, the Office of Information Technology Architecture with four subordinate staff offices. The new material and changes are as follows:
The Office of Information Technology Architecture (OITA) directs the design, development and maintenance of SSA's information technology architecture program and directs SSA's data base integration activities to improve the administration of SSA's Programmatic and MI/Administrative data bases and to implement modern data base management systems (DBMS) technology. The Office provides design and development support for all data base management systems used in Programmatic and MI/Administrative systems. OITA directs an on-going, comprehensive information technology architecture program to modernize the Agency's infrastructure by proposing, establishing, and implementing standards for common hardware, software and processes to ensure interoperability, minimize cost, and comply with government regulations such as the GPRA. The OITA establishes enterprise policies for the management of all hardware and software. It develops and oversees the implementation of standards, methods
The Office of Information Technology Architecture, under the leadership of the Director for Information Technology Architecture, includes:
A. The Director for Information Technology Architecture (S4N).
B. The Deputy Director for Information Technology Architecture (S4N).
C. The Immediate Office of the Office Director for Information Technology Architecture (S4N).
D. The Data Base Administration Staff (S4NA).
E. The Data Base Management Staff (S4NB).
F. The Data Recourse Management Staff (S4NC).
G. The Electronic Processing Staff (S4NE).
A. The Director for Information Technology Architecture (S4N) is directly responsible to the Deputy Commissioner, Systems for carrying out the Office of Information Technology Architecture's mission and managing its respective components.
B. The Deputy Director for Information Technology Architecture (S4N) assists the Office Director in carrying out responsibilities and performs other duties as the Office Director may prescribe.
C. The Immediate Office of the Office Director for Information Technology Architecture (S4N) provides internal operations and management analysis staff support and assistance to the Director and all of the Office of Information Technology Architecture components.
D. The Data Base Administration Staff (S4NA).
1. Responsible for data base administration and base related design and development activities for all of SSA's systems.
2. Responsible for SSA's major programmatic and administrative master files.
3. Develops data base architecture to modernize the way SSA performs its data processing functions for SSA's major programmatic and administrative master files.
4. Provides overall management and development of access to SSA's major master files.
5. Performs design, data base administration, and technical support of the major master files, and auxiliary programmatic applications files and data bases using IDMS, DB2, ORACLE and SQL/Server.
6. Directs the analyses of SSA processes and software related to data usage and administration. For example, SSA files records, data elements, etc.
7. Directs the development of project plans reflecting the tasks and schedules required to implement data base management and data administration projects as designated by SSA's Software Modernization Plan.
8. Directs the analysis and preparation of requirement statements for software and statements of work for software services in support of the SSA data base management and data administration functions.
9. Directs the evaluation of data base management packages and new technologies, for suitability, in addressing SSA's data management problems.
10. Directs the development of data storage strategies to address SSA's data usage requirements.
11. Provides the techniques to evaluate and measure the appropriate mix of hardware architectures suitable for SSA data bases (i.e., magnetic and optical direct access storage devices, mass storage, magnetic tape, etc.).
12. Plans, organizes and directs post-implementation reviews of data base integration projects to evaluate their effectiveness.
13. Serves as liaison with other SSA components and external authorities in matters pertaining to data base management and data base integration.
14. Directs the preparation of budget items describing the resource projections required to support future activities within the Staff's scope of responsibility.
15. Directs the definition of level of security and control required for protecting and monitoring access to data.
E. The Data Base Management Staff (S4NB).
1. Directs the definition of data storage architectures to support data management based upon performance characteristics and capabilities required in the SSA environment.
2. Directs the development and evaluation of implementation alternatives for each data base integration project.
3. Provides guidance and direction in the selection of the appropriate mix of commercial software packages and developmental software to satisfy data base requirements.
4. Directs the design, development (or acquisition), validation, and implementation of data base management systems and data support software.
5. Directs in the design and development of new or modified software for accessing SSA data bases and files used in ADP processes; and directs the selection and implementation of commercial packages for this purpose.
6. Directs the establishment of systems and procedures for protecting and monitoring data integrity including the establishment of data base backup and recovery methods, data access controls and audit trails.
7. Provides direction in the design, development and implementation of applications support software to facilitate interaction between data bases and applications software.
8. Directs the establishment and maintenance of support software providing data independence so that the evolution of data storage to new architectures is not disruptive to SSA's applications software.
9. Directs the design and development of data compression and data migration techniques that are consistent with the changing constraints of the SSA environment.
10. Responsible for devising, promoting, ensuring and enforcing appropriate security measures for the facility, operational activity, or both, for the defined areas of management and/or supervisory responsibility.
F. The Data Resource Management Staff (S4NC).
1. Develops and maintains the Data Resource Management System which is the official repository of data and metadata for the SSA programmatic systems.
2. Develops and maintains the Master Data Access Method (MADAM) software which manages the major programmatic master files.
3. Directs the development, implementation and maintenance of a comprehensive inventory of information (data dictionary) on SSA's systems, programs, modules, data bases, files, data groups and data elements. The information will be arranged to provide access and update capabilities.
4. Directs the development and enforcement of technical standards and data resource policies as they relate to the DRMS.
5. Directs the definition of data base access controls as well as access to data resource information by supporting
6. Provides guidance and direction in developing copy statements, subschema definitions, and reports describing the characteristics of the software and data that support SSA's mission.
7. Directs the establishment of automated documentation products and analytical products to support software engineering and data base integration.
8. Provides support and direction for the automated interface between the DRMS and other system management systems such as EDPOCS, VALUE, ASM-2, etc.
9. Provides direction in identifying techniques and tools that support data resource management as well as evaluating new data resource technology to the SSA environment.
10. Responsible for devising, promoting, ensuring and enforcing appropriate security measures for the facility, operational activity, or both, for the defined areas of management and/or supervisory responsibility.
G. The Electronic Processing Staff (S4NE).
1. Serves as the agency focal point for technologies related to document imaging, electronic document management and electronic workflow processes.
2. Directs the definition of data and image management to facilitate workflow processing and re-engineering of processes to support data management based upon performance characteristics and capabilities required in the SSA environment.
3. Directs the development and evaluation of implementation alternatives for each data base, data image and workflow process and its integration with other projects.
4. Provides guidance and direction in the selection of the appropriate commercial software packages and developmental software to satisfy data base, data image and workflow requirements.
5. Directs the design, development, acquisition, validation, and implementation of data image and workflow management systems and data support software.
6. Directs the design and development of new or modified software for document imaging and workflow processing and directs the selection and implementation of commercial packages for this purpose.
7. Directs the establishment of systems and procedures for protecting and monitoring data integrity including the establishment of data backup and recovery methods, data access controls and audit trails.
8. Provides direction in the design, development and implementation of applications support software to facilitate interaction between document imaging and workflow processing and applications software.
9. Directs the establishment and maintenance of support software providing document imaging and workflow processing so that the evolution to new architectures is not disruptive to SSA's applications software.
10. Directs the design and development of software and/or identifies commercial software that handles computer output to laser disc (COLD) applications.
11. Devises, promotes, ensures and enforces appropriate security measures for the facility, operational activity, or both, for the defined areas of management and/or supervisory responsibility.
Department of State.
Notice; change.
On December 6, 1999, Notice was published on page 68190 of the
For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Carol Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/619-6981. The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44; 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Notice of intent.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the construction and operation of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant by partially converting the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN) site in Jackson County, Alabama. The primary fuels for the proposed IGCC plant would be coal and petroleum coke. The plant would supply baseload capacity to the TVA electrical generation system to meet growing power demands. The SEIS will supplement the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) that TVA completed in 1997 on options for converting the Bellefonte facility to a fossil-fueled power plant. One of the options considered in the 1997 FEIS was an IGCC plant. The current proposed action differs from the 1997 proposed action in the extent to which the unfinished BLN would be converted to a fossil-based facility. The 1997 proposed action was for the full conversion of BLN, while the current proposed action would result in the partial conversion of BLN. Public comment is invited concerning both the scope of the SEIS and environmental issues that should be addressed in the SEIS.
Comments on the scope of the SEIS must be postmarked or e-mailed no
Written comments or e-mails on the scope of issues to be addressed in the SEIS should be sent to Charles P. Nicholson, Senior Specialist, National Environmental Policy Act, Environmental Policy and Planning, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive WT 8C, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499 (e-mail: cpnicholson@tva.gov).
Charles P. Nicholson, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive WT 8C, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499 (email: cpnicholson@tva.gov).
In 1988, TVA halted and deferred completion of BLN because TVA power system requirements grew more slowly than projected. In December 1994, the TVA Board announced that Bellefonte would not be completed as a nuclear plant without a partner to share investment and operating risk, and put further construction activities on hold until a comprehensive review of TVA's power needs was completed. This comprehensive review, known as Energy Vision 2020—Integrated Resource Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, was completed in December 1995. One of the recommendations in Energy Vision 2020 was a reiteration of the decision to not complete Bellefonte as a nuclear plant without a partner.
The short-term action plan in Energy Vision 2020 included the recommendation to convert the unfinished BLN to a fossil-fueled power plant. The analysis of this conversion is contained in TVA's 1997 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Bellefonte Conversion Project. The conversion options analyzed were a pulverized coal plant, a natural gas combined cycle plant, an IGCC plant, an IGCC plant with chemical coproduction, and a combination natural gas/IGCC plant with chemical coproduction. TVA's preferred conversion option was a natural gas combined cycle plant producing about 2,400 megawatts of electricity. TVA has not yet made a decision on the Bellefonte conversion project.
The completion of Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 in partnership with the Department of Energy (DOE) was subsequently considered in DOE's 1999 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor. TVA formally adopted DOE's EIS in accordance with Council of Environmental Quality and TVA National Environmental Policy Act procedures. DOE subsequently chose to use TVA's completed light water reactors for tritium production and not partner with TVA to complete BLN.
Under the medium electrical load growth forecast in Energy Vision 2020, TVA expected that an additional 6,250 megawatts of energy resources would be needed by 2005. TVA has completed several projects to meet this demand and has others underway. The proposed IGCC plant would further help TVA meet this demand.
TVA proposes to enter into agreements under which an IGCC plant would be built and operated at TVA's BLN site. The plant would generate about 1500 megawatts of baseload electricity and begin commercial operation in four to six years. The plant would utilize portions of the existing raw water intake, plant cooling facilities, and electrical switchyard on the Bellefonte site.
The primary fuel would be Illinois Basin coal delivered by barge. The use of petroleum coke as a fuel will also be considered. TVA would construct and operate a barge unloading facility on the adjacent Tennessee River. Two options for the startup fuel will be considered, natural gas and fuel oil. Fuel oil would be delivered to the site by barge and stored in an onsite facility. Natural gas service to the site does not presently exist, and its selection as the backup fuel would require the construction of a pipeline to connect the site with a gas supply.
The environmental and socioeconomic resources at and in the vicinity of the Bellefonte site were described in the 1997 FEIS. The description of these resources was updated in DOE's 1999 FEIS for tritium production that TVA subsequently adopted. These descriptions will be further updated in the SEIS. The SEIS will evaluate the potential impacts of constructing and operating the proposed IGCC plant on air quality, water quality, aquatic and terrestrial ecology, endangered and threatened species, wetlands, aesthetics and visual resources, noise, land use, historic and archaeological resources, and socioeconomic resources. Other issues raised during scoping will also be considered.
The 1997 FEIS evaluated two alternatives. The no action alternative was the continued deferral of BLN for its potential completion with a partner. The action alternative was the conversion of Bellefonte to one of the five types of fossil-fueled plants listed above. The current IGCC proposal will be presented as an action alternative, and the SEIS will compare its potential impacts with those of the alternatives evaluated in the 1997 FEIS.
Scoping, which is integral to the NEPA process, is a procedure that solicits public input to the EIS process to ensure that: (1) Issues are identified early and properly studied; (2) issues of little significance do not consume substantial time and effort; (3) the draft EIS is thorough and balanced; and (4) delays caused by an inadequate EIS are avoided. TVA's NEPA procedures require that the scoping process commence soon after a decision has been reached to prepare an EIS in order to provide an early and open process for determining the scope and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. The scope of alternatives and issues to be addressed in the draft SEIS will be determined from written comments received from the public by mail or e-mail, internal agency scoping, and comments received from other agencies.
Agencies expected to participate in the discussions on the SEIS include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, various state of Alabama agencies including the Department of Environmental Management, and other federal, state, and local agencies as appropriate. The identification in this notice of reasonable alternatives and environmental issues is not meant to be exhaustive or final.
The public is invited to submit written comments or e-mail comments on the scope of this SEIS no later than the date given under the
Upon consideration of the scoping comments, TVA will develop alternatives and identify important environmental issues to be addressed in the SEIS. Following analysis of the environmental consequences of the alternatives, TVA will prepare a draft SEIS for public review and comment. Notice of availability of the draft SEIS will be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
The FAA plans to convene a public meeting to solicit public views and information regarding liability and risk-sharing for commercial space launch and reentry activities. In addition to the public meeting, the FAA announces an on-line public forum on the Internet to solicit comments and information from the public. Public views obtained at the meeting and from the on-line forum will be included in a report to Congress on the appropriateness and effectiveness of current risk-sharing arrangements under law, and the need to continue or modify laws governing liability risk-sharing for commercial launches and reentries beyond December 31, 2004.
The public meeting will begin on April 25, 2001, at 9 a.m. and conclude for the day at 4:30 p.m. If necessary, the meeting will resume on April 26, 2001, at 9 a.m. and may continue through 4:30 p.m. A two-week on-line public forum will begin on April 27, 2001, at 9 a.m. EST and end on May 11, 2001, at 4:30 p.m. EST. Written comments may also be submitted to the docket through May 11, 2001. Comments submitted to the docket after May 11 will be considered and included in the report to the extent practicable; however, the FAA encourages timely submission of comments to facilitate preparation of the report.
The meeting will take place in the FAA Auditorium, located at 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 3rd floor, Washington, DC 20591. The on-line public forum can be reached by clicking the “On-Line Public Forum” hyperlink on the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation's (AST) Internet home page,
Ms Esta M. Rosenberg, Senior Attorney-Advisory, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (202) 366-9320, or Mr. Ronald K. Gress, Manager, Licensing and Safety Division, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (202) 267-7985.
Congress has directed the Secretary of Transportation to study the liability risk-sharing regime currently applicable to U.S. commercial space transportation and recommend any appropriate modifications as part of a comprehensive report. The study mandated by the Commercial Space Transportation Competitiveness Act of 2000 (referred to in this Notice as the Space Competitiveness Act), Public Law 106-405, covers a variety of issues associated with liability risk-sharing for commercial space transportation. Government agency and public views will be presented as part of the final report to Congress.
A Notice issued in the
The on-line public forum will allow electronic discussion of the issues identified for analysis by the Space Competitiveness Act. Through the Internet, a large cross-section of the interested public will be able to share views and information with each other and the FAA, and assist the FAA in compiling the range of perspectives concerning an appropriate risk-sharing regime for commercial space transportation. According to an AST report issued February 2001, “The Economic Impact of Commercial Space Transportation on the U.S. Economy,” U.S. economic activity in 1999 linked to the commercial space industry totaled over $61.3 billion. Industries enabled by commercial space transportation are not limited to launch vehicle and satellite manufacturing. They include associated consumer services such services as telecommunications, mobile data, direct-to-home television, remote sensing and related processing, as well as distribution industries. Accordingly, the interested public is not limited to launch services providers and their immediate customers but may include all persons who utilize satellite services, directly and indirectly. Through the on-line public forum, the FAA invites participation of all sectors of the interested public, including consumers.
At the public meeting and in the on-line public forum, the FAA will solicit public comments and on-line discussion on the following issues, and welcomes other related ideas and information from the public. When responding to questions posed and providing views and information, please provide specific and detailed responses along with supporting rationale (quantitative and qualitative) for your answers.
1. Could the U.S. commercial space transportation industry compete effectively against non-U.S. launch providers without the existing liability risk-sharing regime?
2. Are the liability risk-sharing regimes of other space-faring countries relevant to the competitiveness of the U.S. space transportation industry? Are there specific elements of particular foreign regimes that you believe provide advantages or benefits to entities that fall under those regimes?
3. Does holding a launch operator strictly liable for the damage or injury that results from its launch hinder the commercialization of space launch capability?
4. By treaty, the U.S. Government accepts absolute liability for damage on the ground or to aircraft in flight outside of the United States when a launch takes place from U.S. territory or facilities. Given the Government's obligations in this regard, does the existing liability risk-sharing regime
5. U.S. and foreign air carriers operating in the United States are required to maintain insurance coverage in certain minimum amounts covering liability to passengers and persons and property on the ground. For aircraft with more than 60 seats or more than 18,000 pounds of capacity, carriers must maintain third-party accident liability coverage in the minimum amount of $300,000 for any one person other than a passenger and a total of $20 million per involved aircraft for each occurrence. There is no government indemnification in the event claims exceed that amount, nor does the U.S. Government accept treaty-based liability in the event of such damage. At what stage of development and under what circumstances should the airline liability regime become a model for commercial reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) that will routinely take-off and land?
6. The Federal Government's current indemnification policy does not cover risks associated with commercial spaceport operations that do not involve launch vehicles. Do commercial spaceports require a liability risk-sharing regime comparable to that utilized for licensed launches and reentries, even when there is no vehicle-related activity taking place at the spaceport?
7. What factors should the U.S. Congress consider in determining whether to continue as-is, or modify, existing laws in terms of liability risk-sharing for commercial space launch and reentry activities?
8. What suggestions do you have for modifying the existing liability risk-sharing laws applicable to commercial launch and reentry activities?
The public can join the on-line public forum by clicking the “On-Line Public Forum” hyperlink on the AST Internet home page,
Persons wishing to present a prepared statement at the public meeting should reserve time for doing so by contacting AST directing at (202) 267-7793.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared to address operational, infrastructure, and geometrical deficiencies along I-15 from 31st Street to 2700 North in Weber County, Utah.
Gregory Punske, P.E., Project Development Engineer, FHWA, Utah Division, 2520 West 4700 South, Suite 9-A, Salt Lake City, UT 84118, Telephone: (801) 963-0182; or Rex Harris, Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), 169 North Wall Avenue, Ogden, UT 84412, Telephone: (801) 399-5921, extension 267.
The FHWA in cooperation with the UDOT will prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a proposed action to address operational, infrastructure, and geometrical deficiencies along I-15 from 31st Street to 2700 North in Weber County, Utah, approximately 13.7 km (8.5 miles) in length. The proposed study intends to consider no-build, transit, transportation system management, and build alternatives to address the need for improvements along this interstate corridor. Build alternatives will consider upgrading the existing facility. The project limits for the build alternatives are expected to be SR-79 (31st Street in Ogden) as the southern terminus and SR-134 (2700 North in North Ogden) as the northern terminus.
A project steering committee and also an advisory committee will be established to encourage early and on-going participation from interested parties. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comment will be sent to the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and the private organizations and citizens who have expressed or are known to have an interest in this project. A public scoping meeting will be held. Other public meetings to assist in project scoping efforts are also planned. Additionally, a public hearing will be held. Public notice will be published giving the time and place of these meetings and hearing. The draft environmental document will be available for public and agency review and comment before the public hearing.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments, and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to FHWA at the address provided above.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Denial of motor vehicle defect petition.
This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a September 13, 2000 petition submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162 by Beverly Mulder, requesting that the agency commence a proceeding to determine the existence of a defect related to motor vehicle safety in certain multi-axle trailers manufactured by the Fruehauf Trailer Corporation (Fruehauf) in 1995 and 1996. After reviewing the petition and other information, NHTSA has concluded that further expenditure of the agency's investigative resources on the issues raised by the petition does not appear to be warranted. The agency accordingly has denied the petition.
Mr. Richard Boyd, Chief, Vehicle Control Division, Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), Office of Safety Assurance, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
On September 13, 2000, Ms. Beverly Mulder submitted a petition requesting that the agency investigate certain alleged defects in multi-axle trailers that were custom-built for the petitioner by Fruehauf in late 1995 and early 1996. The petitioner owns four of these trailers. The petitioner alleged that the trailers “sway violently side to side when they are loaded. They cannot be held on the road when there is a curve and when there is a heavy side wind. The units will be blown off the road or across the road if hit with (sic) by a wind gust.”
The petitioner had four trailers custom-built by Fruehauf in anticipation of obtaining a contract to haul drywall. The trailers were purchased through Michigan Trailer Sales (MTS) located in Grand Haven, Michigan, Two trailers were purchased in late 1995 and the remaining two were purchased in 1996. ODI was unable to contact Fruehauf directly due to bankruptcy and judicial dissolution in 1998. However, information obtained by ODI indicates that only six trailers were built to these particular technical specifications.
The trailers are referred to as “sled six axle trailers.” They are approximately 50 feet long and 102 inches wide. The units have six axles, with the front four axles using a Granning Air Ride Air Lift Suspension system. (The vast majority of trailers used in Class 8 tractor/trailer combinations are semi-trailers, with only two axles, which are located at the rear of the vehicle.) The trailers were built to carry 90,000 to 95,000 pounds and, therefore, require a special permit to operate when fully loaded, since the maximum load for a tractor/trailer combination in the United States is normally 80,000 pounds. The trailers were originally intended to carry loads of drywall stacked 13.5 feet high. This would result in a relatively high center of gravity.
Ms. Mulder and her husband alleged that the trailers do not handle well. Specifically, she stated that “the loads shift and that the trailers wobble and lean dangerously going into curves, any amount of wind will blow them off the road altogether.” There are no allegations of any crashes as a result of this problem.
ODI has obtained and reviewed numerous written communications between the Mulders and MTS concerning the handling allegations, demands for corrective action, and demands that the trailers be re-purchased. NHTSA's authority lies with Fruehauf, the trailer manufacturer. We have no authority over disputes with dealers or buy-back issues.
During the course of our investigation we found that the manufacturer of the subject trailers, Fruehauf, was judicially dissolved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on October 27, 1998. Although Fruehauf sold its domestic trailer manufacturing and domestic sales and distribution business to Wabash National Corporation (Wabash) in the course of the bankruptcy proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court's Order of May 26, 1999, declared that Wabash was not to be subject to any claims asserting successor liability for products made by Fruehauf. Therefore, there is no entity to which NHTSA could issue a recall order, even if a safety-related defect were found to exist.
In view of the fact that it would require extensive resources to fully evaluate the alleged problem, the fact that there are very few vehicles at issue, and the fact that we would be unable to compel any entity to conduct a recall even if we were to determine that a defect exists, further expenditure of the agency's investigative resources on the allegations in the petition is not warranted. Therefore, the petition is denied.
49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegation of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) have filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 subpart F—
UP and BNSF have certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead traffic moving over the line; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment or discontinuance shall be protected under
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to applicants' representatives: James P. Gatlin, General Attorney, Union Pacific Railroad Company, 1416 Dodge Street, Room 830, Omaha, NE 68179; and Sarah
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
UP has filed an environmental report which addresses the abandonment's effects, if any, on the environment or historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by April 16, 2001. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423) or by calling SEA, at (202) 565-1545. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by UP's filing of a notice of consummation by April 11, 2002, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
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 regulation, Regulations Under Tax Conventions—Ireland (26 CFR Part 513).
Written comments should be received on or before June 11, 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 income tax treaty should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 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 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, regulation section 601.601, Rules and Regulations.
Written comments should be received on or before June 11, 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 section should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room
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 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, IA-96-88 (TD 8435), Certain Elections Under the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 and the Redesignation of Certain Other Temporary Elections Regulations (§ 301.9100-8).
Written comments should be received on or before June 11, 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 Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 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.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
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-251703-96 (TD 8813), Residence of Trusts and Estates—7701(§ 301.7701-7).
Written comments should be received on or before June 11, 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 Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 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 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 existing final regulations, LR 2013 (TD 7533), Disc Rules on Procedure and Administration; Rules on Export Trade Corporations, and EE-155-78 (TD 7896), Income From Trade Shows (§§ 1.6071-1 and 1.6072-2).
Written comments should be received on or before June 11, 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 regulations should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 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.
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 existing regulations, 26 CFR 31.6001-1, Records in general; 26 CFR 31.6001-2 Additional Records under FICA; 26 CFR 31.6001-3, Additional records under Railroad Retirement Tax Act; 26 CFR 31.6001-5, Additional records in connection with collection of income tax at source on wages; 26 CFR 31.6001-6, Notice by District Director requiring returns, statements, or the keeping of records.
Written comments should be received on or before June 11, 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 sections should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 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 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, regulation section 1.6001-1, Records.
Written comments should be received on or before June 11, 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 section should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, Internal Revenue Service, room 5242, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
The recordkeeping burden in this regulation is already reflected in the burden of all tax forms.
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 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 Form 8396, Mortgage Interest Credit.
Written comments should be received on or before June 11, 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 form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, (202) 622-6665, 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 New York Metro Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held in Brooklyn, New York.
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 17, 2001.
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 Thursday, May 17, 2001 6:00 p.m. to 9:20 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 9:20 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 2001. 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.
An open meeting of the New York Metro Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held in Manhattan, New York.
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 10, 2001.
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 Thursday, May 10, 2001, 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Norman Thomas High School, 111 East 33rd Street—at Park Ave., Manhattan, NY. If you are in need of a hearing impaired or a language interpreter or for more information, please contact 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 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 10, 2001. 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.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs
Notice
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 11, 2001.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20S52), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501 “ 3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the
VA's regulation that effectuates external civil rights requirements is contained in 38 CFR, part 18. The regulation provides that the responsible agency official or designee shall, from time to time, review the practices of recipients to determine whether they are complying with the equal opportunity provisions. VA Form 20-8734 is used to gather information from post-secondary proprietary schools below college level. The information is used to assure that VA-funded programs are in compliance with equal opportunity laws. VA Form 20-8734a, is used to gather information from students and instructors at post-secondary proprietary schools below college level. The information is used to assure that participants have equal access to equal treatment in VA-funded programs.
The forms are used by Education Compliance Survey Specialists in VA field stations during regular scheduled educational compliance survey visits, as well as during investigations of equal opportunity complaints, to identify areas which may indicate whether there is disparate treatment of members of protected groups. The information obtained on these forms is analyzed and maintained on file at the regional office. If this information were not collected, VA would be unable to carry out the civil rights enforcement responsibilities established in the DOJ's guidelines and VA's regulations.
National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 11, 2001.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Joycelyn Hearn, National Cemetery Administration (402B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail comments to:
Joycelyn Hearn at (202) 273-5181 or FAX (202) 273-6695.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, NCA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of NCA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NCA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management (OA&MM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 11, 2001.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Donald E. Kaliher, Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management (95A), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail
Donald E. Kaliher at (202) 273-8819.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OA&MM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OA&MM's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OA&MM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management (OA&MM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 11, 2001.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Donald E. Kaliher, Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management (95A), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail
Donald E. Kaliher at (202) 273-8819.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OA&MM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OA&MM's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OA&MM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management (OA&MM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 11, 2001.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Donald E. Kaliher, Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management (95A), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail
Donald E. Kaliher at (202) 273-8819.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OA&MM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OA&MM's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OA&MM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C., 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before May 11, 2001.
Denise McLamb, Information Management Service (045A4), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8030 or FAX (202) 273-5981 or e-mail to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-7316. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0092” in any correspondence.
Women's Progress Commemoration Commission.
Meeting notice.
Monday, April 30, 2001; Noon to 6 p.m.
The meeting site is the Allegro Hotel, 171 W. Randolph Street, Chicago, IL 60601.
The meeting is open to the public.
To hear testimony regarding an appropriate process for designating women's history sites and for raising public awareness about the sites across the country.
For further information, contact Beth Newburger, Executive Director of the Women's Progress Commemoration Commission. Phone number 202-418-3437.
Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce (DoC).
Correction.
This Notice provides current contact information, including new Internet addresses, for EDA Regional Offices and Economic Development Representatives. The table below updates information provided in Section XIII of the Notice of Funding Availability published on March 14, 2001, Part III (66 FR 15001).
New Internet addresses become effective immediately.
Contact information for EDA Regional Offices and Economic Development Representatives (EDRs) is provided in the table below.
Additional information on EDA programs is available on EDA's Web site at
The table below provides current contact information for EDA Regional Offices and Economic Development Representatives, and replaces Section XIII of the March 14, 2001,
Effective immediately, the Internet addresses listed in the March 14, 2001, Notice of Funding Availability will change from “@doc.gov” to
For general information, contact the appropriate EDA Regional Office or EDA's Office of Congressional Liaison and Program Research and Evaluation: Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Telephone: (202) 482-2309, EDA Web site
Office of Labor-Management Standards, Employment Standards Administration, Labor.
Notice of rescission of revised statutory interpretation.
The Department is rescinding the revision of an interpretation of the “advice” exemption in section 203(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended (LMRDA) published in the
The Notice published on January 11, 2001 at 66 FR 2782 is rescinded as of April 11, 2001.
Kay H. Oshel, Chief, Division of Interpretations and Standards, Office of Labor-Management Standards, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5605, Washington, DC 20210. (202) 693-1233 (this is not a toll-free number).
The Secretary of Labor administers the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended (LMRDA), Public Law 86-257, 73 Stat. 519-546, codified at 29 U.S.C. 401-531. Sections 203(a) and (b) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 433(a) and (b), require employers and other persons to file certain reports with the Department of Labor in connection with persuading employees about the right to organize and bargain collectively. LMRDA section 203(c) creates an exemption from these reporting requirements if the consultant's activity is limited to “giving or agreeing to give advice” to an employer.
Since 1962, the Department has construed “advice” to include not only a consultant's review of persuasive material prepared by the employer and comments thereon, but also the consultant's preparation of material for the employer, so long as the employer is free to accept or reject the material. On January 11, 2001, the Department published a notice in the
On February 9, the Department published a notice in the
The notice of January 11, 2001, set forth two reasons for revising the longstanding interpretation of LMRDA section 203(c): (1) “the textual basis for the prior interpretation is dubious” in that it “is in tension with the ordinary meaning of the term ‘advice’ ”; and (2) the prior interpretation “has harmed the effectiveness of the LMRDA in requiring disclosure of persuader activities.”
Upon review and reconsideration of the revised interpretation, the Department has determined that the revision is not warranted or justified. The evidence and argument presented in the notice of January 11, 2001 is insufficient to support the conclusion that the interpretation of the term “advice” taken since 1962 is inconsistent with the ordinary understanding of that term or that it is inconsistent with the intent of the LMRDA reporting requirements. See also
Consequently, the revised interpretation of LMRDA section 203(c) issued on January 11, 2001 is rescinded and the former interpretation is reinstated.