Aging Administration
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Engineers Corps
Census Bureau
Export Administration Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Fiscal Service
Aging Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Minerals Management Service
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment Standards Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Fiscal Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Customs Service
Fiscal Service
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Interim rule and request for comments.
We are amending the citrus canker regulations by removing a portion of Hillsborough County, FL, from the list of quarantined areas. The regulations require that an area be free from citrus canker for a period of at least 2 years before it may be removed from the list of quarantined areas. Surveys have shown that the quarantined area in Hillsborough County, FL, has been free of citrus canker since December 1999. This rule removes restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from that portion of Hillsborough County, FL.
This interim rule is effective March 21, 2002. We will consider all comments we receive that are postmarked, delivered, or e-mailed by May 20, 2002.
You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 02-018-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 02-018-1. If you use e-mail, address your comment to
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
Mr. Stephen Poe, Operations Officer, Surveillance and Emergency Programs Planning and Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-8899.
Citrus canker is a plant disease that affects plants and plant parts, including fresh fruit, of citrus and citrus relatives (Family
The regulations to prevent the interstate spread of citrus canker are contained in 7 CFR 301.75-1 through 301.75-16 (referred to below as the regulations). The regulations restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from and through areas quarantined because of citrus canker and provide for the designation of survey areas around quarantined areas. Survey areas undergo close monitoring by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and State inspectors for citrus canker and serve as buffer zones against the disease.
Under § 301.75-4(c) of the regulations, any State or portion of a State where an infestation is detected will be designated as a quarantined area and will retain that designation until the area has been free from citrus canker for 2 years.
A portion of Hillsborough County, FL, has been free of citrus canker since December 1999, and has thus met the requirement for declaration of eradication—that an area be free from citrus canker for a period of at least 2 years. In this case, regular and complete surveys have been conducted on an approximately monthly basis since the infestation was first detected, including surveys of all citrus trees located in both commercial groves and at residential properties. In addition, any wild citrus present in the area has also been surveyed.
Therefore, we are amending the citrus canker regulations by removing the portion of Hillsborough County, FL, from the list of quarantined areas. This action removes restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from the portion of Hillsborough County, FL, that we are removing from the list of quarantined areas. With the removal of this area, there are no longer any quarantined areas within Hillsborough County, FL.
Immediate action is warranted to remove restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from the portion of Hillsborough County, FL, that we are removing from the list of quarantined areas based on its freedom from citrus canker for a period of at least 2 years. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this action effective less than 30 days after publication in the
We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process required by Executive Order 12866.
We are amending the citrus canker regulations by removing a portion of Hillsborough County, FL, from the list of quarantined areas. The regulations require that an area be free from citrus canker for a period of at least 2 years before it may be removed from the list of quarantined areas. Surveys have shown that the quarantined area in Hillsborough County, FL, has been free of citrus canker since December 1999. This rule removes restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from that portion of Hillsborough County, FL.
Commercial citrus production in Hillsborough County accounts for only a small portion of the total citrus production in the State of Florida (see table 1 below).
While producers in the area that we are removing from the list of quarantined areas will benefit from removal of movement restrictions, it is unlikely that the benefit will be big enough to measure statistically. This action does not impose any costs on producers or on government entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to consider the economic impacts of their rules on small entities. The entities most likely to be affected by this rule are citrus producers in and around the area in Hillsborough County, FL, that we are removing from the list of quarantined areas. The Small Business Administration defines a firm engaged in agriculture as “small” if it has less than $750,000 in annual receipts. All of the four citrus grove firms in Hillsborough County, FL, qualify as small entities.
Citrus producers in the area that we are removing from the list of quarantined areas will benefit from having a greater choice of where to market their fruit. It is unlikely, however, that producer income or expenses would be affected in a measurable way.
It is difficult to quantify the benefits of removing an area from quarantine. While producers will have greater choice of where to market their citrus crops, most of the trees in the quarantined area have been destroyed. It is unlikely that the removal of the quarantine will have any measurable effect on producers or consumers.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
7 U.S.C. 166, 7711, 7712, 7714, 7731, 7735, 7751, 7752, 7753, and 7754; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75-15 also issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 also issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Final rule.
The Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is increasing certain fees by approximately 4.6 percent; i.e., contract and non-contract hourly rates, certain unit rates, and the administrative tonnage fee. These fees apply only to official inspection and weighing services performed by GIPSA in the United States under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended. These increases are needed to cover increased operational costs resulting from the approximate 4.6 percent January 2002 Federal pay increase. GIPSA anticipates the increase in the user fees will generate approximately $703,000 in additional revenue.
April 22, 2002.
David Orr, Director, Field Management Division, at his E-mail address:
This rule has been determined to be nonsignificant for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Also, pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, it has been determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
GIPSA regularly reviews its user-fee-financed programs to determine if the fees are adequate. GIPSA has and will continue to seek out cost saving opportunities and implement appropriate changes to reduce costs. Such actions can provide alternatives to fee increases. However, even with these efforts, GIPSA's existing fee schedule will not generate sufficient revenues to cover program costs while maintaining an adequate reserve balance. Retained earnings balances are adjusted to reflect prior year revenue and obligations realized in the year reported. In FY 1999, GIPSA's operating costs were $23,176,643 with revenue of $22,971,204, resulting in a negative margin of $205,440. In FY 2000, GIPSA's operating costs were $24,146,428 with revenue of $23,150,188 that resulted in a negative margin of $996,240 and a negative reserve balance of $938,147. GIPSA's FY 2001 operating costs were $25,670,126 with revenue of $23,977,240 that resulted in a negative margin of $1,692,886. Using the most current financial data available for FY 2002, December 2001, GIPSA's operating costs were $6,923,247 with revenue of $7,131,883 that resulted in a positive margin of $208,247. However, the current reserve negative balance of $2,882,270 is well below the desired 3-month reserve of approximately $6 million. Employee salaries and benefits are major program costs that account for approximately 84 percent of GIPSA's total operating budget. The approximate general and locality salary increase averages 4.6 percent for GIPSA employees, effective January 2002, will increase GIPSA's costs by approximately $703,000.
GIPSA has reviewed the financial position of the inspection and weighing program based on the increased salary and benefit costs, along with the revised projected FY 2002 workload of 79 million metric tons. Based on the review, GIPSA has concluded that the approximate 4.6 percent salary increase will have to be recovered through increases in fees.
The fee increase primarily applies to entities engaged in the export of grain. Under the provisions of the USGSA, grain exported from the United States must be officially inspected and weighed. Mandatory inspection and weighing services are provided by GIPSA on a fee basis at 32 export facilities. All of these facilities are owned and managed by multi-national corporations, large cooperatives, or public entities that do not meet the criteria for small entities established by the Small Business Administration.
Some entities that request nonmandatory official inspection and weighing services at other than export locations could be considered small entities. The impact on these small businesses is similar to any other business; that is, an average 4.6 percent increase in the cost of official inspection and weighing services. This increase should not significantly affect any business requesting official inspection and weighing services. Furthermore, any of these small businesses that wish to avoid the fee increase may elect to do so by using an alternative source for inspection and weighing services. Such a decision should not prevent the business from marketing its products.
There would be no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by this action. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements in Part 800 have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0580-0013. GIPSA has not identified any other Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have a retroactive effect. The USGSA provides in § 87g that no subdivision may require or impose any requirements or restrictions concerning the inspection, weighing, or description of grain under the Act. Otherwise, this final rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present irreconcilable conflict with this final rule. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this final rule.
On January 2, 2002, GIPSA proposed in the
While individual salary and benefit costs have increased since 1996, GIPSA has reduced overall salary and benefits costs by 12.8 percent through greater utilization of part-time and intermittent employees and improved program efficiencies. GIPSA has also reduced non-employee costs such as rent, utilities, and Departmental overhead by 1.4 percent.
The January 2002 salary increase averaged 4.6 percent for GIPSA employees, which equates to an estimated $703,000 increase. GIPSA has reviewed the financial position of the inspection and weighing program and concluded that fee increases are necessary to recover the estimated $703,000 increase in program costs. An average increase of 4.6 percent to hourly, certain unit fees, and the administrative tonnage fee is needed.
The current hourly fees are:
GIPSA has also identified certain unit fees, for services not performed at an applicant's facility, which contain direct labor costs and require a fee increase. Further, GIPSA has identified those costs associated with salaries and benefits that are covered by the administrative metric tonnage fee. The 4.6 percent cost-of-living increase to salaries and benefits covered by the administrative tonnage fee results in an overall increase of an average of 4.6 percent to the administrative tonnage fee.
GIPSA received 1 comment during the 30-day comment period from a grain trade association. The trade association stated that it consists of 1,000 grain, feed, processing, and grain-related companies, 70 percent of which are small entities. The commentor did not support the proposed rule. A summary of the comment and GIPSA's response is as follows:
The commentor opposed the fee increase and suggested that the proposed fee increase be offset through improved operating efficiencies and additional reductions in overhead. In addition, the commentor suggested GIPSA aggressively seek ways to reduce direct employee expenses through increased automation and contracting for official services so future mandated Federal pay increases will have less impact on the cost of providing official services. The commentor also stated that the agency should determine what programs could be terminated, scaled back, or consolidated to reduce administrative overhead.
The USGSA requires GIPSA to maintain a workforce of sufficient size and experience to meet the inspection and weighing needs of its applicants. GIPSA views its employees as valuable resources that facilitate the marketing of grain. Whenever possible, GIPSA has replaced vacant full-time permanent positions with part-time and intermittent employees to reduce administrative overhead costs related to employee salaries and benefits. Since FY 1996, GIPSA has decreased headquarters paid hours of overhead by 14.44 percent and other obligations by 1.4 percent. However, these reductions have not been enough to offset the increases in salaries and benefits. Further, GIPSA is constantly reviewing the inspection and weighing programs to assess service delivery and demand. Whenever, possible, available employees are used for temporary duty assignments within other Federal programs to further reduce administrative overhead costs. This action allows GIPSA the ability to temporarily downsize while maintaining an experienced workforce available for duty when service demands increase. GIPSA is continuing to review the issue of contracting for official services when appropriate. Efforts to contain and reduce costs have and will continue to be a high priority issue with GIPSA. GIPSA has and will continue to take action to reduce inspection and weighing costs whenever possible.
Accordingly, GIPSA is applying an approximate 4.6 percent increase to certain hourly rates, certain unit rates, and the administrative tonnage fee, as proposed in 7 CFR 800.71: Table 1-Fees for Official Services Performed at an Applicant's Facility in an Onsite FGIS Laboratory; Table 2-Services Performed at Other Than an Applicant's Facility in an FGIS Laboratory; and Table 3, Miscellaneous Services.
Administrative practice and procedure, Grain.
Pub. L. 94-582, 90 Stat. 2867, as amended (7 U.S.C. 71
(a) * * *
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This amendment revises an existing airworthiness directive (AD), that is applicable to Honeywell International Inc. (formerly AlliedSignal Inc. and Textron Lycoming) LTS101 series turboshaft and LTP101 series turboprop engines. The existing AD will become effective on March 27, 2002, and requires a one-time visual inspection for surface finish and a one-time fluorescent penetrant inspection for cracks of certain impellers installed on LTS101 series turboshaft and LTP101 series turboprop engines. This amendment requires the same inspections, and in addition, allows installation of impellers that pass those inspections. This revision to the existing AD is prompted by an inadvertent omission in the existing AD to include allowance of installation of impellers that pass inspections required by the AD. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent impeller failure from cracks in the impeller back face area, which could result in an uncontained engine failure.
Effective March 27, 2002. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 27, 2002.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before May 20, 2002.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NE-14-AD, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299. Comments may be inspected at this location, by appointment, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Honeywell International Inc. Aerospace Services Attn.: Data Distribution, M/S 64-3/2101-201, PO Box 29003, Phoenix, AZ 85038-9003; telephone (602) 365-2493, fax (602) 365-5577. This information may be examined, by appointment, at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Robert Baitoo, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5245, fax (562) 627-5210.
On February 5, 2002, the FAA issued AD 2002-03-09, Amendment 39-12650 (67 FR 7609, February 20, 2002), to require a one-time visual inspection for surface finish and a one-time fluorescent penetrant inspection for cracks of certain impellers installed on LTS101 series turboshaft and LTP101 series turboprop engines. That action was prompted by a report of a machining discrepancy that may have occurred during manufacture of the affected impellers. That AD will become effective on March 27, 2002.
In this revision the FAA has added to paragraph (c) the authority to allow the reinstallation of impellers P/N's 4-101-052-57 or 4-101-052-62 that pass the required inspections. In all other respects, the AD remains the same as currently published. The FAA is therefore making this revision effective on March 27, 2002, in order to reduce the paperwork burden on operators.
Honeywell International Inc. (formerly AlliedSignal Inc. and Textron Lycoming) has issued AlliedSignal Service Bulletin (SB) LT 101-72-30-0186, dated October 1, 1999, and Honeywell International SB LT 101-72-30-0186, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2000, that specify a one-time visual inspection for surface finish and a one-time fluorescent penetrant inspection for cracks of certain impellers.
To assure that the unsafe condition is addressed in a timely fashion, this amendment will require a one-time visual inspection for surface finish and a one-time fluorescent penetrant inspection for cracks of impellers part numbers (P/N's) 4-101-052-57/-62 within 900 gas generator (Ng) cycles after the effective date of this AD.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other Honeywell International Inc. (formerly AlliedSignal Inc. and Textron Lycoming) LTS101 series turboshaft and LTP101 series turboprop engines of the same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent impeller failure from cracks in the impeller back face area, which could result in an uncontained engine failure.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NE-14-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
This final rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this final rule.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is applicable to Honeywell International Inc. (formerly AlliedSignal Inc. and Textron Lycoming) LTS101 series turboshaft and LTP101 series turboprop engines with the following centrifugal compressor impeller part numbers (P/N's) installed: 4-101-052-57 and 4-101-052-62, except those with a P/N or serial number (SN) listed in paragraphs 1.A.(1) through 1.A.(3) of AlliedSignal Service Bulletin (SB) LT 101-72-30-0186, dated October 1, 1999, or Honeywell International Inc. SB LT 101-72-30-0186, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2000. These engines are installed on, but not limited to Aerospatiale AS350, Eurocopter MBB-BK117 and HH-65A, Bell 222, Air Tractor AT-302, Piaggio P.166-DL3, Riley International R421, and Pacific Aero 08-600 aircraft.
This AD applies to each engine identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of 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.
Compliance with this AD is required as indicated, unless already done.
To prevent impeller failure from cracks in the impeller back face area, which could result in an uncontained engine failure, do the following:
(a) Within 900 gas generator (Ng) cycles after the effective date of this AD, conduct a one-time visual inspection for surface finish and fluorescent penetrant inspection of impellers P/N 4-101-052-57 and 4-101-052-62 for cracks in accordance with paragraphs 3.A through 3.F. of the Accomplishment Instructions of AlliedSignal SB LT 101-72-30-0186, dated October 1, 1999, or Honeywell International Inc. SB LT 101-72-30-0186, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2000.
(b) Replace all impellers that exceed the acceptable limits of the Accomplishment Instructions of AlliedSignal Service Bulletin (SB) LT 101-72-30-0186, dated October 1, 1999, or Honeywell International Inc. SB LT 101-72-30-0186, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2000, with a serviceable impeller.
(c) After the effective date of this AD, do not install impeller P/N's 4-101-052-57 or 4-101-052-62, except those with an impeller P/N or SN listed in paragraphs 1. A.(1) through 1. A.(3) of AlliedSignal SB LT 101-72-30-0186, dated October 1, 1999, or Honeywell International Inc. SB LT 101-72-30-0186, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2000, and except those impellers that pass the inspection requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Los Angles Aircraft Certification Office (LAACO). Operators must submit their request through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, LAACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive, if any, may be obtained from the LAACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where the requirements of this AD can be done.
(f) The inspections must be done in accordance with the following SB's:
(g) This amendment becomes effective on March 27, 2002.
Bureau of Export Administration, Commerce.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) maintains the Commerce Control List (CCL), which identifies those items subject to Department of Commerce export licensing requirements based on their characteristics. Consistent with technological changes, this final rule makes License Exception CIV available for certain microprocessors controlled by Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 3A001 when they have a composite theoretical performance (CTP) of equal to or greater than 6,500 million theoretical operations per second (MTOPS), but less than or equal to 12,000 MTOPS. License Exception CIV authorizes exports and reexports to civil end-users for civil end-uses in Country Group D:1, except North Korea. CIV may not be used for exports or reexports to military end-users or end-uses.
This revision will decrease the number of license applications submitted to the Department of Commerce, which will decrease the burden to both the exporting community and the Department of Commerce.
This rule is effective March 21, 2002.
Bernie Kritzer, Acting Director, Office of Strategic Trade and Foreign Policy Controls, Bureau of Export Administration, Telephone: (202) 482-5953.
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (66 FR 44025 (August 22, 2001)), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. This rule involves collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as this term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (Sec. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Exports, Foreign trade.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
Temporary rule; correction.
On February 15, 2002, a temporary rule was published in the
This temporary rule remains effective on February 15, 2002, and expires on May 16, 2002.
Leon Hayward, Office of Field Operations, 202-927-3271.
On February 15, 2002, a temporary rule was published in the
The document published in the
1. Beginning on page 7070, on the bottom of the third column, and continuing on page 7071 in the first column, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the “Summary” is removed and the following two sentences are added in its place to read as follows:
The Administration anticipates that the duty-free treatment accorded to merchandise under the provisions of the ATPA will be restored and made retroactive to the date of the initial termination of such duty-free treatment (December 4, 2001). There will be no extension of this extraordinary action.
2. On page 7071, in the “Background” portion of the document, in the second column, in the fourth paragraph, the last sentence is corrected to read as follows:
Accordingly, a one-time interim deferral of estimated duties and fees in anticipation of Congressional re-enactmant of ATPA within the next 90 days is appropriate to further the national security interest in combating narcotic production and trafficking and related criminal and terrorist activities.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
EPA published a direct final rule on January 24, 2002, to relax the federal gasoline volatility standard that applies to gasoline supplied to the Denver/Boulder area from June 1st to September 15th (the ozone control season) of each year. However, we received an adverse comment during the 30 day comment period and are now withdrawing that direct final rule.
As of March 21, 2002, EPA withdraws the direct final rule published at 67 FR 3435, on January 24, 2002.
Richard Babst at (202) 564-9473.
Because EPA received adverse comment, we are withdrawing the direct final rule for “Relaxation of Summer Gasoline Volatility Standard for the Denver/Boulder Area.” We published the direct final rule on January 24, 2002 (67 FR 3435), that would have approved the State of Colorado's request to relax the federal Reid Vapor Pressure (“RVP”) gasoline standard that applies to gasoline supplied to the Denver/Boulder area from June 1st to September 15th (the ozone control season) of each year. That action would have amended our regulations to change the summertime RVP standard for the Denver area from 7.8 pounds per square inch (“psi”) to 9.0 psi. We stated in that
In Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of October 1, 2001, on page 411, in § 206.101, paragraph (e)(1) is revised to read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1)
In Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 0 to 19, revised as of October 1, 2001, in § 2.106, on page 442, page 45 of the Table of Frequency Allocations is a duplicate of page 54. The correct page 45 reads as follows:
Federal Communications Commission.
Correcting amendments.
This document contains corrections to the final regulations (47 CFR 54.313) published in the
Effective March 21, 2002.
Sharon Webber, Assistant Division Chief, Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-7400.
On December 30, 1999, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published in the
47 U.S.C. 1, 4(I), 201, 205, 214, and 254 unless otherwise noted.
(d)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
In Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 100 to 185, revised as of October 1, 2001, on page 83, in § 171.8, the definitions of
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule; re-opening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the re-opening of the comment period for the final rule on the Sacramento splittail (
We will accept public comments until October 15, 2002.
1. You may submit written comments and information by mail to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825.
2. You may hand-deliver comments to our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, during normal business hours, at the address given above.
Comments and materials received will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address under (1) above.
For general information, Susan Moore, at the above address (telephone 916/414-6600; facsimile 916/414-6713).
The Sacramento splittail (hereafter splittail) represents the only extant species in its genus in North America. For a detailed description of the species, see the Recovery Plan for the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes (Service 1996), references within that plan, and Moyle
Splittail are endemic to certain waterways in California's Central Valley, where they were once widely distributed (Moyle 1976). Splittail presently occur in Suisun Bay, Suisun Marsh, the San Francisco Bay-Sacramento-San Joaquin River Estuary (Estuary), the Estuary's tributaries (primarily the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers), the Cosumnes River, the Napa River and Marsh, and the Petaluma River and Marsh. The splittail no longer occurs throughout a significant portion of its former range.
Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), the splittail was listed as a threatened species on February 8, 1999 (64 FR 5963). In this previous listing determination, we found that changes in water flows and water quality resulting from export of water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, periodic prolonged drought, loss of shallow water habitat, and the effects of agricultural and industrial pollutants were significant factors in the splittail's decline.
Subsequent to the publication of the final rule, plaintiffs in the cases
The approach currently used by us to analyze the best scientifically and commercially available splittail abundance data differs from methods employed previously. In the February 8, 1999, final rule and the January 12, 2001, and May 8, 2001, re-openings of the comment periods, we relied primarily on the unstratified Mann-Whitney U-test approach utilized by Meng and Moyle (1995), first published in the
We have carefully considered all comments and responses. In regard to the analysis of splittail population trends, we now employ a statistical analysis of an abundance index and Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) model jointly developed and submitted by the CDFG (Rempel 2001) and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) (Michny 2001). The model is hereafter referred to as the CDFG/USBR MLR model and provides the most sound basis, to date, for statistically evaluating temporal trends of splittail abundance data.
The CDFG/USBR MLR model includes HYDROLOGY and TIME (year) as independent variables and ABUNDANCE INDICES as the dependent variable. It also incorporates corrected splittail abundance data (Rempel 2001). We consider this statistical approach superior to the previous practice of using unstratified Mann-Whitney U-tests (Meng and Moyle 1995; Sommer
The CDFG/USBR MLR model explicitly controls for potential confounding effects of hydrological year type, the factor that is nearly unanimously viewed as the single strongest predictor of splittail year class strengths (e.g., Moyle
The TIME variable captures temporal trends in the population index data. Its regression coefficient will be negative if splittail abundance is trending downward over time and positive if splittail abundance is trending upward over time. The probabilities of any given coefficient reflecting a true nonzero time trend are 1-p, where p is the standard statistical probability for the null hypothesis (of a zero trend). Thus, a “p-value” of 0.05 would be the same as a 95 percent probability that the corresponding TIME coefficient reflects a true nonzero downward or upward trend in splittail abundance. Results of the CDFG/USBR MLR model as presented by Rempel (2001: Table 3) for CDFG and Michny (2001: Table 1) for USBR reveal that 14 of 20 abundance monitoring data sets for splittail show downward trends (i.e., have negative coefficients for the TIME variable). In addition to a high frequency of negative coefficients that would be highly unlikely by chance alone (exact one tailed p = 0.0577; binomial test, H
All four coefficients for the TIME variable that exceed a 95 percent probability (classic 0.05 alpha level statistical significance criterion) for a true nonzero trend are negative. A fifth negative TIME variable coefficient is nearly statistically significant (p=0.057). Due to the very limited statistical power associated with the abundance monitoring data sets for splittail (see discussion of this topic in 66 FR 43145) there is substantive bias in favor of type II statistical error, i.e., failing to correctly reject the null hypothesis (of no time trends). Low statistical power is not unique to the splittail data sets. Due to the inherent high variability in fisheries and wildlife abundance data, for applied purposes (such as detecting oil spill impacts on marine bird populations) it has become “customary” to use an alpha level of 0.20 (i.e., an 80 percent probability of true nonzero trends) for statistical tests of population trends over time (Day
The four highest, statistically significant (at traditional levels) probabilities of a nonzero downward splittail population trend are exhibited by the Suisun Marsh survey (Age-0 and adult) and in the data collected via fish salvage operations at the State Water Project (SWP) Skinner Delta Fish Protective Facility (Age-1, and Age-2 and greater). The decline evident in the Chipps Island Trawl (Age-2 and greater) is nearly statistically significant at traditional levels (94.3 percent probability). Two additional probabilities of a nonzero downward splittail population trend are evident at the 80 percent probability level; Chipps Island Trawl (Age-1) and SWP (Age-0).
We fully concur with the statements of various respondents that abundance monitoring data for splittail have
We will accept written comments during this re-opened comment period, and comments should be submitted to the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office as found in the
The primary authors of this notice are Jason Douglas and Joseph Skorupa (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Interim final rule; request for comments.
NMFS is enacting a seasonally-adjusted gear restriction by closing the Mid-Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters to fishing with gillnets with a mesh size larger than 8 inch (20.3 cm) stretched mesh, starting on March 15, 2002. The purpose of this action is to reduce the impact of the large-mesh gillnet fisheries on endangered and threatened species of sea turtles primarily from the monkfish fishery which has previously demonstrated a high sea turtle bycatch and mortality rate. The areas restricted to fishing with gillnets larger than 8 inch stretched mesh and the times are as follows: Waters north of 33°51.0′ N (North Carolina/South Carolina border at the coast) and south of 35°46.0′ N (Oregon Inlet)—at all times; waters north of 35°46.0′ N (Oregon Inlet) and south of 36°22.5′ N (Currituck Beach Light, NC)—from March 16 through January 14; waters north of 36°22.5′ N (Currituck Beach Light, NC) and south of 37°34.6′ N (Wachapreague Inlet, VA)—from April 1 through January 14; waters north of 37° 34.6′ N (Wachapreague Inlet, VA) and south of 37°56.0′ N (Chincoteague, VA)—from April 16 through January 14. Waters north of 37°56.0′ N (Chincoteague, VA) will not be affected by this rule. NMFS also intends to publish a permanent rule establishing these seasonal restrictions and is seeking comments on this interim final rule.
This interim final rule is effective on March 15, 2002 through 240 days after March 15, 2002. Comments on this interim final rule are requested and must be postmarked or transmitted by facsimile by 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on June 19, 2002. Comments transmitted via e-mail or the Internet will not be accepted.
Send written comments on this interim final rule to the Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments may also be sent via fax to 301-713-0376, Attn: Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet. Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for this interim final rule may also be requested at the same address.
David M. Bernhart (ph. 727-570-5312, fax 727-570-5517, e-mail
All sea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The Kemp's ridley (
Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, taking sea turtles—even incidentally—is prohibited, with exceptions for threatened species identified in 50 CFR 223.206. The incidental take of endangered species may be authorized only by an incidental take statement provided or an incidental take permit issued pursuant to section 7 or 10 of the ESA.
Beginning in 1995, sea turtle strandings off North Carolina dramatically increased during April and May, particularly near the area between Hatteras Inlet and Oregon Inlet. This new stranding pattern continued and intensified throughout the rest of the 1990's, and North Carolina sea turtle strandings grew to record levels. Increasing strandings coincided with increasing effort in the monkfish gillnet fishery, which first began off North Carolina in 1995. In April and May 2000, the largest-ever fisheries-related stranding event occurred: 280 sea turtles, 275 of them threatened loggerhead sea turtles, stranded in two short periods. Four of the carcasses were still entangled in gillnet gear with a larger than 8 inch stretched mesh size. Three fisheries were active in offshore waters the week prior to the strandings: Hook-and-line fishing for mackerel, bluefish gillnetting, and monkfish gillnetting. The mesh sizes of the gear recovered with the stranded turtles were only consistent with gillnets for monkfish. There was no evidence that the turtles had been hooked, and the nature of the strandings were not consistent with other possible causes. Satellite sea surface temperature information allowed NMFS to reconstruct the likely times and locations of the sea turtle mortality. Gillnetting for dogfish and monkfish was occurring in those times and places.
These fisheries deploy thousands of yards/meters of gillnets with larger than 8 inch stretched mesh and have very long soak times, ranging from overnight to several days. In order to prevent further sea turtle deaths, on May 12, 2000, NMFS restricted an area along eastern North Carolina and Virginia to fishing with large-mesh gillnets with a stretched mesh size of 6 inches (15.24 cm) or greater for a 30-day period through a temporary rule (65 FR 31500, May 18, 2000). After the large mesh closure was in effect, no additional mass stranding events occurred in North Carolina. However, the monkfish fishery in North Carolina was over by the time the closure went into effect.
The closure also reduced the monkfish gillnetting effort off the coast of Virginia, and there was a large reduction in strandings in 2000 (Mansfield et al., 2001). Due to the large-mesh gillnet closure, as well as the new
Monkfish gillnets—12-inch mesh, tied-down, anchored gillnets; up to 4 nautical miles of net per boat; and soak times from 24 to 120 hours—pose a lethal threat to sea turtles, if they are fished in times and places where turtles occur. In the early spring, sea turtles, particularly loggerheads, mass along warm-water fronts off the North Carolina coast and migrate northward as warming water temperatures allow. Based on the information regarding fishing activity prior to the strandings, large mesh gillnets set along these warm-water fronts were the most likely cause of the catastrophic levels of sea turtle mortality seen in North Carolina in 2000. Even with the high level of strandings, the great majority of turtle carcasses probably never stranded due to the strong offshore currents of the Gulf Stream, and the actual turtle mortality was much higher than the strandings suggest.
NMFS considered implementing closures of the monkfish gillnet fishery in the Mid-Atlantic in 2001 to prevent the same level of turtle mortality from recurring. Implementation of the Year 2 Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) measures as of May 1, 2000, limited monkfish gillnet vessels in the Southern Fishery Management Area to a trip limit of 300 lb (tail weight) per Day-at-Sea (DAS). In addition, NMFS placed observers on nearly 100 percent of the monkfish gillnet trips out of North Carolina and Virginia ports in spring 2001. Further, NMFS published a rule (66 FR 28842, May 25, 2001) that provided authority to close the monkfish gillnet fishery if the observers documented turtle takes greater than the authorized level in the incidental take statement (ITS) issued with the December 21, 1998, biological opinion on the monkfish fishery.
NMFS, in the meantime, had also reinitiated consultation (pursuant to section 7 of the ESA) on the FMP, primarily as the result of concerns over right whale takes in fixed gear. Consultation was also reinitiated because the ITS for sea turtles was exceeded in 1999. NMFS also analyzed the information on sea turtle strandings and the effect of the FMP's daily landings limits and limitations on total days at sea (DAS). Beginning May 1, 2000, for the area off North Carolina and Virginia, monkfish gillnet vessels were limited to 300 pounds of tails landed per day and 40 DAS per year. Beginning May 1, 2002, the DAS would be reduced to zero (i.e., no directed gillnet fishing for monkfish), but up to ten unused DAS could be carried over. NMFS issued a new biological opinion on the fishery on June 14, 2001, concluding that the fishery, as managed under the FMP, was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species of sea turtle. Incidental take was authorized, with a reduced take level after April, 2002 and zero take anticipated after April, 2003. The opinion expressly considered the reduction in daily landings limits and DAS and considered that the FMP's restrictions would greatly reduce the effort off North Carolina and Virginia, because vessels from northern ports would have little incentive to travel to the south for the limited fishing opportunity.
The June 14, 2001 biological opinion's analysis of the fishery's behavior in spring 2001 proved to be correct: Only seven sink gillnet vessels targeting monkfish fished off North Carolina in 2001, compared to 33 sink gillnet vessels that landed monkfish in North Carolina in 2000. The sea turtle mortality was also greatly reduced: there were only 11 turtle strandings in eastern North Carolina (zone 35) for April and May, total, compared to the close to 300 turtles that stranded in April and May 2000. Four sea turtle takes were observed in the monkfish gillnet fishery off North Carolina and Virginia in spring 2001. Not only were there fewer vessels fishing gillnets in 2001, those vessels apparently fished farther to the north and in colder water, compared to 2000, and thus avoided sea turtle takes.
On August 14, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island found the provisions in the FMP that established the trip limits for gillnetters to be unlawful. NMFS filed a motion with the court, asking for reconsideration and asking that the FMP's trip limits remain in place until a new FMP could be developed. The U.S. District Court denied this motion on February 15, 2002. The effect of this ruling is that the gillnet daily limits have now increased from 300 pounds to 1500 or 1000 pounds (based on permit type). In addition, the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils voted on February 8, 2002, to reverse the FMP's elimination of gillnet DAS after April, 2002, allowing continued gillnetting with a 550 or 450 pounds of tails per DAS (based on permit type). NMFS is reviewing this council action for possible approval. Note that all trip limits discussed in this interim rule, and any past changes to those trip limits are specific only to the Southern Fishery Management Area of the monkfish fishery. The Northern Fishery Management Area has no trip limits and these have not been changed by the court order or new Council action. The reinitiation of ESA Section 7 consultation on the monkfish fishery is underway.
The fishery off North Carolina will be closed from February 15 through March 15, under provisions of the Mid-Atlantic Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan. However, because of the recent court ruling, if no turtle protective measures are in place in the fishery and effort returns to 2000 levels, there is every reason to believe that sea turtle mortality off the southern Mid-Atlantic will return to the very high levels of the late 1990's and possibly the disastrous levels of 2000. The court's ruling and the Council's action undo the effort limitation measures that were important factors in the June 14, 2001 no-jeopardy biological opinion. Under a 1500- or 1000-pound daily limit, NMFS believes that effort off North Carolina will return to the levels seen in 2000. In 2000, there were no trip limits, but the average landings per trip were only 764 pounds, so the 1500- or 1000-pound limit will have little to no effect in reducing effort, and, based on past effort, vessels from other states are expected to travel to North Carolina to target monkfish. The other protective measures of 2001 are no longer in place. The temporary framework rule that depended on 100 percent observer coverage, with closure after the observers documented take greater than that authorized in the ITS, has expired. NMFS does not have funds or observers to achieve 100 percent coverage again, certainly not at the much higher levels of fishing effort that are anticipated. The level of incidental take authorized in the June 14, 2001 opinion is very low (6 loggerheads, 1 green, 1 Kemp's ridley, 1 leatherback sea turtle) and would probably be exceeded quickly if monkfish gillnets are set near warm water boundaries when turtles are making their northward migration. NMFS believes that emergency action is warranted to prevent the violation of the incidental take statement of the opinion and to reduce the potential for a serious impact to turtle populations. The 275 loggerheads that stranded in North Carolina in spring 2000 were probably disproportionately made up of individuals from the northern subpopulation of loggerheads, a subpopulation that has been of
By this interim final rule, NMFS is enacting, effective immediately, seasonally-adjusted gear restrictions by closing the Mid-Atlantic EEZ waters to fishing with gillnets with a mesh size larger than 8 inch (20.3 cm) stretched mesh to protect migrating sea turtles. Although the monkfish gillnet fishery currently uses 12 inch (30.5 cm) stretched mesh as their primary gear type, the potential exists for the utilization of smaller mesh gillnets for monkfish. The 8 inch cutoff size as mentioned above is, therefore, being enacted in this rule. NMFS considered banning smaller mesh sizes but fishing for monkfish with gillnets with less than 8 inch mesh is impractical and banning smaller mesh sizes would interfere with the prosecution of other fisheries that have been shown to have minimal impact on sea turtles.
The areas restricted to fishing with gillnets larger than 8 inch stretched mesh and the times are as follows: waters north of 33°51.0′ N (North Carolina/South Carolina border at the coast) and south of 35°46.0′ N (Oregon Inlet)—at all times; waters north of 35°46.0′ N (Oregon Inlet) and south of 36°22.5′ N (Currituck Beach Light, NC)—from March 16 through January 14; waters north of 36°22.5′ N (Currituck Beach Light, NC) and south of 37°34.6′ N (Wachapreague Inlet, VA)—from April 1 through January 14; waters north of 37°34.6′ N (Wachapreague Inlet, VA) and south of 37°56.0′ N (Chincoteague, VA)—from April 16 through January 14. Waters north of 37°56.0′ N (Chincoteague, VA) will not be affected by this rule. NMFS also intends to publish a permanent rule establishing these seasonal restrictions and is seeking comments on this interim final rule. The restricted areas include all EEZ waters within the stated boundaries. Because of the evidence from past stranding events, particularly the large stranding event in April and May 2000, NMFS concludes that the large mesh gillnet fishery in the Mid-Atlantic takes, including to capture and kill, numerous endangered and threatened sea turtles during their spring migration. NMFS is taking this action to prevent further mortalities and other takes of listed species in this fishery. The timing of the restrictions is based upon an analysis of sea surface temperatures for the above areas. Sea turtles are known to migrate into and through these waters when the sea surface temperature is 11 degrees Celsius or greater. The January 15 date for the reopening of the areas north of Oregon Inlet (35°46.0′ N) to the large-mesh gillnet fishery is also based upon the 11 degree Celsius threshold and is consistent with the seasonal boundary established for the summer flounder fishery-sea turtle protection area (50 CFR 223.206(d)(2) (iii)(A)).
The actions implemented by this interim final rule are expected to impact approximately 20-25 monkfish gillnet vessel owners and operators. Five alternatives were evaluated in the EA prepared for this interim final rule, including a status quo or “no action” alternative. For a description and analysis of the alternatives, readers should refer to the EA available at the address listed above.
The total cost to the monkfish fishery is expected to be minimal. The primary effect of this interim final rule will be to establish restrictions in an area which is not heavily utilized by the fishery and to set required dates for the northward movement of the fishery up through 37°56.0′ N (Chincoteague, VA) in order to avoid sea turtle interactions. However, based on vessel trip reporting (VTR) data from May 1998 through April 2001, the Virginia and North Carolina trips make up a small part of the total effort in the monkfish sink gillnet fishery. Together they represent 5.1 percent of the monkfish tail weight, 0.9 percent of the liver weight, and 4.1 percent of the total gillnet trips. The fishery normally migrates northward anyway as it follows the monkfish movements. This rule does not prevent or limit fishermen from moving north of 37°56.0′ N (Chincoteague, VA) to prosecute the fishery, although the small number of vessels in this fishery that are based in North Carolina and Virginia would have extra fuel costs that would impact profitability. This rule does not impact the available DAS or catch limits established under previous regulations.
NMFS is considering issuing these seasonally-adjusted gear restrictions as a final rule. Written public comments on this interim final rule must be postmarked or transmitted by facsimile by 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on June 19, 2002.
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator has determined that this interim final rule is necessary to respond to the emergency created by the changes to the federal monkfish fishery, changes which may lead to unauthorized takes in violation of the terms and conditions of the June 14, 2001 Biological Opinion. This interim final rule is consistent with the ESA and other applicable laws. Section 4(b)(7) of the ESA provides that the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act do not apply to regulations when there is an emergency posing a significant risk to wildlife (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(7)).
This interim final rule will be effective for 240 days. If NMFS determines to adopt this interim final rule permanently, NMFS will publish the rule in the
The AA also finds good cause to waive the requirements for prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, for this interim final rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The recent court ruling, described above, increased gillnet DAS limits from 300 pounds to either 1500 or 1000 pounds, based upon permit type. It is expected that, in light of these higher trip limits, the level of fishing effort occurring after March 16, 2002, when the fishery off North Carolina will open, until May 1, 2002, when gillnet DAS will be reduced to zero under the FMP, will cause a significant increase in risk of mortality to sea turtles. As such, any delay in implementation of this interim final rule would prevent NMFS from meeting its obligations under the ESA to prevent such harm.
The New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils have voted to reverse the FMP's elimination of gillnet DAS after April, 2002, and to
This interim final rule will be effective for 240 days. If NMFS determines to adopt this interim final rule permanently, NMFS will publish the rule in the
For the reasons stated above, the AA finds good cause under both section 4(b)(7) of the ESA and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) not to delay the effective date of this rule for 30 days. This restriction has been announced on the NOAA weather channel, in newspapers, and other media.
As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be provided for this notification by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The AA has prepared an Environmental Assessment for this interim final rule. Copies of the EA are available (see
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and record-keeping requirements.
16 U.S.C. § 1531
Gillnet means a panel of netting, suspended vertically in the water by floats along the top and weights along the bottom, to entangle fish that attempt to pass through it.
16 U.S.C. 1531
(d) * * *
(8)
(i) Waters north of 33°51.0′ N (North Carolina/South Carolina border at the coast) and south of 35°46.0′ N (Oregon Inlet) at any time;
(ii) Waters north of 35°46.0′ N (Oregon Inlet) and south of 36°22.5′ N (Currituck Beach Light, NC) from March 16 through January 14;
(iii) Waters north of 36°22.5′ N (Currituck Beach Light, NC) and south of 37°34.6′ N (Wachapreague Inlet, VA) from April 1 through January 14; and
(iv) Waters north of 37°34.6′ N (Wachapreague Inlet, VA) and south of 37°56.0′ N (Chincoteague, VA) from April 16 through January 14.
(e)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National
Modification of a closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) for 24 hours. This action is necessary to fully use the second seasonal apportionment of the total allowable catch of pollock specified for this area.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 19, 2002, until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 20, 2002.
Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
NMFS closed the directed fishery for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA pursuant to § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on March 11, 2002 (67 FR 10847, March 11, 2002). As of March 15, 2002, 532 metric tons (mt) of pollock remain in the second seasonal directed fishing allowance of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. Therefore, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds that the need to immediately implement this action to allow full use of the amount of the 2002 B season pollock TAC specified for Statistical Area 630 of the GOA constitutes good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 50 CFR 679.20(b)(3)(iii)(A), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Similarly, the need to implement these measures in a timely fashion to allow full use of the amount of the 2002 B season pollock TAC specified for Statistical Area 630 of the GOA constitutes good cause to find that the effective date of this action cannot be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the plant quarantine safeguard regulations to remove Brownsville and Hidalgo, TX, as ports of entry for untreated Mexican oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit transiting the United States for export to another country. We are also proposing to remove Brownsville, TX, as an authorized port for the exportation by water of shipments of untreated Mexican oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit. We are proposing these actions because neither port has been used for these purposes in over 20 years. These actions would update the regulations so that they accurately reflect the ports used for the importation and exportation by water of untreated citrus from Mexico.
We will consider all comments we receive that are postmarked, delivered, or e-mailed by May 20, 2002.
You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 01-073-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 01-073-1. If you use e-mail, address your comment to
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
Ms. Pam Byrne, Senior Operations Officer, Port Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-5242.
The plant quarantine safeguard regulations in 7 CFR part 352 relieve restrictions for certain plants, plant products, plant pests, soil, and other products and articles that are classified as prohibited or restricted in other regulations in title 7, chapter III. Such plant products include fruits and vegetables that are moved into the United States for: (1) A temporary stay where unloading or landing is not intended; (2) unloading or landing for transshipment and exportation; (3) unloading or landing for transportation and exportation; or (4) unloading and entry at a port other than the port of arrival. Fruits and vegetables that are moved into the United States under these circumstances are subject to inspection and must be handled in accordance with conditions assigned under the safeguard regulations to prevent the introduction and spread of plant pests.
The regulations in § 352.30 address the movement into or through the United States of untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico that transit the United States en route to foreign countries. The regulations currently allow untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico to enter the United States at the ports of Nogales, AZ, or Brownsville, Eagle Pass, El Paso, Hidalgo, or Laredo, TX. The fruit may then be moved, under certain conditions, by truck or railcar to seaports at Brownsville and Galveston, TX, for export by water to another country.
In this document, we are proposing to remove Brownsville and Hidalgo, TX, as ports of entry for untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico. In addition, we are also proposing to remove Brownsville, TX, as an authorized port for the exportation by water of such fruit. We are proposing these actions because it has been more than 20 years since any shipments of untreated citrus from Mexico have been imported into the United States through either port. Additionally, the port of Hidalgo, TX, no longer handles cargo; that port now handles only pedestrians and passenger vehicles. It has also been more than 20 years since Brownsville, TX, has been used for the export of untreated Mexican citrus by water to another country.
Removing Brownsville and Hidalgo, TX, as ports of entry for untreated citrus from Mexico and removing Brownsville, TX, as an authorized port of export for such fruit would update the regulations in § 352.30 so that they accurately reflect the ports that are used for those purposes.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process required by Executive Order 12866.
We are proposing to amend the plant quarantine safeguard regulations to remove Brownsville and Hidalgo, TX, as ports of entry for untreated Mexican oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit transiting the United States for export to another country. We are also proposing to remove Brownsville, TX, as an authorized port for the exportation by water of shipments of untreated Mexican oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit. We are proposing these actions because neither port has been used for these purposes in over 20 years. These actions would update the regulations so that they accurately reflect the ports used for the importation and exportation by water of untreated citrus from Mexico.
Since the ports of Brownsville and Hidalgo, TX, have not been used for any shipments of untreated citrus from Mexico in over 20 years, this proposed action would have no economic effect on any entity. Small entities located at or around the ports of Brownsville and Hidalgo, TX, will not be affected by this proposed rule for the same reason that no economic entity of any size will be affected.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This proposed rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 352 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2260, 7711-7714, 7731, and 7734; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
a. In paragraph (b)(2), by removing the words “Brownsville,” and “Hidalgo,”.
b. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), by removing the words “Brownsville or”.
c. In paragraph (c)(1), by removing the words “Brownsville, or”.
d. In paragraph (c)(3), in the paragraph heading and in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii), by removing the words “Brownsville or” each time they appear.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Order to terminate and reschedule referendum.
This document directs that the continuance referendum scheduled to be held March 4 through March 22, 2002 among eligible growers of Hawaii papayas be terminated and rescheduled for May 6 through May 31, 2002. Rescheduling is necessary due to complications encountered with timely delivery of ballots by mail. Rescheduling will ensure that eligible growers receive their ballots with time to review them and vote. A referendum is necessary to determine whether eligible growers of Hawaii papayas favor continuance of the marketing order regulating the handling of papayas grown in the production area.
The rescheduled referendum will be conducted from May 6, through May 31, 2002. To vote in this referendum, growers must have been producing Hawaii papayas during the period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001.
Copies of the marketing order may be obtained from the office of the referendum agent at 2202 Monterey Street, Suite 102 B, Fresno, California, 93721, or the Office of the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), US Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237.
J. Terry Vawter, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, at 2202 Monterey Street, Suite 102 B, Fresno, California 93721; telephone (559) 487-5901; or Melissa Schmaedick, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit & Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone (202) 720-2491.
Pursuant to Marketing Order No. 928 (7 CFR part 928), hereinafter referred to as the “order” and the applicable provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” it is hereby directed that the March 4 through March 22, 2002 referendum be terminated and that a rescheduled referendum be conducted from May 6 through May 31, 2002 to ascertain whether continuance of the order is favored by producers. Only growers that were engaged in the production of Hawaii papayas during the period of July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, may participate in the rescheduled continuance referendum.
A continuance referendum to be conducted among growers of papayas in Hawaii had been scheduled for the period March 4, through March 22, 2002. Notice of this referendum order was issued on January 31, 2002 and published in the February 6, 2002 issue of the
The USDA has determined that a rescheduled referendum to determine if growers of papayas in the production area favor continuance of their marketing order will be held from May 6 through May 31, 2002. Rescheduling of the referendum period will ensure proper distribution and ample review for all eligible growers voting in the referendum. New ballots and voting instruction will be issued to all growers of record subsequent to this Notice.
The USDA has determined that continuance referenda are an effective means for ascertaining whether growers favor continuation of marketing order programs. The USDA would continue the order if either two-thirds of the growers voting in the referendum or growers of two-thirds of the volume of Hawaii papayas represented in the referendum favor continuance. In evaluating the merits of continuance versus termination, the USDA will consider the results of the referendum
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the ballot materials used in the referendum herein ordered have been submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB No. 0581-0102 for Hawaii papayas. It has been estimated that it will take an average of 20 minutes for each of the approximately 400 growers of Hawaii papayas to cast a ballot. Participation is voluntary. Ballots postmarked after May 31, 2002, will not be included in the vote tabulation.
J. Terry Vawter and Martin Engeler of the California Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, are hereby designated as the referendum agents of the Department to conduct such referendum. The procedure applicable to the referendum shall be the “Procedure for the Conduct of Referenda in Connection With Marketing Orders for Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as Amended” (7 CFR 900.400—900.407).
Ballots will be mailed to all growers of record and may also be obtained from the referendum agents and from their appointees.
Marketing agreements, Papayas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the regulations to add Greece to the list of regions that are considered free of rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease. We are taking this action because we have determined that Greece is now free of foot-and-mouth disease. We are also proposing to add Greece to the list of regions that are subject to certain import restrictions on meat or meat products because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or foot-and-mouth-disease-affected regions. These actions would update the disease status of Greece with regard to foot-and-mouth disease while continuing to protect the United States from an introduction of this disease by providing additional requirements for any meat and meat products imported into the United States from Greece.
We will consider all comments we receive that are postmarked, delivered, or e-mailed by May 20, 2002.
You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 01-059-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 01-059-1. If you use e-mail, address your comment to
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
Dr. Anne Goodman, Senior Staff Microbiologist, Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4356.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various diseases, including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), African swine fever, hog cholera, and swine vesicular disease. These are dangerous and destructive communicable diseases of ruminants and swine. Section 94.1 lists regions of the world that are declared to be free of rinderpest or free of both rinderpest and FMD. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) considers rinderpest or FMD to exist in all parts of the world not listed. Section 94.11 of the regulations lists regions of the world that APHIS has determined to be free of rinderpest and FMD, but that are subject to certain restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected regions.
Greece is currently listed in § 94.1(a)(3) of the regulations as a region free of rinderpest. On June 25, 1999, we published in the
Since September 2000, there have been no additional outbreaks of FMD in Greece. APHIS representatives conducted a site visit to Greece in January 2001 to obtain evidence regarding the FMD status of Greece. Documentation of the control and eradication procedures used during the FMD outbreaks in Greece is provided in the site visit report, which may be viewed on the Internet at
Consistent with the guidelines of the Office International des Epizooties (OIE)—i.e., at least 12 months have elapsed since the last outbreak of FMD in Greece—and the findings of our site visit and review of the supporting documentation provided by Greece, we are proposing to recognize Greece as free of FMD. In addition, we are proposing to add Greece to the list of rinderpest- and FMD-free regions whose exports of ruminant and swine meat and meat products to the United States are subject to certain restrictions to ensure against the introduction of those diseases into this country.
Based on the information submitted to us by the Government of Greece, we have reviewed and analyzed the animal health status of Greece relative to FMD. This review and analysis was conducted in light of the risk factors identified in 9 CFR 92.2, “Application for recognition of the animal health status of a region,” which are used to determine the level of risk associated with importing animals or animal products into the United States from a given region. Based on the information submitted to us, we have concluded the following:
Greece's veterinary infrastructure has been strengthened by financial contributions from the European Union for activities relating to specific diseases. In the case of FMD, financial support has been provided for diagnostic laboratory equipment, data management equipment, and surveillance activities.
Routine surveillance for targeted diseases is carried out in specified areas of Greece under the Epidemio-Vigilance Rotational System (EVROS). This program, launched in 2000 with the support of the European Commission, is an integrated system of active surveillance for incursions of targeted diseases, including FMD, designed to provide early warning and effective control. The program is established in the border areas with Turkey that are primarily at risk for incursions of FMD virus.
•
•
•
•
There are several Greek islands that lie in the Aegean Sea directly to the south of the Evros delta off the Turkish mainland. Greece has special surveillance programs in effect on these islands to prevent the transmission of FMD from Turkey to Greece via these islands.
Greece's borders with Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Albania are generally mountainous, concentrating movements in the river valleys but making the mountainous part of the borders more difficult to monitor. This is not considered to be a significant source of risk.
These findings are described in further detail in a qualitative evaluation that may be obtained by contacting the person listed under
These proposed actions would relieve certain restrictions due to FMD and rinderpest on the importation into the United States of certain live animals and animal products from Greece. However, because Greece shares common land borders with countries not considered free of rinderpest and FMD, the importation of meat and other products from ruminants and swine into the United States from Greece would continue to be subject to certain restrictions.
Specifically, we are proposing to add Greece to the list in § 94.11(a) of regions declared free of rinderpest and FMD but that are subject to special restrictions on the importation of their meat and other animal products into the United States. The regions listed in § 94.11(a) are subject to these special restrictions because they: (1) Supplement their national meat supply by importing fresh (chilled or frozen) meat of ruminants or swine from regions that are designated in § 94.1(a) as regions where rinderpest or FMD exists, (2) have a common land border with regions where rinderpest or FMD exists, or (3) import ruminants or swine from regions where rinderpest or FMD exists under conditions less restrictive than would be acceptable for importation into the United States.
Greece has a common land border with Turkey, a country not considered free of FMD. As a result, there is some risk that the meat and other animal products produced by Greece could be commingled with the fresh (chilled or frozen) meat of animals from a region in which FMD exists and present an undue risk of introducing FMD into the United States if imported without restriction.
Under § 94.11, meat and other animal products of ruminants and swine, including ship stores, airplane meals, and baggage containing these meat or animal products, may not be imported into the United States except in accordance with § 94.11 and the applicable requirements of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service at 9 CFR chapter III.
Section 94.11 generally requires that the meat and other animal products of ruminants and swine be: (1) Prepared in an inspected establishment that is eligible to have its products imported into the United States under the Federal Meat Inspection Act; and (2) accompanied by an additional certificate, issued by a full-time salaried veterinary official of the national government of the exporting region, assuring that the meat or other animal products have not been commingled with or exposed to meat or other animal products originating in, imported from, transported through, or that have otherwise been in a region where rinderpest or FMD exists.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process required by Executive Order 12866.
We are proposing to amend the regulations to add Greece to the list of regions that are considered free of rinderpest and FMD. We are taking this action because we have determined that Greece is now free of FMD. We are also proposing to add Greece to the list of regions that are subject to certain restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected countries. These actions would update the disease status of Greece with regard to FMD while continuing to protect the United States from an introduction of rinderpest and FMD by providing additional requirements for any meat and meat products imported into the United States from Greece.
The following analysis addresses the potential economic effects of this proposed rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
From an economic standpoint, the proposed rule would have little or no impact on U.S. animal stock and commodities. There are two reasons. First, the proposed rule would not remove other disease-based restrictions on the importation of ruminants or swine (and certain meat and other products from those animals) from Greece into the United States. Because bovine spongiform encephalopathy is considered to exist in Greece, the importation of ruminants and meat, meat products, and certain other products of ruminants that have been in Greece is prohibited. Furthermore, because hog cholera (also known as classical swine fever) and swine vesicular disease are also considered to exist in Greece, the importation of swine from that region into the United States is prohibited, and the importation of pork and pork products is subject to restrictions.
Second, it appears unlikely that the volume of animals and animal products that would be eligible for importation into the United States from Greece would be sufficient to have a significant impact on the U.S. market. In 2000, Greece produced 287,765 metric tons of beef, veal, mutton, lamb, and pig meat, representing less than 1.5 percent of the comparable U.S. production that year. Similarly, Greece's production of whole, fresh cow milk was 770,000 metric tons, only 1 percent of the comparable U.S. production during that period. Finally, in 1999, live cattle and pig stock in Greece was 1,510,000 head, less than 1 percent of the comparable stock in the United States that year.
Besides cow milk, Greece also produces sheep and goat milk. In 2000, Greece produced 670,000 metric tons of sheep milk and 450,000 metric tons of goat milk. However, there appears to be no significant market in the United States for those commodities, or products made from them, such as cheese, as evidenced by the fact that no sheep or goat milk or cheese is commercially produced in the United States, and U.S. imports of those commodities are relatively minor. In 1999, for example, U.S. imports of cheese made from sheep and goat milk from all countries totaled 32,505 metric tons, less than 1 percent of the total U.S. cheese production.
In 1999, the stock of live sheep and goats in Greece was 14,276,000 head, or 66 percent more than the comparable stock in the United States that year. Here again, however, there appears to be no significant market in the United States for those animals, as evidenced by the fact that the United States imported only 53,165 live sheep and goats from all countries in 1999, which represents less than 1 percent of the sheep and goat stock in the United States that year and less than 1 percent
Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule include U.S. import brokers, agents, and others involved in the sale of animals or animal products from Greece that would no longer be prohibited, or that could be imported under less restrictive conditions, if Greece is declared free of FMD. The number and size of entities that might be directly involved in the importation and sale of such animals or animal products from Greece is unknown, but it is likely that these entities would be small, based on the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) size standards.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This proposed rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we are proposing to amend 9 CFR part 94 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 94 would continue to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7711, 7712, 7713, 7714, 7751, and 7754; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 11, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
2. Section 94.1 would be amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), by adding, in alphabetical order, the word “Greece,”.
b. In paragraph (a)(3), by removing the words “Greece and the” and adding the word “The” in their place.
3. In § 94.11, paragraph (a), the first sentence would be amended by adding, in alphabetical order, the word “Greece,”.
Small Business Administration.
Proposed rule; correction.
This document corrects the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) to the proposed rule published in the
Michael J. Wolter, 202-401-1420.
The Small Business Administration published a document in the
In proposed rule FR Doc. 02-5613 published on March 12, 2002 (67 FR 11057) make the following correction. On page 11057, in the first column, remove “RIN: 3245-AE92” and replace with “RIN: 3245-AE71.”
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, -200, and “300 series airplanes. This proposal would require revision of the applicable maintenance program manual, repetitive inspections for corrosion or cracking of the hook roller shafts of the flap carriage, and eventual replacement of the hook roller shafts with new or serviceable hook roller shafts. This replacement would extend the interval for the repetitive inspections. This action is necessary to prevent cracking of the hook roller shafts of the flap carriage and consequent reduced structural integrity of the flap, which could result in jamming of the flap. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by April 22, 2002.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York.
Dan Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York 11581; telephone (516) 256-7505; fax (516) 568-2716.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-69-AD.” The postcard will be date-stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-69-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, -200, and -300 series airplanes. TCCA advises that corroded hook roller shafts have been found on the flap carriages of several in-service airplanes. During its investigation, the airplane manufacturer has identified discrepancies in the manufacturing process that may have resulted in inadequate corrosion protection on some hook roller shafts. This condition, if not corrected, could cause cracking of the hook roller shafts of the flap carriage and consequent reduced structural integrity of the flap, which could result to jamming of the flap.
Bombardier, Inc., has issued De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Airworthiness Limitations List Temporary Revisions (TRs) AWL-75 and AWL-76 (for Model DHC-8-100 series airplanes), AWL 2-19 (for Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes), and AWL 3-83 (for Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes), all dated July 14, 2000. Those TRs specify new thresholds and repetitive intervals for existing structural inspections of the hook roller shafts of the flap carriage according to De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-8-7 (for Model DHC-8-100 series airplanes), PSM 1-82-7 (for Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes), or PSM 1-83-7 (for Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes), as applicable. TCCA classified these TRs as mandatory and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-1999-10R2, dated September 12, 2000, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. Canadian airworthiness directive CF-1999-10R2 also requires replacement of existing hook roller shafts with new or serviceable hook roller shafts.
This airplane model is manufactured in Canada and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the TCCA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require revision of De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-8-7 (for Model DHC-8-100 series airplanes), PSM 1-82-7 (for Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes), or PSM 1-83-7 (for Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes), as applicable, repetitive detailed inspections for corrosion or cracking of the hook roller shafts of the flap carriage, and eventual replacement of the hook roller shafts with new or serviceable hook roller shafts. This replacement would extend the interval for the repetitive inspections. The inspections would be required to be accomplished according to the applicable De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Maintenance Program Manual and at the compliance times specified in the TRs described previously. The replacement of the hook roller shafts would be required to be accomplished in accordance with certain sections of the applicable De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Aircraft Maintenance Manual.
The service information identifies the inspection described previously only as
The FAA estimates that 183 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
It would take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $43,920, or $240 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
It would take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed replacement, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $460 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $128,100, or $700 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
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 (e) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent cracking of the hook roller shafts of the flap carriage and consequent reduced structural integrity of the flap, which could result in jamming of the flap, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, accomplish paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model DHC-8-100 series airplanes: Insert De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Airworthiness Limitations List Temporary Revisions (TRs) AWL-75 and AWL-76, both dated July 14, 2000, into De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-8-7.
(2) For Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes: Insert De Havilland Inc. Airworthiness Limitations List TR AWL 2-19, dated July 14, 2000, into De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-82-7.
(3) For Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes: Insert De Havilland Inc. Airworthiness Limitations List TR AWL 3-83, dated July 14, 2000, into De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-83-7.
(b) Do a detailed inspection for corrosion or cracking of the hook roller shafts of the flap carriage, at the times specified in paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this AD, as applicable, and according to the service information in paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(1) For Model DHC-8-100 series airplanes: For Pre Mod 8Q101103 roller shafts having part number (P/N) 85750362-103 or 85750362-105, do the initial inspection at the compliance time specified in the “Threshold” column of the table in De Havilland Inc. Airworthiness Limitations List TRs AWL-75 and AWL-76, both dated July 14, 2000, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, according to De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-8-7. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at the applicable interval specified in the “Initial Interval” column of the table in TR AWL-75 and AWL-76, until the airplane reaches the applicable threshold listed in the “Repeat Cut-In” column of the table in TR AWL-75 and AWL-76. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the applicable interval listed in the “Repeat Interval” column of the table in TR AWL-75 and AWL-76, until paragraph (c) of this AD has been accomplished on all affected hook roller shafts. Where the TR specifies compliance intervals in “flights,” for the purposes of this AD, “flights” means “flight cycles.”
(2) For Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes: For Pre Mod 8Q101103 hook roller shafts having part number (P/N) 85750362-103 or 85750362-105, do the initial inspection at the compliance time specified in the “Threshold” column of the table in De Havilland Inc. Airworthiness Limitations List TR AWL 2-19, dated July 14, 2000, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, according to De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-82-7. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at the applicable interval specified in the “Initial Interval” column of the table in TR AWL 2-19, until the airplane reaches the applicable threshold listed in the “Repeat Cut-In” column of the table in TR AWL 2-19.
(3) For Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes: For Pre Mod 8Q101103 hook roller shafts having part number (P/N) 85750362-103 or 85750362-105, do the initial inspection at the compliance time specified in the “Threshold” column of the table in De Havilland Inc. Airworthiness Limitations List TR AWL 3-83, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, according to De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-83-7. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at the applicable interval specified in the “Initial Interval” column of the table in TR AWL 3-83, until the airplane reaches the applicable threshold listed in the “Repeat Cut-In” column of the table in TR AWL 3-83. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the applicable interval listed in the “Repeat Interval” column of the table in TR AWL 3-83 until paragraph (c) of this AD has been accomplished on all affected hook roller shafts. Where the TR specifies compliance intervals in “flights,” for the purposes of this AD, “flights” means “flight cycles.”
(c) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD, replace hook roller shafts having P/N 85750362-103 or 85750362-105 with new or serviceable hook roller shafts having P/N 85750362-107, according to Sections 57-50-44 and 57-50-53 of the De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, as applicable. Replacement of all hook roller shafts, P/N 85750362-103 or 85750362-105, with new hook roller shafts, P/N 85750362-107, ends the repetitive inspections at the intervals required by paragraph (a) of this AD.
(1) For hook roller shafts on which any corrosion or crack is found during any inspection per paragraph (b) of this AD: Do the replacement before further flight.
(2) For uncracked or uncorroded hook roller shafts: Do the replacement within 20,000 flight cycles or 5 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever is first.
(d) Following the replacement of hook roller shafts according to paragraph (c) of this AD, do the Structural Inspection Program for the hook roller shafts of the flap carriage, as specified in paragraph (d)(1), (d)(2), or (d)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model DHC-8-100 series airplanes: Using the criteria for Mod 8Q101103 hook roller shafts having P/N 85750362-107, do the initial inspection at the compliance time specified in the “Threshold” column of the table in De Havilland Inc. Airworthiness Limitations List TR AWL-75 and AWL “76, both dated July 14, 2000, according to De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-8-7. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at the applicable interval specified in the “Initial Interval” column of the table in TRs AWL-75 and AWL -76, until the airplane reaches the applicable threshold listed in the “Repeat Cut-In” column of the table in TRs AWL-75 and AWL-76. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the applicable interval listed in the “Repeat Interval” column of the table in TRs AWL-75 and AWL-76. Where the TR specifies compliance intervals in “flights,” for the purposes of this AD, “flights” means “flight cycles.”
(2) For Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes: Using the criteria for Mod 8Q101103 hook roller shafts having P/N 85750362-107, do the initial inspection at the compliance time specified in the “Threshold” column of the table in De Havilland Inc. Airworthiness Limitations List TR AWL 2-19, dated July 14, 2000, according to De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-82-7. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at the applicable interval specified in the “Initial Interval” column of the table in TR AWL 2-19, until the airplane reaches the applicable threshold listed in the “Repeat Cut-In” column of the table in TR AWL 2-19. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the applicable interval listed in the “Repeat Interval” column of the table in TR AWL 2-19. Where the TR specifies compliance intervals in “flights,” for the purposes of this AD, “flights” means “flight cycles.”
(3) For Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes: Using the criteria for Mod 8Q101103 hook roller shafts having P/N 85750362-107, do the initial inspection at the compliance time specified in the “Threshold” column of the table in De Havilland Inc. Airworthiness Limitations List TR AWL 3-83, according to De Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual PSM 1-83-7. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at the applicable interval specified in the “Initial Interval” column of the table in TR AWL 3-83, until the airplane reaches the applicable threshold listed in the “Repeat Cut-In” column of the table in TR AWL 3-83. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the applicable interval listed in the “Repeat Interval” column of the table in TR AWL 3-83. Where the TR specifies compliance intervals in “flights,” for the purposes of this AD, “flights” means “flight cycles.”
(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, New York ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the New York ACO.
(f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Canadian airworthiness directive CF-1999-10R2, dated September 12, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 airplanes, that would have required installation of two arcing protection brackets below and behind the circuit breakers located in the generator control rack in the electrical/electronics compartment. This new action revises the proposed rule by adding certain airplanes and removing certain other airplanes from the applicability. The actions specified by this new proposed AD are intended to prevent arcing between circuit breaker terminals and adjacent equipment and structure located in the generator control rack in the electrical/electronics compartment, which, if not corrected, could result in possible electrical shock to maintenance personnel during maintenance operations. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by May 6, 2002.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-130-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
George Y. Mabuni, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5341; fax (562) 627-5210.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-130-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-130-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 airplanes, was published as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Due consideration has been given to the comments received in response to the NPRM.
One commenter mentions that it generally supports the proposed rule.
One commenter advises that Boeing has revised Service Bulletin MD90-24-007 by issuing Revision 01, dated August 31, 2000, and Revision 02, dated July 16, 2001. The commenter notes that Revision 01 and Revision 02 add certain airplanes and delete certain other airplanes from the effectivity of the original service bulletin. Since the procedures described in the original service bulletin did not change in the revised service bulletins, the commenter requests that credit also be given for the accomplishment of Revision 01 or 02 of the service bulletin.
The FAA agrees that the procedures described in the original service bulletin are the same as those described in Revision 01 and Revision 02 of the original service bulletin. Since Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-007, Revision 02, dated July 16, 2001, contains the correct airplane effectivity, we have revised the applicability of this proposed rule to specify Revision 02. We have also added a new “Note 2” that provides credit for those procedures accomplished per the original service bulletin and Revision 01 of the service bulletin.
Since these changes expand the scope of the originally proposed rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.
There are approximately 26 Model MD-90-30 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 13 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $200 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,160, or $320 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore,
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent arcing between circuit breaker terminals and adjacent equipment and structure located on the generator control rack in the electrical/electronics compartment, and consequent electrical shock to maintenance personnel during maintenance operations, accomplish the following:
(a) Within one year after the effective date of this AD, install two arcing protection brackets below and behind the circuit breakers located in the generator control rack in the electrical/electronics compartment per the Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD90-24-007, Revision 02, dated July 16, 2001.
Installation of two arcing protection brackets below and behind the circuit breakers located in the generator control rack in the electrical/electronics compartment per the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-007, dated February 7, 1996, or Revision 01, dated August 31, 2000, is considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 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.
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Petition for rulemaking; request for comments.
The Department is inviting comments on the petition for rulemaking filed by the National Air Carrier Association (NACA) to add, delete and amend certain provisions of 14 CFR Parts 200 and 212 of the Department's Regulations. In its petition, NACA proposes, among other things, changes in the definitions and standards the Department uses in determining whether to grant or deny foreign air carrier requests to conduct certain types of international charter flights. In order that we may have a complete record on which to base our decision on NACA's petition, we solicit the views of all interested persons and entities, including direct air carriers (both U.S. and foreign), indirect air carriers (both U.S. and foreign), trade associations, labor unions, travel agents, shippers, communities, and the general public, on the proposals set forth in that petition. The proposal is in OST Docket 2002-11741 and can be accessed via the internet by searching Docket 11741 at the DOT Docket website (
Comments to the Petition for Rulemaking are due May 6, 2002. If comments are filed, reply comments are due June 4, 2002.
To make sure your comments and related material are not entered more than once in the docket, please submit them (marked with docket number OST-2002-11741) by only one of the following means:
(1) By mail to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.
(2) By hand delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(3) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management System at http://dms.dot.gov. Comments must be filed in Docket OST-2002-11741, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20590. Late filed comments will be considered to the extent possible. Due to security procedures in effect since October 2001 on mail deliveries, mail received through the Postal Service may be subject to delays. Commenters should consider using an express mail firm to ensure the timely filing of any
Gordon Bingham, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room 6412, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366-2404.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This proposed rule is issued by the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to increase the regulatory controls placed on buprenorphine by rescheduling buprenorphine from a Schedule V narcotic to a Schedule III narcotic. This proposed action is based on a formal rescheduling recommendation by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and a DEA review indicating that buprenorphine meets the definition of a Schedule III narcotic. If finalized, this action will impose the regulatory controls and criminal sanctions of a Schedule III narcotic on those person who handle buprenorphine or products containing buprenorphine.
Comments must be received by April 22, 2002.
Comments should be submitted to the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537; Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/CCR.
Frank Sapienza, Chief, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, (202) 307-7183.
Buprenorphine is a derivative of thebaine, a major constituent of opium, presently marketed in the United States as an injectable formulation under the brand name of Buprenex® for the treatment of pain. It is classified as a narcotic agonist-antagonist, or partial agonist, with an analgesic potency far greater than morphine (generally reported to be about 20 to 30 times that of morphine sulfate in humans). DEA placed buprenorphine in Schedule V of the Controlled substances Act (CSA) in 1985 (50 FR 8104).
Buprenorphine has also been investigated for the treatment of narcotic addiction. Two New Drug Applications (NDA) have been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this indication. Applications for marketing approval for these high-dose sublingual tablet products remain pending at FDA. However, approvable letters have been issued for both products and they are likely to receive final marketing approval in 2002.
As part of the NDA review process for the high-dose sublingual tablet formulations for buprenorphine, the FDA reviewed and evaluated the scientific and medical data relating to scheduling under the CSA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b), (c), and (f). Since the original review conducted by the FDA in the early 1980s (prior to the marketing of Buprenex®), a substantial amount of human experience with buprenorphine products as well as a number of scientific studies have provided new information. These data have prompted a reevaluation of buprenorphine's status under the CSA. The eight factors used to determine the appropriate placement of buprenorphine under the CSA include:
(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse;
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effects;
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug;
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse;
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse;
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health;
(7) Its physic or physiological dependence liability; and
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.
On December 4, 2001, the Assistant Surgeon General and Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Arthur J. Lawrence, signed and forwarded a letter to the DEA recommending that buprenorphine be rescheduled as a Schedule III substance. This recommendation was based on FDA's scientific and medical evaluation. After considering the FDA's evalaution and the DHHS scheduling recommendation and reviewing all the available relevant data regarding the eight factors determinative of control (21 U.S.C. 811(b)(c)), the DEA concludes that buprenorphine should be placed in Schedule III of the CSA.
The DEA found that buprenorphine met the definition of a Schedule III substance. In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 812(b):
1. Buprenorphine has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in Schedule I or II.
Buprenorphine is a long-acting partial agonist with a high affinity for and slow dissociation from opioid receptors.
Buprenorphine produces effects similar to other pure mu agonists (like morphine or hydromorphone) including euphoria, drug liking, respiratory depression, pupillary constriction and sedation. It is recognized as morphine or heroin-like by experienced narcotic abusers.
Little abuse or diversion of buprenorphine has been noted in the U.S. (reflecting very limited prescription, distribution and product formulation: only low-dose injectable buprenorphine has been marketed). However, significant abuse of buprenorphine has been reported in many countries where it has been more available and other formulations have been marketed. In those countries, buprenorphine has been abused via the intravenous, sublingual, intransasal and inhalation routes by many abuser populations. Buprenorphine products have been diverted from legitimate channels through theft, doctor shopping and fraudulent prescriptions. Significant amounts of buprenorphine have been trafficked across international borders and law enforcement authorities have seized large amounts of buprenorphine involved in these activities.
The above data suggest that the abuse potential of buprenorphine is high and closely resembles other narcotics in Schedule II. However, buprenorphine effects are less dose-dependent than pure mu agonists and a “ceiling effect”
2. Buprenorphine has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
Buprenex
3. Abuse of buprenorphine may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
Data from a number of studies indicate that chronic use of buprenorphine is associated with a withdrawal syndrome that is of less intensity and, often, of longer duration than other opioids in Schedule I or II. The withdrawal effects have been characterized as mild to moderate. In addition, about 20 percent of babies born to mothers in treatment with buprenorphine substitution for opioid dependence have exhibited an abstinence syndrome severe enough to require treatment. Drug craving after discontinuation of buprenorphine use has been reported. Buprenorphine-dependent patients can easily return to heroin use and vice versa. These data suggest that buprenorphine produces low to moderate physical dependence and high psychological dependence.
It is likely that the approval and marketing of high-dose buprenorphine sublingual tables (and any other buprenorphine products that may be marketed in the future) will increase the availability of buprenorphine in the United States. The Schedule V controls presently in effect for buprenorphine are insufficient to prevent the diversion and abuse of buprenorphine that is likely to occur with its increased availability. Both foreign data on buprenorphine and the U.S. experience with other drugs like buprenorphine have been viewed by both the DHHS and the DEA as significant and relevant to the control of buprenorphine under the CSA.
According to the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board (UN/INCB), worldwide usage and availability of buprenorphine has increased substantially in recent years. Buprenorphine production has grown from 35 kg in 1980 to 460 kg in 1998. In France, imports increased from 5 kg in 1994 to 159 kg in 1998. The increased availability of buprenorphine in France coincides with the marketing of high-dose sublingual tablets and has been accompanied by increased diversion and abuse and over 100 buprenorphine-related deaths.
In the United States, expansion in the use of mixed agonists-antagonists or partial agonists has been accompanied by significant increases in their diversion, abuse and public health risks. For example, both pentazocine (Talwin®) and butorphanol (Stadol®) were initially marketed as injectable solutions for analgesia. The use of these products were limited and very few abuse-related problems were identified. However, when pentazocine became available in a table formulation and a butorphanol nasal spray was introduced, these fewer formulations greatly increased the availability of these substances. Significant abuse and diversion of these products resulted in their control under the CSA.
This proposed rule, if finalized, would specifically list buprenorphine as a Schedule III narcotic. All products containing buprenorphine or salts or buprenorphine would be subject to Schedule III narcotic regulatory requirements. The Schedule III placement will not prevent any future buprenorphine products approved by the FDA for the treatment of narcotic addiction from being used in office based treatment of narcotic addiction in accordance with the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-310). This Act amended the CSA to allow qualified physicians, under certification by the DHHS, to prescribe Schedule III-V narcotic drugs (FDA-approved for the indication of narcotic addiction treatment) to narcotic addicts outside the context of clinic-based narcotic treatment programs. The DEA recognizes the need to expand narcotic treatment and this factor was a consideration in proposing Schedule III placement for buprenorphine. However, buprenorphine's abuse potential and psychological dependence profile may result in significant abuse and diversion of the sublingual tablets once they are available for use in the U.S. Should this occur, the DEA will initiate action to further increase the regulatory controls on buprenorphine.
This notice also provides an opportunity for interested persons to comment, in writing, with regard to any information they feel may have a bearing on this matter. Requests for a hearing should state, with particularity, the issues concerning which the person desires to be heard. All correspondence regarding this matter should be submitted to the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537. In the event that comments, objections, or requests for a hearing raise one or more questions that the Administrator finds warrants a hearing, the Administrator shall publish a hearing notice in the
Persons currently involved with the manufacture or handling of this substance are not expected to comply with DEA regulations applicable to a schedule III narcotic substance until such time as a final rule is published in the
The Administrator hereby certifies that this rulemaking has been drafted in a manner consistent with the principles of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). It will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Buprenorphine is already controlled under the CSA. Individuals who are currently engaged in activities with buprenorphine are already registered to handle controlled substances and are subject to the regulatory requirements of the CSA.
In accordance with the provisions of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(a)), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The Administrator certifies that this proposed rulemaking has been drafted in accordance with the principles in Executive Order 12866, Section 1(b). DEA has determined that this is not a significant rulemaking action. Therefore, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Buprenorphine is already controlled under the CSA. Individuals who are currently engaged in activities with buprenorphine are already registered to handle controlled substances and are subject to the regulatory requirements of the CSA.
This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform.
This proposed rulemaking does not preempt or modify any provision of state law; nor does it impose enforcement responsibilities on any state; nor does it diminish the power of any state to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132.
This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Narcotics, Prescription drugs.
Under the authority vested in the Attorney General by section 201(a) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(a)), and delegated to the Administrator of the DEA by the Department of Justice regulations (21 CFR 0.100), the Administrator hereby proposes that 21 CFR part 1308 be amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b) unless otherwise noted.
(e) Narcotic drugs. Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule:
3. Section 1308.15 (b) introductory text is proposed to be revised and paragraph (b) (1) is proposed to be removed and reserved to read as follows:
(b) Narcotic drugs. Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation containing any of the following narcotic drugs and their salts, as set forth below:
(1) [Reserved]
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor.
Withdrawal of proposed rules.
OSHA is withdrawing
This withdrawal is effective on March 21, 2002.
Mr. Joseph V. Daddura, OSHA Office of Maritime Standards, N-3609, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-2086.
On November 29, 1988, OSHA published proposed rules for Scaffolds in Shipyard Employment, Subpart N (53 FR 48182), Welding, Cutting and Heating in Shipyard Employment, Subpart D (53 FR 48111), Access and Egress in Shipyards, Subpart E (53 FR 48130), and Fall Protection for Shipyard Employment, Subpart M (53 FR 48168). The proposed rules intended to consolidate coverage of various shipyard hazards into one vertical standard.
The proposed rule on scaffolds included general requirements for scaffold construction and use, updated requirements for fall protection and falling object protection, and provided specific requirements for certain types of scaffolds. OSHA received 14 comments in response to this proposed rule. See Exhibit 6 (Docket S-047). On April 12, 1994, OSHA reopened the rulemaking record to consider some additional issues, including the appropriateness of replacing the term “capable person” in the proposed rule with “qualified person,” the requirements for interior hung scaffolds, and the qualifications for persons performing scaffold inspections. 59 FR 17290 (April 12, 1994). OSHA received 8 comments in response to this notice. See Ex. 9 (Docket S-047a).
The proposed rule for welding, cutting, and heating included general requirements for engineering controls, work practices, and personal protective equipment. It also established general requirements for welding, cutting, and heating in hazardous environments such as hollow metal spaces and confined spaces. In addition, the proposal included specific requirements for oxyfuel gas welding and cutting, arc welding and cutting, and resistance welding. OSHA received 8 comments in response to this proposed rule. See Ex. 6 (Docket S-043).
The proposed rule for access and egress included general requirements for means of access and egress, as well as specific requirements for access and egress on vessels, drydocks, cargo spaces, and other structures. OSHA received 5 comments in response to this proposed rule. See Ex. 6 (Docket S-044).
The proposed rule for fall protection specified instances where fall protection systems would be required in the shipyard environment. It also set forth requirements for fall protection systems criteria, including requirements for guardrail systems, and safety net systems. OSHA received 13 comments in response to this proposed rule. See Ex. 6 (Docket S-046).
OSHA is withdrawing the proposed rules for the following reasons. First, OSHA is devoting its resources to higher priority shipyard standards. These important rulemakings include proposed standards for Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment, Subpart P, and General Working Conditions for Shipyard Employment, Subpart F. See OSHA Regulatory Agenda at 66 FR 61872 (Dec. 3, 2001).
Second, there are technologies and developments in shipyard employment that have emerged over the last 14 years that are not reflected in the proposed rules and supporting economic analyses. For example, since 1988 the use of interior hung scaffolds in the shipyard industry has increased greatly. OSHA did not contemplate such widespread use of these scaffolds when it published the proposed rule on scaffolds in 1988. Indeed, the proposed rule on scaffolds only provides minimum requirements for the erection of interior hung scaffolds; it does not address the dismantling of such scaffolds or certain work practices that may affect the structural integrity of the scaffolds. In addition, the manner in which ships and other vessels are constructed has changed dramatically since 1988, especially in small shipyards. Most ships are now constructed in component parts and assembled in one location. This method of construction reduces the need for certain work practices, such as piece-by-piece welding. It also reduces the need for multiple craft work at a single location. OSHA did not envision such a change throughout the entire shipyard industry when it published the proposed rules. This change affects the need for the requirements in the proposed rules, as well as necessitating changes to the supporting economic analyses.
Third, the rulemaking records for these proposed rules are particularly sparse. OSHA received only a few comments in response to each proposal. While most of these comments were helpful and informative, OSHA believes there is insufficient information in the rulemaking records upon which to regulate the specific conditions the proposals were intended to address.
Accordingly, the proposed rules for (1) Scaffolds in Shipyard Employment, Subpart N, (2) Welding, Cutting and Heating in Shipyard Employment, Subpart D, (3) Access and Egress in Shipyards, Subpart E, and (4) Fall Protection for Shipyard Employment, Subpart M are withdrawn.
This notice was prepared under the direction of John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health. It is issued under sections 6 and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 655, 657), 29 CFR 1911.11, and 29 CFR 1911.18.
Legal Services Corporation.
Regulatory negotiation working group meeting.
LSC is conducting a Negotiated Rulemaking to consider revisions to its eligibility regulations at 45 CFR Part 1611. This document announces the dates, times, and address of the next meeting of the working group, which is open to the public.
The Legal Services Corporation's 1611 Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group will meet on April 11-12, 2002. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. on April 11, 2002. It is anticipated that the meeting will end by 3:30 p.m. on April 12, 2002.
The meeting will be held at the offices of the Center for Law and Social Policy, 1015 15th Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005.
Mattie C. Condray, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 750 First St., NE., 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 336-8817 (phone); (202) 336-8952 (fax);
LSC is conducting a Negotiated Rulemaking to consider revisions to its eligibility regulations at 45 CFR Part 1611. The working group will hold its next meeting on the dates and at the location announced above. The meeting is open to public observation. Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments. Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend the meeting may notify Ms. Condray.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Maritime Commission (“Commission”) proposes to revise its existing fees for filing petitions and complaints; various public information services, such as record searches, document copying, and admissions to practice; filing ocean transportation intermediary applications; applications for special permission; service contracts; agreements; and passenger vessel performance and casualty certificate applications. These revised fees reflect current costs to the Commission. In addition, the Commission adds a new fee for the provision of a database report on effective carrier agreements, makes nomenclature changes in certain CFR units with respect to Commission bureau designations, and makes section reference changes in certain CFR units to reflect numbering changes made in a previous rulemaking. The Commission also is republishing a fee requirement that was previously inadvertently omitted.
Submit an original and 15 copies of comments (paper), or e-mail comments as an attachment in WordPerfect 8, Microsoft Word 97, or earlier versions of these applications, no later than April 22, 2002.
Address comments to: Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20573-0001,
JoAnn Baca, Special Assistant to the Executive Director, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20573-0001, (202)523-5800, E-mail: joannb@fmc.gov.
The Commission is authorized under the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (“IOAA”), 31 U.S.C. 9701 (1983), to establish fees for services and benefits that it provides to specific recipients. The IOAA provides that each service or thing of value provided by an agency to a person be self-sustaining to the extent possible, and that each charge shall be fair and based on the costs to the Government, the value of the service or thing to the recipient, policy or interest served, and other relevant facts. 31 U.S.C. 9701.
The primary guidance for implementation of IOAA is Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) Circular A-25, as revised July 8, 1993. OMB Circular A-25 requires that a reasonable charge be made to each recipient for a measurable unit or amount of Government service from which the recipient derives a benefit, in order that the Government recover the full cost of rendering that service.
OMB Circular A-25 further provides that costs be determined or estimated from the best available records in the agency, and that cost computations shall cover the direct and indirect costs to the Government of carrying out the activity, including but not limited to:
(A) Direct and indirect personnel costs, including salaries and fringe benefits such as medical insurance and retirement.
(B) Physical overhead, consulting, and other indirect costs including material and supply costs, utilities, insurance, travel and rent.
(C) The management and supervisory costs.
(D) The costs of enforcement, collection, research, establishment of standards and regulations, including any required environmental impact statements.
OMB Circular A-25, paragraphs 6.d.1.(a), (b), (c) and (d).
OMB Circular A-25 also calls for a periodic reassessment of costs, with related adjustment of fees, if necessary, and the establishment of new fees where none exist.
The Commission's current filing and service fees have been in effect since 1998, and are no longer representative of the Commission's actual costs for providing such services. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to revise its fees so as to reflect costs attendant to providing the involved services. Fee increases primarily reflect increases in salary and indirect (overhead) costs. For some services, the increase in processing or review time accounts in part for the increase in the level of proposed fees. For other services, proposed fees are lower than current fees due to overall reduced costs to provide those services.
The Commission is instituting a new user fee for provision of a database report on effective carrier agreements. Also, in promulgating new rules governing the filing of service contracts to implement the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105-158, 112 Stat. 1902, in Docket No. 99-12,
The Commission has reviewed its current fees and developed data on the time and cost involved in providing particular services to arrive at the updated direct labor costs for those services. The direct labor costs include clerical, professional, supervisory, and executive time expended on an activity, plus a check processing cost of $1.70. The indirect costs include Government
A detailed summary of the data used to arrive at the proposed fees is available from the Secretary of the Commission upon written or e-mail request.
The Commission intends to update its fees biennially in keeping with OMB guidance. In updating its fees, the Commission will incorporate changes in the salaries of its employees into direct labor costs associated with its services, and recalculate its indirect costs (overhead) based on current level of costs.
The Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission hereby certifies that these proposed fees will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission recognizes that these proposed revisions may have some impact on the shipping industry. Fees collected from the general public for Commission information recover the cost to the Commission for providing specific services. Commission regulations provide for waiver of fees for those entities that can make the required showing of undue hardship (46 CFR 503.41).
This Rule also makes nomenclature changes in certain CFR units to reflect a change in a relevant Commission bureau name since these CFR units were last revised. Additionally, this Rule makes section reference changes in certain CFR units to reflect numbering changes made in a previous rulemaking.
This Rule does not contain any collection of information requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended. Therefore, OMB review is not required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal access to justice, Investigations, Lawyers, Maritime carriers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Classified information, Freedom of information, Privacy, Sunshine Act.
Exports, Freight forwarders, Non-vessel-operating common carriers, Ocean transportation intermediaries, Licensing requirements, Financial responsibility requirements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Common carrier, Freight, Intermodal transportation, Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Freight, Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Insurance, Maritime carriers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Investigations, Maritime carriers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers.
For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Maritime Commission proposes to amend 46 CFR parts 502, 503, 515, 520, 530, 535, 540, 550, 551, 555, and 560 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 502 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 504, 551, 552, 553, 556(c), 559, 561-569, 571-596; 5 U.S.C. 571-584; 12 U.S.C. 1141j(a); 18 U.S.C. 207; 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. 2112(a); 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. app. 817d, 817e, 1114(b), 1705, 1707-1711, 1713-1716; E.O. 11222 of May 8, 1965, 30 FR 6469, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp. P. 306; 21 U.S.C. 853a; Pub. L. 105-258, 112 Stat. 1902.
2. The fourth sentence of § 502.51(a) is revised to read as follows:
(a) * * * Petitions shall be accompanied by remittance of a $228 filing fee.* * *
3. Section 502.62(g) is revised to read as follows:
(g) The complaint shall be accompanied by remittance of a $209 filing fee.
4. Section 502.68(a)(3) is revised to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) Petitions shall be accompanied by remittance of a $228 filing fee.
5. Section 502.69(b) is revised to read as follows:
(b) Petitions shall be accompanied by remittance of a $228 filing fee. [Rule 69.]
6. The last sentence of § 502.182 is revised to read as follows:
* * * The complaint shall be accompanied by remittance of a $209 filing fee. [Rule 182.]
7. § 502.271(d)(5) is revised to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(5) Applications must be accompanied by remittance of a $81 filing fee.
8. The last sentence of § 502.304(b) is revised to read as follows:
(b) * * * Such claims shall be accompanied by remittance of a $63 filing fee.
9. The authority citation for part 503 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552, 552a, 552b, 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; E.O. 12958 of April 20, 1995 (60 FR 19825), sections 5.2(a) and (b).
10. In § 503.43, paragraphs (c)(1) (i) and (ii), the first sentence of paragraph (c)(2), paragraph (c)(3)(ii) and (iii), paragraph (c)(4), paragraph (d) and paragraph (e) are revised to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Search will be performed by clerical/administrative personnel at a rate of $20.00 per hour and by professional/executive personnel at a rate of $40.00 per hour.
(ii) Minimum charge for record search is $20.00.
(2) Charges for review of records to determine whether they are exempt from disclosure under § 503.35 shall be assessed to recover full costs at the rate of $75.00 per hour. * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) By Commission personnel, at the rate of five cents per page (one side) plus $20.00 per hour.
(iii) Minimum charge for copying is $5.00.
(4) The certification and validation (with Federal Maritime Commission seal) of documents filed with or issued by the Commission will be available at $86.00 for each certification.
(d) To have one's name and address placed on the mailing list of a specific docket as an interested party to receive all issuances pertaining to that docket: $10 per proceeding.
(e) Applications for admission to practice before the Commission for persons not attorneys at law must be accompanied by a fee of $95 pursuant to § 502.27 of this chapter.
11. In § 503.69, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) The certification and validation (with Federal Maritime Commission seal) of documents filed with or issued by the Commission will be available at $86 for each certification.
12. The authority citation for part 515 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. app. 1702, 1707, 1709, 1710, 1712, 1714, 1716, and 1718; Pub. L. 105-383, 112 Stat. 3411; 21 U.S.C. 862.
13. In § 515.5, paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) are revised to read as follows:
(a)
(b) * * *
(1) Application for license as required by § 515.12(a): $799;
(2) Application for status change or license transfer as required by §§ 515.18(a) and 515.18(b): $506; and
(3) Supplementary investigations required by § 515.25(a): $225.
14. The second sentence of § 515.34 is revised to read as follows:
* * * The database may be purchased for $103 by contacting the Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. * * *
15. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 46 CFR part 515 remove the words “Bureau of Tariffs, Certification and Licensing” and add, in their place, the words “Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing” in the following places:
a. Section 515.12(a)(1);
b. Section 515.18(a);
c. Section 515.22(e);
d. Section 515.25(a);
e. Appendix A to Subpart C;
f. Appendix B to Subpart C; and
g. Appendix D to Subpart C.
16. The authority citation for part 520 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. app. 1701-1702, 1707-1709, 1712, 1716; and sec. 424 of Pub. L. 105-383, 112 Stat. 3411.
17. The last sentence of § 520.14(c)(1) is revised to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * * Every such application shall be submitted to the Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing and be accompanied by a filing fee of $172.
18. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 46 CFR part 520 remove the words “Bureau of Tariffs, Certification and Licensing” and add, in their place, the words “Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing” and remove the acronym “BTCL” and add, in its place, the acronym “BCCL” in the following places:
a. Section 520.2;
b. Section 520.3(d); and
c. Section 520.7(b).
19. The authority citation for part 530 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. App. 1704, 1705, 1707, 1716.
20. Section 530.10(c), introductory text, is revised to read as follows:
(c) * * * Requests shall be filed, in duplicate, with the Commission's Office
21. The authority citation for part 535 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. app. 1701-1707, 1709-1710, 1712 and 1714-1718; Pub. L. 105-383, 112 Stat. 3411.
22-23. In § 535.401, paragraph (f) is revised and paragraph (g) is added to read as follows:
(f)
(g) The fee for the Commission's agreement database report is $32.
24. The authority citation for part 540 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552, 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701; secs. 2 and 3, Pub. L. 89-777, 80 Stat. 1356-1358; 46 U.S.C. app. 817e, 817d; 46 U.S.C. 1716.
25. The last two sentences in § 540.4(b) are revised to read as follows:
(b) * * * An application for a Certificate (Performance), excluding an application for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet, shall be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $2,549. An application for a Certificate (Performance) for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet shall be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $1,276.
26. The last two sentences in § 540.23(b) are revised to read as follows:
(b) * * * An application for a Certificate (Casualty), excluding an application for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet, shall be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $1,111. An application for a Certificate (Casualty) for the addition or substitution of a vessel to the applicant's fleet shall be accompanied by a filing fee remittance of $557.
27. The authority citation for part 550 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 553; sec. 19(a)(2), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (l) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, 46 U.S.C. app. 876(a)(2), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (l), as amended by Pub. L. 105-258; Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, 75 Stat 840; and sec. 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988, 46 U.S.C. app. 1710a.
28. Section 550.203(b) is revised to read as follows:
(b) The Commission may, when there is a failure to produce any information ordered produced under § 550.201, make appropriate findings of fact and inferences, including the inference that conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade of the United States do exist.
29. Section 550.402 is revised to read as follows:
All requests for relief from conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade shall be by written petition. An original and fifteen copies of a petition for relief under the provisions of this part shall be filed with the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. The petition shall be accompanied by remittance of a $228 filing fee.
30. Section 550.601(d) is revised to read as follows:
(d) Suspend, in whole or in part, an ocean common carrier's right to operate under an agreement, including any agreement authorizing preferential treatment at terminals or preferential terminal leases, whether filed with the Commission or not filed with the Commission pursuant to the exemptions granted in 46 CFR part 535; or any agreement filed with the Commission authorizing space chartering, or pooling of cargo or revenues with other ocean common carriers;
31. The authority citation for part 551 continues to read as follows:
46 U.S.C. app. 876(1)(b); 46 U.S.C. app 876 (5) through (12); 46 CFR part 550; Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, 26 FR 7315 (August 12, 1961).
32. Section 551.1 is revised to read as follows:
Whenever the Commission determines that conditions unfavorable to shipping exist in the United States foreign trade with any nation and issues rules to adjust or meet such conditions, pursuant to section 19(1)(b) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, 46 U.S.C. app. 876(1)(b) and 46 CFR part 551, such rules shall be published in the
33. The authority citation for part 555 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 553; sec. 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. app. 1710a), as amended by Pub. L. 105-258.
34. In § 555.4, paragraphs (a) and (b)(9) are revised to read as follows:
(a) A petition for investigation to determine the existence of adverse conditions as described in § 555.3 may be submitted by any person, including any common carrier, shipper, shippers' association, ocean freight forwarder, or marine terminal operator, or any branch, department, agency, or other component of the Government of the United States. Petitions for relief under this part shall be in writing, and filed in the form of an original and fifteen copies with the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. The petition shall be accompanied by remittance of a $228 filing fee.
(b) * * *
(9) A recommended action, including any of those enumerated in § 555.8, the result of which will, in the view of the petitioner, address the conditions complained of.
35. In § 555.5, the first sentence of paragraph (a) and the last sentence of § 555.5(c) are revised to read as follows:
(a) An investigation to determine the existence of adverse conditions as described in § 555.3 may be initiated by the Commission on its own motion or on the petition of any person pursuant to § 555.4. * * *
(c) * * * Persons who receive information requests from the Commission pursuant to § 555.6 of this part are not precluded from filing additional voluntary submissions in accordance with this paragraph.
36. The first sentence of § 555.6(c) is revised to read as follows:
(c) The Commission may, in its discretion, determine that any information submitted to it in response to a request (including a subpoena) under this section, or accompanying a petition under § 555.4, or voluntarily submitted by any person pursuant to § 555.5(c), shall not be disclosed to the public. * * *
37. The first sentence of § 555.7 is revised to read as follows:
Upon publication of a petition in the
38. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 46 CFR part 555 remove the references to the term “§ 588.3” and add, in its place, the term “§ 555.3” in the following places:
a. Section 555.5 (b);
b. Section 555.8 (a); and
c. Section 555.8 (a) (7).
39. The authority citation for part 560 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 553; secs. 13(b)(6), 15 and 17 of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. app. 1712(b)(6), 1714 and 1716, as amended by Pub. L. 105-258; sec. 10002 of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. app. 1710a), as amended by Pub. L. 105-258.
40. Section 560.3(a)(2) is revised to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) An original and fifteen copies of such a petition including any supporting documents shall be filed with the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. The petition shall be accompanied by remittance of a $228 filing fee.
41. In § 560.4, paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) are revised to read as follows:
(a) Upon the Commission's own motion or upon the filing of a petition which meets the requirements of § 560.3, when there are indications that conditions unduly impairing the access of a U.S. flag vessel to trade between foreign ports may exist, the Commission will institute a proceeding pursuant to this part.
(b) * * *
(2) Interested or adversely affected persons will be allowed a period of time to reply to the petition by the submission of written data, views or legal arguments pursuant to § 560.5 of this part. Factual submissions shall be in affidavit form.
42. Section 560.7(b)(6) is revised to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(6) A request to the collector of customs at any port or place of destination in the United States to refuse the clearance required by section 4197 of the Revised Statutes, 46 U.S.C. app. 91, to any vessel of a foreign carrier which is or whose government is identified as contributing to the conditions described in § 560.2 of this part;
43. Section 560.8 is revised to read as follows:
Concurrently with the submission of any decision imposing sanctions to the
44. Section 560.9(b) is revised to read as follows:
(b) The Commission shall postpone, discontinue or suspend any action provided for in its final decision if so directed by the President for reasons of national defense or foreign policy of the United States as provided in § 560.8.
By the Commission
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), provide notice of the reopening of the public comment period for the proposal to designate critical habitat for the northern Great Plains population of the piping plover (
The comment period is opened and will close on May 20, 2002. Any comments that are received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this proposal.
You may submit written comments and information to Piping Plover Comments, South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 420 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 400, Pierre, SD 57501, or by facsimile to 605-224-9974.
You may hand-deliver written comments to our South Dakota Field Office at the address given above.
Copies of the draft economic analysis, draft environmental assessment, and proposed rule for designation of critical habitat for the northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping plover are available from the above address or on the Internet at
You may view comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
Nell McPhillips, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address or at 605-224-8693, extension 32.
We published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping plover in the
The proposed designation includes 11 areas of prairie alkali wetlands, inland and reservoir lakes in 5 counties in Montana, 18 counties in North Dakota, and 1 county at Lake-of-the-Woods, Minnesota, totaling approximately 196,576.5 acres (79,553.1 hectares). It also includes five areas of portions of four rivers in the States of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska, totaling approximately 1,338 miles (2,152.9 kilometers) of river. If this proposal is made final, section 7 of the Act would prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency.
We reopened the comment period on the proposed critical habitat and provided a notice of availability for the economic analysis in the
We solicit public comment on the proposal to designate critical habitat for the northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping plover, as well as the associated draft environmental assessment and draft economic analysis. We will accept written comments and information during this comment period. Previous written comments and information submitted during the comment period need not be resubmitted; however, comments submitted by electronic mail since December 28, 2001, should be resubmitted by regular or express mail or facsimile (see
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the South Dakota Field Office (see
The primary authors of this notice are the South Dakota Field Office staff (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold its third meeting.
The meeting will be held on April 11, 2002, and will begin at 3 p.m. until approximately 6 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Monday Afternoon Club, 120 N. Lassen St., Willows, CA.
Bobbin Gaddini, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, P.O. Box 164, Elk Creek, CA 95939. (530) 968-5329; e-mail
Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Review of By-Laws & Operating Guidelines/Possible Action, (2) Report from Project Proposal Subcommittee/Possible Action, (3) Vacant Replacement Member Group A, (4) Elect a Vice-Chairperson/Action, (5) Forest Service details on Project Proposals/Possible Action, (6) Project Evaluation Criteria, (7) Additional Proposals (RAC members & public), (8) Process to Solicit Proposals, (9) Public Comment, (10) Next Agenda. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.
North Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee, Grangeville, Idaho, Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests' North Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will meet Thursday, April 18, 2002 in Grangeville, Idaho for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.
The business meeting on April 18, begins at 10 a.m., at Oscar's Restaurant, Grangeville, Idaho. Agenda topics will include review of proposed projects and project selections. A public forum will begin at 2:30 p.m. (PST).
Ihor Mereszczak, Staff Officer and Designated Federal Officer, at (208) 983-1950.
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 Illinois Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 12 p.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m. on Friday, March 29, 2002, at 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 525, Chicago, IL 60603. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss current events and plan future activities.
Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Constance M. Davis, Director of the Midwestern Regional Office, 312-353-8311 (TDD 312-353-8362). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
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 Montana Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 3:30 p.m. and adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 8, 2002, at the Best Western Heritage Inn, 1700 Fox Farm, Great Falls, Montana 59404. The purpose of the meeting is to hold new member orientation and review an update on statewide and local developments regarding Indian education and civil rights issues in the state.
Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact, John Dulles, Director of the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 303-866-1040 (TDD 303-866-1049). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
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 Tennessee Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m. on April 11, 2002, at the Marriott Chattanooga Convention Center, Two Carter Plaza, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402. The purpose of the meeting is to plan future activities.
Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Bobby D. Doctor, Director of the Southern Regional Office, 404-562-7000 (TDD 404-562-7004). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
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 Wisconsin Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m. on Friday, April 11, 2002, at the Pfister Hotel, 424, East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss current events and plan future activities.
Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Constance M. Davis, Director of the Midwestern Regional Office, 312-353-8311 (TDD 312-353-8362). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, section 10(a)(b), the Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice of a joint meeting followed by separate and concurrently held meetings of the Census Advisory Committees (CACs) on the African American Population, the American Indian and Alaska Native Populations, the Asian Population, the Hispanic Population, and the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Populations. The Committees will address issues related to 2010 decennial planning, development, and testing, as well as the American Community Survey and other related decennial programs. The five CACs on Race and Ethnicity will meet separately on April 29 and May 1 and in plenary and concurrent sessions on April 30. Last-minute changes to the schedule are possible, which could prevent us from giving advance notification.
April 29-May 1, 2002. On April 29, the meeting will begin approximately 9 a.m. and end approximately 4:30 p.m. On April 30, the meeting will begin approximately 8:30 a.m. and end approximately 5:30 p.m. On May 1, the meeting will begin approximately 9 a.m. and end approximately 1 p.m.
The meetings will be held in the Francis Amasa Walker Conference Center, at the U.S. Census Bureau, 4700 Silver Hill Road, Federal Office Building 3, Suitland, MD 20746.
Jeri Green, Committee Liaison Officer, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 3627, Federal Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-457-2075, TDD 301-457-2540.
The CACs on the African American Population, the American Indian and Alaska Native Populations, the Asian Population, the Hispanic Population, and the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Populations are comprised of nine members each. The Committees provide an organized and continuing channel of communication between the representative race and ethnic populations and the Census Bureau. The Committees provide an outside user perspective about how research and design plans for the 2010 decennial census, the American Community Survey, and other related programs realize goals and satisfy needs associated with these communities. They also assist the Census Bureau on ways that census data can best be disseminated to diverse race and ethnic populations and other users.
All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside on May 1 for public comment and questions. Individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to the Committee Liaison Officer, named above, at least three days before the meeting. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada, grantee of FTZ 126, requesting, on behalf of Dell Computer Corporation (Dell), authority to manufacture personal computers under zone procedures within Site 5 (725 Waltham Way, McCarran, Nevada) of FTZ 126 (Reno Customs port of entry). The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on March 14, 2002.
Dell intends to share a 330,000 square-foot facility within FTZ 126 (110 employees projected) for the manufacture of personal computers, including servers and workstations. Dell is already authorized to manufacture such computers under zone procedures within Foreign-Trade Zone 78, Foreign Trade Zone 183, and Subzone 183A. This proposal involves an increase in the overall level of production under FTZ procedures for Dell.
The specific finished products for which Dell seeks authority to produce under FTZ procedures are various types of computers (desktop and notebook computers, workstations, and network servers) and data storage products. All of these products fall into HTSUS classifications which are duty free. The imported components for which Dell is seeking authority for inverted tariff benefits are cables, batteries, and carrying cases (leather only). Duty rates on these specific items range from 2.6% to 4.5%
This application requests authority to allow Dell to conduct its activity under FTZ procedures, which it says would help improve the international competitiveness of Dell's Reno facility. According to Dell's application, the principal tangible benefit is that, on its domestic sales, the company would be able to choose the duty rate that applies to finished computers (duty free) for the foreign components noted above. The company also anticipates “procedural benefits” through the use of FTZ procedures.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses:
1. Submissions
2. Submissions
The closing period for their receipt is May 20, 2002. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to June 4, 2002.
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address Number 1 listed above, and at the U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 1755 East Plumb Lane, Suite 152, Reno, NV 89502.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Dismissal of appeal.
On May 5, 1997, Stora Enso North America (formerly known as Consolidated Papers, Inc. and Niagara Paper of Wisconsin) (Appellant), appealed the Wisconsin Department of Administration's (State) objection to the federal hydropower license for the Little Quinnesec Falls project. Action on this appeal stayed pending the resolution of judicial proceedings before the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and negotiations between the Parties.
At the Appellant's request, the Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services granted several stays of the consistency appeal, which were not opposed by the State. The State and the Appellant have reached an agreement on Appellant's proposed project and the State has determined that the activity is now consistent with the State's Coastal Management Program. By letter to Appellant, the State withdrew its objection to the project. Accordingly, the Appellant has requested that the appeal be withdrawn.
NOAA granted this request and the appeal has been dismissed. This is a final agency action for purposes of judicial review.
Karl Gleaves, Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910, (301) 713-2967.
Department of Defense.
Notice.
Under the provisions of Public Law 92-463, the “Federal Advisory Committee Act,” notice is hereby given that the following 19 advisory committees have been determined to be in the public interest and were renewed on February 28, 2002:
These committees provide necessary and valuable advice to the Secretary of Defense and other senior officials in the DoD in their respective areas of expertise. They make important contributions to DoD efforts in research
It is a continuing DoD policy to make every effort to achieve a balanced membership on all DoD advisory committees. Each committee is evaluated in terms of the functional disciplines, levels of experience, professional diversity, public and private association, and similar characteristics required to ensure a high degree of balance is obtained.
Contact Jennifer Spaeth, DoD Committee Management Officer, 703-695-4281.
Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense Historical Advisory Committee was renewed, effective January 23, 2002, in consonance with the public interest, and in accordance with the provisions of the “Federal Advisory Committee Act.”
The DoD Historical Advisory Committee consists of three subcommittees (Historical Records Declassification Advisory Panel, the Department of The Army's Historical Advisory Subcommittee, and the Secretary of the Navy's Subcommittee on Naval History) which advise the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the Army and Navy regarding the professional standards, historical methodology, program priorities, liaison with professional groups, and adequacy of resources associated with Department of Defense historical programs.
The DoD Historical Advisory Committee will continue to be well balanced in terms of the interest groups represented and functions to be performed. The members include distinguished representatives from academia, current U.S. Government and private sector historians, authors and librarians, and retired general officers of general/flag rank.
Ms. Jennifer Spaeth, DoD Committee Management Officer, 703-695-4281.
Department of Defense.
Notice of advisory committee meeting date changes.
On Friday, December 14, 2001 (66 FR 64810), the Department of Defense announced closed meetings of the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Defense Against Terrorists' Use of Biological Weapons. Several of the announced meetings have been rescheduled: from April 29-30, 2002, to May 6-7, 2002; from June 3-4, 2002, to June 6-7, 2002; and from July 22-23, 2002, to July 29-30, 2002. These meetings will be held at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of closed meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of Public Law 92-463, The Federal Advisory Committee Act, this announces the forthcoming working group meeting:
The purpose of the meeting is to receive briefings on the health risk of low-level phased array radio frequency energy emissions, specifically risk associated with the PAVE PAWS radar site at Cape Cod Military Reservation.
As part of the deliberations, the working group of the AFEB has requested classified briefings from the Air Force. The meeting location will be at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antionio, Texas. This meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with section 552b(c) of Title 5, U.S.C., specifically subparagraph (1) thereof and Title 5, U.S.C., appendix 1, subsection 10(d). Any interested person may file statements with the committee to be considered at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee.
Lt Col James R. Riddle, Executive Secretary, Armed Forces Epidemiological Board, Skyline Six, 5109 Leesburg Pike, Room 682, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3258, (703) 681-8012/3.
None.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following Committee Meeting:
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice to amend a system of records.
The Department of the Army is amending a system of records notice in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
The category of records entry is being amended to better define those individual pieces of data contained in the reports maintained in the system.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on April 22, 2002, unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Records Management Division, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: TAPC-PDD-RP, Stop 5603, 6000 6th Street, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5603.
Ms. Janice Thornton at (703) 806-4390 or DSN 656-4390 or Ms. Christie King at (703) 806-3711 or DSN 656-3711.
The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.
Local Criminal Intelligence Files (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10002).
Delete entry and replace with ‘A0190-45a DAMO’.
Delete entry and replace with ‘Any individual suspected or involved in criminal activity directed against or involving the United States Army.’
Add to entry ‘Information includes subject’s name, aliases, addresses, phone number, date of birth, source of investigation, risk analysis, reports, threat assessments, retention control sheets, victims names, names of informants, names of law enforcement officers and investigators, and subject's group affiliations, if any.’
Delete second paragraph. Any release of information from this system of records for law enforcement purposes is covered under the DoD “Blanket Routine Use” for law enforcement.
Delete entry and replace with ‘By individual’s name, Social Security Number, and/or date of birth.’
Local Criminal Intelligence Files.
At all designated Army commands, installations and activities. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.
Any individual suspected or involved in criminal activity directed against or involving the United States Army.
Reports and supporting documents of criminal activity directed against or involving the U.S. Army. Information includes subject's name, aliases, addresses, phone number, date of birth, source of investigation, risk analysis, reports, threat assessments, retention control sheets, victims names, names of informants, names of law enforcement officers and investigators, and subject's group affiliations, if any.
10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; Army Regulation 380-13, Acquisition and Storage of Information Concerning Non-Affiliated Persons and Organizations; Army Regulation 190-45, Law Enforcement Reporting; Army Regulation 195-2, Criminal Investigation Activities; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
To enable designated Army officials, commanders, or civil criminal justice agencies to meet their responsibilities maintaining law and order through investigation and possible judicial action. To identify individuals in an effort to anticipate, prevent or monitor possible criminal activity directed against or involving the U.S. Army.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the
The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices also apply to this system.
Paper records in file folders; magnetic tape/disc, and on electronic storage media.
By individual's name, Social Security Number, and/or date of birth.
Only authorized personnel have access to files. Physical security measures include locked containers/storage areas, controlled personnel access, and continuous presence of authorized personnel.
Criminal intelligence reports and cross-index cards belonging to the Headquarters, Criminal Investigation Division, are destroyed when no longer needed, except for reports of current operational value. These reports are reviewed yearly for continued retention, not to exceed 20 years, and then destroy. The records maintained at the Regional Headquarters are destroyed after 5 years. Records maintained at District, field office and elements designated by region commanders are destroyed after 3 years or when no longer needed.
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, Military Operations, 400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0400.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, Military Operations, 400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0400.
Individual should provide their full name, Social Security Number, date of birth, and address.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, Military Operations, 400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0400.
Individual should provide their full name, Social Security Number, date of birth, and address.
The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in Army Regulation 340-21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Subjects, witnesses, victims, Military Police and U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command personnel and special agents, informants, various Department of Defense, federal, state and local investigative and law enforcement agencies, departments or agencies of foreign governments, and any other individuals or organizations which may supply pertinent information.
Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency which performs as its principle function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws.
An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c) and (e) and published in 32 CFR part 505. For additional information contact the system manager.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
In Accordance with 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law (92-463), announcement is made of the next committee meeting.
Mr. Norman T. Edwards, Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers, CECW-PD, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000; Ph: 202-761-4559.
Registration will begin at 7:30 am and the meeting is scheduled to adjourn at 1 pm. The meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the committee at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee.
Department of Education.
Notice of proposed information collection requests.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
An emergency review has been requested in accordance with the Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507(j)), since public harm is reasonably likely to result if normal clearance procedures are followed. Approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been requested by April 1, 2002.
Written comments regarding the emergency review should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Karen Lee, Desk Officer: Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget; 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or electronically mailed to internet address
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Director of OMB provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Office of Management and Budget (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
The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner, (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Responses: 100.
Burden Hours: 8,200.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be directed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651,
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements, contact Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address
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 April 22, 2002.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Lauren Wittenberg, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the internet address
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
Responses: 56.
Burden Hours: 168.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Department of Education.
The purpose of this notice is to announce the public meeting of the National Advisory Committee and invite third-party oral presentations before the Committee. This notice also presents the proposed agenda and informs the public of its opportunity to attend this meeting. The notice of this meeting is required under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
We will hold the public meeting on June 3, 2002 from 9:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., on June 4, 2002 from 8:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., and on June 5, 2002 from 8:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. at the Wyndham City Center Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20037. You may call the hotel at (202) 775-0800 or 1-800-526-7495 to inquire about rooms.
The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (
Please contact Ms. Bonnie LeBold, the Executive Director of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, if you have questions about the meeting. You may contact her at the U.S. Department of Education, room 7007, MS 7592, 1990 K St., NW, Washington, DC 20006, telephone: (202) 219-7009, fax: (202) 219-7008, e-mail:
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity is established under Section 114 of the Higher Education Act (HEA) as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1011c.
The Committee advises the Secretary of Education about:
• The establishment and enforcement of the criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2 of part H of Title IV, HEA.
• The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations.
• The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations.
• The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV, HEA.
• The development of standards and criteria for specific categories of vocational training institutions and institutions of higher education for which there are no recognized accrediting agencies, associations, or State agencies in order to establish the interim eligibility of those institutions to participate in Federally funded programs.
• The relationship between: (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions.
• Any other advisory functions relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe.
Agenda topics will include the review of agencies that have submitted petitions for initial recognition or renewal of recognition, requested an expansion of scope, or submitted interim reports.
The Advisory Committee will review the following agencies during its June 3-5, 2002 meeting.
1. Teacher Education Accreditation Council (Requested scope of recognition: the accreditation of professional education programs in institutions offering baccalaureate and graduate degrees for the preparation of teachers K-12)
1. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs (Current scope of recognition: the accreditation of institutions and programs of nurse anesthesia at the certificate, master's, or doctoral degree levels)
2. Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, Accreditation Commission (Current scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation (“Correspondent” and “Candidate”) of advanced rabbinical and Talmudic schools)
3. American Board of Funeral Service Education, Committee on Accreditation (Current scope of recognition: the accreditation of institutions and programs awarding diplomas, associate degrees and bachelor's degrees in funeral service or mortuary science)
4. Accrediting Commission on Education for Health Services Administration (Current scope of recognition: the accreditation throughout the United States of graduate programs in health services administration)
5. The American Dietetic Association, Commission on Accreditation for Dietetics Education (Current scope of recognition: the accreditation of Coordinated Programs in Dietetics at both the undergraduate and graduate level, postbaccalaureate Dietetic Internships, and Dietetic Technician Programs at the associate degree level) (Requested expansion of scope of recognition: the current scope of recognition to include the accreditation of Didactic Programs in Dietetics at both the undergraduate and graduate level, and its accreditation of programs offered via distance education.)
6. Council on Education for Public Health (Current scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation (“Preaccreditation Status”) of graduate schools of public health, graduate programs in community health education outside schools of public health, and graduate programs in community health/preventive medicine outside schools of public health)
7. Liaison Committee on Medical Education (Current scope of recognition: the accreditation of medical education programs leading to the M.D. degree)
8. Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Higher Education (Current scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate Status”) of institutions in Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Republic of Panama and a limited number of freestanding American-style institutions abroad that are chartered or licensed by an appropriate agency within the Middle States region)
9. National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, Council on Accreditation (Current scope of recognition: the accreditation of women's health nurse practitioner programs located within the United States and its territories)
10. New York Board of Regents (Current scope of recognition: The accreditation (registration) of collegiate degree-granting programs or curricula offered by institutions of higher education in the State of New York and of credit-bearing certificate and diploma programs offered by degree-granting institutions of higher education in the State of New York)
1. Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine
2. American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education
3. American Bar Association, Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar
4. American Osteopathic Association, Bureau of Professional Education
5. American Podiatric Medical Association, Council on Podiatric Medical Education
6. Council on Occupational Education
7. Midwifery Education Accreditation Council
8. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
9. North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Executive Board of the Commission on Schools
1. New York State Board of Regents (Public Postsecondary Vocational Education)
1. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
1. North Dakota Board of Nursing
1. New York State Board of Regents (Nursing Education)
We invite you to make a third-party oral presentation before the National Advisory Committee concerning the recognition of any agency published in this notice.
You must submit a written request to make an oral presentation concerning an agency listed in this notice to the contact person so that the request is received no later than May 10, 2002. Your request (no more than 6 pages maximum) must include:
• The names, addresses, phone numbers, and fax numbers of all persons seeking an appearance,
• The organization they represent, and
• A brief summary of the principal points to be made during the oral presentation.
If you wish, you may attach documents illustrating the main points of your oral testimony. Please keep in mind, however, that
This notice requests third-party oral testimony, not written comment. A request for written comments on agencies that are being reviewed during this meeting was published in the
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Committee, at its discretion, may invite attendees to address the Committee briefly on issues pertaining to the functions of the Committee, which are listed earlier in this notice. If you are interested in making such comments, you should inform Ms. LeBold before or during the meeting.
We will record the meeting and make a transcript available for public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20006 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. It is preferred that an appointment be made in advance of such inspection.
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
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Oak Ridge Operations, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of wetlands involvement.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Oak Ridge Operations (ORO) is proposing to convey Parcel G to the City of Oak Ridge. Parcel G and the adjacent DOE property south of Parcel G support a palustrine emergent/scrub-shrub wetland system totaling approximately 1.4 ha (3.4 acres). More detail on these wetlands is provided in the supplementary information. Parcel G is one of three parcels being considered for conveyance from DOE to the City of Oak Ridge. The other two parcels are the American Museum of Science and Energy and Parcel 279.01, neither of which contain wetlands. The purpose of the proposed DOE action is to provide a plan for the long-term financial stability of the AMSE in order to preserve the museum as an asset to the city of Oak Ridge and the surrounding region. The proposed conveyance of the three parcels is also intended to help offset the City of Oak Ridge's long-term cost of operating the museum. The purpose of the proposed action is also to transfer excess DOE-ORO real property for economic development in order to help offset potential economic losses resulting from DOE downsizing, facility closeouts, and work force restructuring.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) and the DOE NEPA Implementing Regulations (10 CFR 1021), DOE has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the proposed action. The EA was issued for public review and comment on January 18, 2002. As a part of the EA (DOE/EA-1415), DOE is including a wetlands assessment to assess the existing wetlands as well as the potential impact of the proposed conveyance. (The wetlands assessment is available by contacting the DOE-ORO representative named below.)
Comments on the wetlands assessment are due to the address below no later than April 5, 2002.
Comments should be addressed to Mr. David R. Allen, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 2001, MS-SE-30-1, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Comments may also be faxed to (865) 576-0746.
David R. Allen, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 2001, MS-SE-30-1, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, (865) 576-0411.
For Further Information on General DOE Wetland Environmental Review Requirements, Contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, EH-42, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 200585, (202) 586-4600 or (800) 472-2756.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has completed a draft EA (DOE/EA-1415) for the Proposed Conveyance of the American Museum of Science and Energy, Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 to the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The purpose of the proposed DOE action is to provide a plan for the long-term financial stability of the AMSE in order to preserve the museum as an asset to the city of Oak Ridge and the surrounding region. The proposed conveyance of the three parcels is also intended to help offset the City of Oak Ridge's long-term cost of operating the museum. The purpose of the proposed action is also to transfer excess DOE-ORO real property for economic development in order to help offset potential economic losses resulting from DOE downsizing, facility closeouts, and work force restructuring.
Since specific uses of Parcel G would not be known prior to the transfer, DOE has developed reasonably foreseeable scenarios and uses to bound the impact analysis. Scenarios identify potential tenants, utilities and infrastructure, areas to be excluded from development, and a range of emissions, effluents, and wastes that could result from commercial and industrial activities. It is anticipated that the City of Oak Ridge would develop portions of Parcel G for small-scale offices, light industrial use, or retail businesses.
Parcel G contains about 8.1 ha (20.0 acres) and is located southeast of the intersection of Bethel Valley and Scarboro roads. A portion of Parcel G is within the area of the Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Energy Scarboro Operations Site (formerly the South Campus Facility). The Scarboro Operations Site supported research on the biological effects of radionuclides on animals. The portion of Parcel G that is within the boundary of the Scarboro Operations Site was an area where only unexposed animals were housed or grazed. In addition to pasture, the area contained various barns and a three-tiered swine waste treatment pond system. Only one barn structure remains within Parcel G. Nearby land uses include the Y-12 Plant buffer area, Bethel Valley Industrial Park, Commerce Park, and the University of Tennessee Forest Experiment Station and Arboretum. Parcel G is currently zoned by the city of Oak Ridge as F.A.I.R. (Forestry, Agriculture, Industry and Research District).
Parcel G and the adjacent DOE property to the south support a palustrine emergent/scrub-shrub wetland system along Scarboro Creek totaling approximately 1.4 ha (3.4 acres). All wetlands identified at Parcel G exhibited positive field indicators of the wetland criteria: hydrophytic plants, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The majority of these wetlands are associated with the floodplain of Scarboro Creek, the Scarboro Creek embayment (part of Melton Hill Reservoir), and two beaver ponds in Scarboro Creek immediately south of Parcel G.
In addition to the Scarboro Creek wetlands, there are three ponds that were created to treat swine waste when Parcel G was actively associated with operation of the Scarboro Operations Site. Agricultural uses of the ponds ceased in the mid-1980's and all three ponds have remained at the site. Two of the ponds remain permanently inundated. The third pond holds water for relatively short periods and supports a wetland plant community. The actual area of wetlands to be transferred with Parcel G is about 0.4 ha (1.0 ac). DOE would retain control over the remaining 1 ha (2.4 acres) of wetlands along Scarboro Creek downstream from Parcel G.
The proposed conveyance of Parcel G would not inherently cause adverse impacts to the survival, quality, natural, and beneficial values of wetlands along Scarboro Creek, because the proposed transfer is an administrative action. Rather, the potential for and degree of adverse impacts would depend upon how the City of Oak Ridge proposes to develop the property. Adverse impacts would include any activity that eliminated or reduced the ability of wetlands to perform their normal biological, chemical, hydrological, and physical functions. Some or all of the wetlands associated with Scarboro Creek could potentially experience
A number of administrative controls, including deed restrictions or conservation easements are available for DOE to use in order to prevent adverse impacts to wetlands at Parcel G. Proposals for development of Parcel G that would affect wetlands and other special aquatic resources would also be subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), and possibly the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Proposed projects would be required to follow normal sequencing during regulatory review to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands at Parcel G. Compensatory mitigation should be used as a last resort and would be subject to negotiation between the USACE, TDEC, and possibly DOE and TVA.
In accordance with DOE regulations for compliance with wetlands environmental review requirements (10 CFR part 1022), a wetland assessment will be included within the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Conveyance of the American Museum of Science and Energy, Parcel G, and Parcel 279.01 to the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee (DOE/EA-1415).
Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Agency information collection activities: Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The EIA has submitted the energy information collection listed at the end of this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and a three-year extension with revisions under section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be filed by April 22, 2002. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within that period, you should contact the OMB Desk Officer for DOE listed below as soon as possible.
Send comments to Bryon Allen, OMB Desk Officer for DOE, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202-395-7285) or e-mail (BAllen@omb.eop.gov) is recommended. The mailing address is 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20503. The OMB DOE Desk Officer may be telephoned at (202) 395-3087. (A copy of your comments should also be provided to EIA's Statistics and Methods Group at the address below.)
A copy of the materials submitted to OMB is available at
This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review: (1) The collection numbers and title; (2) the sponsor (i.e., the Department of Energy component); (3) the current OMB docket number (if applicable); (4) the type of request (i.e, new, revision, extension, or reinstatement); (5) response obligation (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a description of the need for and proposed use of the information; (7) a categorical description of the likely respondents; and (8) an estimate of the total annual reporting burden (i.e., the estimated number of likely respondents times the proposed frequency of response per year times the average hours per response).
1. Form EIA-417, “Electric Emergency Incident and Disturbance Report”.
2. Security Operations/Office of Emergency Management.
3. OMB Number 1901-0288.
4. Revision and three-year approval requested.
5. Mandatory.
6. Form EIA-417 collects information on electric emergency incidents and disturbances for DOE's use in fulfilling its overall national security and other energy management responsibilities. The information will also be used by DOE for analytical purposes. Control Area Operators or Security Coordinators, as appropriate, file Form EIA-417. In Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the U.S. Trust Territories, local utilities file the form. The form's instructions explain the filing requirements when a foreign entity is involved.
7. Business or other for-profit; State, local or tribal government.
8. 650 hours (175 respondents × 1.7 responses per year × 2.17 hours per response).
Section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-13)(44 U.S.C. 3501
Take notice that on March 14, 2002, The United Illuminating Company (UI) filed a Complaint against ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) requesting, inter alia, that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission immediately strike the January 25, 2002 action by ISO-NE and take further action to ensure that the costs of supporting the Hydro Quebec Interconnection are properly reflected in the NEPOOL Open Access Transmission Tariff or any future tariff for a Northeast Regional Transmission Organization.
Copies of the complaint were served via facsimile and courier to representatives of ISO-NE, electronically to NEPOOL Counsel for circulation to NEPOOL Participants, and by overnight delivery to the affected state regulatory agencies.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should file a motion
Take notice that on March 8, 2002, UtiliCorp United Inc. (UtiliCorp) filed a Petition for Declaratory Order under Section 201 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). UtiliCorp requests that the Commission issue a declaratory order finding that UtiliCorp is not primarily engaged in the generation or sale of electric power within the meaning of Section 201 of PURPA and Section 292.206(a) of the Commission's regulations, and is therefore permitted to acquire up to one hundred percent (100%) of the equity interests in qualifying facilities.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission. Any comments should be submitted in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
Take notice that on March 11, 2002, Hermiston Power Partnership (Hermiston) 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.
Hermiston, an Oregon general partnership, proposes to own and operate a 546 MW natural gas-fired, combined cycle electric generating facility located in Umatilla County, Oregon. Hermiston will sell the output at wholesale to an affiliated power marketer.
Take notice that on March 11, 2002, Energy East South Glens Falls, LLC (EE South Glens Falls) tendered a letter concerning its triennial market power review pursuant to an order issued by the Commission in Docket No. ER99-1261-000 on March 11, 1999 granting EE South Glens Falls market-based rate authorization.
Take notice that on March 7, 2002, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing a compliance filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) as required by the Commission's February 1, 2002 Order on Standards of Conduct in the above captioned proceedings.
Take notice that on March 11, 2002, in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) letter order issued January 8, 2002 in the above-referenced proceeding, Hardee Power Partners Limited tendered for filing with the Commission revisions to the tariff sheet designations of its Electric Rate Schedule FERC Nos. 1 and 2. These revisions are consistent with the requirements set forth in Order No. 614. Designation of Electric Rate Schedules, 90 FERC 61,352 (2000).
Take notice that on March 11, 2002, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (the Midwest ISO) tendered for filing revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, which amend the Midwest ISO's February 1, 2002 filing pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and Part 35 of the Commission's Regulations, 18 CFR 35 et seq. (2001).
The Midwest ISO has electronically served copies of its filing, with attachments, upon all Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants,
Take notice that on March 11, 2002, Central Maine Power Company (CMP) tendered for filing a service agreement for Non-firm Local Point-to-Point Transmission Service entered into with Gardner Brook Hydro. Service will be provided pursuant to CMP's Open Access Transmission Tariff, designated rate schedule CMP—FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 3, Fifth Revision, Service Agreement No. 156.
Take notice that on March 6, 2002, Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an amendment to include one page that was omitted from its executed Service Agreement with EnXco, Inc. for Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission.
Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. renews its request for an effective date of November 27, 2001, and accordingly, seeks waiver of the Commission's notice requirements. A copy of this filing has been served upon the Illinois Commerce Commission, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, the Iowa Department of Commerce, and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
Take notice that on March 11, 2002, Xcel Energy Services, Inc. (XES), on behalf of Public Service Company of Colorado (Public Service), submitted for filing a Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement between Public Service and Williams Gas Processing Company. (Williams Gas), which is in accordance with Public Service's Rate Schedule for Market-Based Power Sales (Public Service FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 6).
XES requests that this agreement become effective on December 11, 2001.
Take notice that on March 11, 2002, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., as Transmission Provider, tendered for filing a service agreement for Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service and a service agreement for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service with NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc. (NorthPoint), as Transmission Customer. A copy of the filing was served upon NorthPoint.
Take notice that on March 11, 2002, Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. tendered for filing an executed Term Sheet between Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc., and Wolverine Power Marketing Cooperative, Inc., which term sheet expressly incorporated the terms and conditions of the Wholesale Power Sales Enabling Agreement between Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. and Wolverine Power Marketing Cooperative, Inc. previously approved by this Commission. The Term Sheet concerns the sale of power from Wolverine Power to Wolverine Marketing with ultimate service to end-use retail customer CEMEX Wolverine requests an effective date of February 11, 2002 for this filing.
Wolverine states that a copy of this filing has been served upon Wolverine Power Marketing Cooperative, Inc. and the Michigan Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on March 11, 2002, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc., (collectively, the Entergy Operating Companies) tendered for filing a Long-Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service Agreement between Entergy Services, Inc., as agent for the Entergy Operating Companies, and Coral Power, L.L.C.
Take notice that on March 11, 2002, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted for filing an executed service agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service with Higginsville Municipal Utilities (Transmission Customer). SPP seeks an effective date of March 1, 2002 for this service agreement.
The Transmission Customer was served with a copy of this filing.
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 this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the web at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for exemption from licensing of the Goodrich Falls Project, located on the Ellis River, in Carroll County, New Hampshire, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed exemption and concludes that issuance of an exemption from licensing for the Goodrich Falls Hydroelectric Project would not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the web at
For further information, contact John Ramer at (202) 219-2833.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Eagle Pass International Pipeline Project involving the construction and operation of facilities by Reef International, L.L.C. (Reef) in Maverick County, Texas, and that cross the international border between the United States and Mexico.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” was attached to the project notice Reef provided to landowners. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet website (
Reef is proposing the Eagle Pass International Pipeline Project to provide firm transportation to Compania National de Gas, S.A. (Conagas). This project would allow Reef to deliver up to 15 million cubic feet per day. The purpose of the project is to provide the Piedras Negras region of Coahuila, Mexico, with needed, additional supplies of gas.
Reef proposes to construct, operate, and maintain about 4 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline and appurtenant facilities from an interconnection with Southern Transmission Company (Southern) in Maverick County, Texas, crossing under the Rio Grande, the midpoint of which is the International Boundary between the United States and Mexico, to a point just across the river in Coahuila, Mexico. Reef is seeking a Presidential Permit from the Commission for the 400-foot-long border crossing in Maverick County, Texas which is the U.S. portion of the directional drill across the Rio Grande. The entire directional drill would be 800 feet in length, half of which would be in Mexico. A meter station would be constructed in Maverick County about 2,035 feet downstream from the interconnection with Southern. About 1000 feet of pipeline and a meter station would be constructed in Mexico and would be owned and operated by Conagas. Also, a 6-inch-diameter propane/butane pipeline would also be constructed parallel to the natural gas pipeline for about 3 miles of the route within the U.S. and also cross into Mexico.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
We will evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending on
To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public participation section below.
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Reef. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
—A directionally drilled crossing of the Rio Grande.
—Potential impact on the jaguarundi, ocelot, and mountain plover which are Federally listed threatened and endangered species.
—Loss of several acres of pecan orchard.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative locations or routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
• Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas 1, PJ-11.1;
• Reference Docket No. CP02-74-000; and
• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before April 15, 2002.
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an “intervenor.” Intervenors play a more formal role in the process. Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must provide 14 copies of its filings to the Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) (see appendix 1).
Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your environmental comments considered.
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the web at
Similarly, the “CIPS” link on the FERC Internet website provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. From the FERC Internet website, click on the “CIPS” link, select “Docket #” from the CIPS menu, and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to CIPS, the CIPS helpline can be reached at (202) 208-2474.
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(h), of the receipt of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive an exempt or a prohibited off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested on-the-record proceeding, to deliver a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication, to the Secretary.
Prohibited communications will be included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such requests only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication should serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications will be included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications received in the Office of the Secretary within the preceding 14 days. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. The documents may be viewed on the web at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before May 15, 2002.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Remit comments to Sella M. Burchette, US EPA/ERTC, 2890 Woodbridge Avenue, Building 18, MS101, Edison, NJ 08837-3679.
To obtain a copy at no charge, please contact Sella Burchette at (732) 321-6726/FAX: (732) 321-6724/or electronically at
Sella M. Burchette, (732) 321-6726/FAX: (732) 321-6724/or electronically at
The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Remit comments regarding these matters, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the address listed above.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of availability of grants for development of coastal recreation water monitoring and public notification under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act.
The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) signed into law on October 10, 2000, amends the Clean Water Act (CWA) to reduce the risk of disease to users of the Nation's recreational waters. The BEACH Act authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to award program development and implementation grants to eligible States, Territories, Tribes, and local governments to support microbiological testing and monitoring of coastal recreation waters, including the Great Lakes, that are adjacent to beaches or similar points of access used by the public. BEACH Act grants also provide support for development and implementation of programs to notify the public of the potential exposure to disease-causing microorganisms in coastal recreation waters. EPA encourages coastal States and Territories to apply for BEACH Act Grants for Program Development (referred to as Development Grants) to develop effective and comprehensive coastal recreation water monitoring and public notification programs.
Submit your application on or before May 20, 2002.
You must send your application to the appropriate Regional Grant Coordinator listed in this document under
Charles Kovatch, 202-260-3754.
The statutory authority for BEACH grants is section 406(b) of the CWA as amended by the BEACH Act, Public Law 106-284, 114 Stat. 970 (2000). It provides in part: “The Administrator may make grants to States and local governments to develop and implement programs for monitoring and notification for coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public.”
In Fiscal Year 2002, EPA intends to award grants authorized under the BEACH Act to support the continued development of coastal recreation water monitoring and public notification programs to meet program elements under the BEACH Act. EPA encourages grantees to use these funds to test various approaches for meeting BEACH Act program requirements. As required by the BEACH Act, EPA expects to publish performance criteria for implementation of coastal recreation water monitoring and public notification programs by April 2002. In fiscal year 2003 and beyond, if funds are appropriated to support these programs, EPA expects to make grants to also support implementation of monitoring and notification programs that are consistent with the statutory requirements for implementation grants, which include consistency with EPA's performance criteria.
Coastal and Great Lake States are eligible for development grants in FY 2002 to develop monitoring and notification programs. The term “State” is defined in section 502 of the CWA to include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. However, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands no longer exists. The Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau, which were previously entities within the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, have entered into Compacts of Free Association with the Government of the United States. As a result, each is now a sovereign, self-governing entity and, as such, is no longer eligible to receive grants as a Territory or possession of the United States.
The BEACH Act authorizes EPA to make a grant to a local government for implementation of a monitoring and notification program only if, after the one-year period beginning on the date of publication of performance criteria, EPA determines that the State is not implementing a program that meets the requirements of section 406 of the Act. EPA expects to publish performance criteria in April 2002, and therefore expects April 2003 as the earliest date for local governments to be eligible for beach grants.
Section 518(e) of the CWA authorizes EPA to treat eligible Indian Tribes in the same manner as States for the purpose of receiving CWA section 406 grant funding. In order to receive BEACH Act grant funds a Tribe must have coastal recreation waters for which water quality standards have been established under the CWA. There are currently no Tribes that have met this requirement. In addition, a Tribe must meet the “treatment in the same manner as a State” criteria under CWA section 518(e) to receive grant funds under section 406 of the CWA.
For Fiscal Year 2002, EPA expects to award approximately $10 million in Development Grants to eligible States and Territories.
For this second year of the Development Grants, EPA expects to award grants to all eligible States and Territories who apply for funding based on an allocation formula. In developing this formula EPA consulted with various States, the Coastal States Organization, and Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA). This formula uses three factors that are readily available and verifiable: (1)
Beach season length was selected as a factor since it determines the part of the year that a government would conduct its monitoring program. The longer the beach season, the more resources that a government would need to conduct monitoring. EPA's information on the length of a beach season was obtained from the National Health Protection Survey of Beaches for the States or Territories that reported information. The beach season for American Samoa, Oregon, Puerto Rico, and Northern Mariana Islands was estimated based on season reported by nearby States and Territories. The beach season for Alaska was estimated based on air and water temperature, available information on recreation activities, and data from the 1993 National Water Based Recreation Survey. EPA grouped the States and U.S. Territories into four categories of beach season lengths:
Miles of beach was selected as a factor because it determines the geographical extent over which a government would conduct monitoring. The longer the miles of beaches, the more resources a government would need to conduct monitoring. For this second year of Development Grants, EPA is using shoreline miles as a surrogate rather than beach miles because beach miles are not available for all beaches in the 35 eligible States and Territories. EPA discussed the drawbacks of using this surrogate factor with States on a conference call on December 11, 2001 BEACH Act grantees, however, must identify their beaches as a condition of their grants; therefore in future years, EPA will be able to measure and thus use beach miles rather than shoreline. Because the BEACH Act grants for 2001 were awarded only recently, States have yet to identify lists of coastal recreation waters in the State. Thus, as a practical matter, EPA could not use beach miles in the allocation formula for FY 2002 grants. Instead, for FY 2002 grants, EPA used the NOAA publication The Coastline of the United States to quantify the shoreline miles.
Beach use was selected as a factor because it reflects the importance of beach-related tourism to the local economy. The greater use a beach receives, the more likely a government would need to conduct increased monitoring because of the larger number of people potentially exposed to pathogens. For this second year of Development Grants, EPA is using the coastal population of counties that are wholly or partially within the State's or Territory's legally defined coastal zone as a surrogate, rather than beach usage because information on beach visitors is not available for all beaches in the 35 eligible States and Territories. EPA also discussed the drawbacks of using this surrogate factor with States on a conference call on December 11, 2001. Participants on the call were doubtful that EPA could develop a consistent, verifiable approach for estimating beach use for all beaches, but could not suggest a better way to quantify this factor at present. EPA is committed to work with the States and Territories with BEACH Act grants to develop a better way to quantify this factor. EPA used the 1990 Census data to quantify coastal population because the 2000 data are not yet available for American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. EPA will update this factor when the 2000 census data are available for all eligible States and Territories.
The grants allocation formula consists of the sum of three parts. The first part provides a base amount for all States and Territories that varies with the length of the beach season. The second part distributes 50% of the total remaining funds ($10 million in FY 2002 less that used for the beach season length) based on the ratio of shoreline miles in a State or Territory to the total length of shoreline miles. For example, if a State has 4% of the total coastal and Great Lakes shoreline, that State would receive 2% (4% of 50%) of the total funds remaining after the funds for the beach season length are distributed. The third part distributes 50% of the total remaining funds ($10 million in FY 2002 less that used for the beach season length) based on the ratio of coastal population in a State or Territory to the total coastal population. For example, if a State has 2% of the total coastal and Great Lakes population, that State would receive 1% (2% of 50%) of the total funds remaining after the funds for the beach season length are distributed. The following table summarizes the allocation formula:
Based on this allocation formula, the amount of the each State or Territory's development grant award in FY 2002 is expected to be from $150,000 to $530,893 if all 35 eligible States and Territories apply. EPA anticipates that all 35 eligible governments will apply. If fewer than 35 States and Territories apply for the allocated amount, then EPA will re-allocate these grant funds to those States and Territories that applied for the grants using the same formula. If all 35 eligible States and Territories apply, the distribution of the $10 million in funds for year 2002 will be:
The expected funding and project period for Development Grants awarded in FY2002 is one year.
Recipients are not required to provide matching funds for Development Grants awarded under authority of the BEACH Act at this time.
If a State or Territory cannot use all of its allocation, the Regional Administrator may award the unused funds to any eligible coastal or Great Lake grant recipient(s) in the Region for the development of their coastal recreation water monitoring and notification program. If after this re-allocation, there are still unused funds within the Region, EPA-Headquarters will award these funds to any eligible coastal or Great Lake grant recipient(s).
Section 406(c) of the BEACH Act requires that as a condition of receipt of any BEACH Act grant, recipients identify the program elements listed below. Therefore, EPA will require recipients to address each of the following elements in their grant application and include the status of their efforts on each element in an annual performance report, as required under 40 CFR 31.40:
(1) Lists of coastal recreation waters in the State, including coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public;
(2) In the case of a State program for monitoring and notification, the process by which the State may delegate to local governments responsibility for implementing the monitoring and notification program;
(3) The frequency and location of monitoring and assessment of coastal recreation waters based on: (A) the periods of recreational use of the waters; (B) the nature and extent of use during certain periods; (C) the proximity of the waters to known point sources and nonpoint sources of pollution; and (D) any effect of storm events on the waters;
(4)(A) the methods to be used for detecting levels of pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human health; and (B) the assessment procedures for identifying short-term increases in pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human health in coastal recreation waters (including increases in relation to storm events);
(5) Measures for prompt communication of the occurrence, nature, location, pollutants involved, and extent of any exceeding of, or likelihood of exceeding, applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators to EPA and a designated official of the local government having jurisdiction over land adjoining the coastal recreation waters for which the failure to meet applicable standards is identified; EPA has determined that this information may be submitted to the Agency in any form so long as it includes the required information;
(6) Measures for the posting of signs at beaches or similar points of access, or functionally equivalent communication measures that are sufficient to give notice to the public that the coastal recreation waters are not meeting or are not expected to meet applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators; and
(7) Measures that inform the public of the potential risks associated with water contact activities in the coastal recreation waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards.
Recipients may use funds for activities in support of developing a beach monitoring and notification program, including:
(1) Activities to comply with the grant conditions specified in section III above;
(2) Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures consistent with the requirements under 40 CFR 31.45; to develop and implement QA/QC practices for environmentally related measurements or data generation sufficient to produce data of quality adequate to meet project objectives and to minimize loss of data due to out-of-control conditions or malfunctions; and
(3) Data quality objectives (DQOs), quality assurance project plan (QAPP) and standard operating procedures (SOPs) that clarify study objectives, define the appropriate type of data, and specify tolerable levels of potential decision errors that will be used as the basis for establishing the quality and quantity of data needed to support decisions.
Development Grants will be awarded through a non-competitive process by the EPA Regional offices. EPA expects to award grants to all eligible State and Territory applicants that meet requirements of the BEACH Act as described in this document.
The Administrator has delegated the authority to award Development Grants to the Regional Administrators.
The number assigned to the Development Grants is 66.472, Program Code CU.
For Fiscal Year 2002, Development Grants cannot be included in a Performance Partnership Grant.
The application package should contain completed EPA SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance and be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office by May 20, 2002. Please contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office for a complete application package. See Section VII for a list of EPA Regional Grant Coordinators or visit the EPA Beach Watch Website at
No. A QA/QC plan is not required for the application, however under 40 CFR 31.45 a QA/QC plan is required for any environmentally related measurements or data generation (
Recipients must submit annual performance reports and financial reports as required in §§ 31.40 and 31.41.
The regulations at 40 CFR part 31 will govern the award and administration of grants to States and Territories under section 406 of the BEACH Act. Allowable costs will be determined in accordance with the cost principles in OMB Cost Circular A-87.
Charles Kovatch USEPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW—4305, Washington DC 20460; T:202-260-3754; F: 202-260-9830;
Matt Liebman USEPA Region I, One Congress St. Ste. 1100—CWQ, Boston, MA 02114-2023; T:617-918-1626; F: 617-918-1505;
Helen Grebe USEPA Region II, 2890 Woodbridge Ave. MS220, Edison, NJ 08837-3679; T: 732-321-6797; F: 732-321-6616;
Nancy Grundahl USEPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street 3ES10, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029; T: 215-814-2729; F:215-814-2782;
Joel Hansel USEPA Region IV, 61 Forsyth St. 15th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303-3415; T: 404-562-9274; F: 404-562-9224;
Holly Wirick USEPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Blvd. WT-16J, Chicago, IL 60604-3507; T: 312-353-6704; F: 312-886-0168;
Mike Schaub USEPA Region VI, 1445 Ross Ave. 6WQ-EW, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; T: 214-665-7314; F: 214-665-6689;
Terry Fleming USEPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St. WTR-2, San Francisco, CA 94105; T: 415-744-1939; F: 415-744-1078;
Rob Pedersen USEPA Region X, 120 Sixth Ave. OW-134, Seattle, WA 98101; T: 206-553-1646; F: 206-553-0165;
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA will hold a public meeting to present the revised risk assessment for atrazine to interested stakeholders. This public meeting, called a “technical briefing,” will provide an opportunity for stakeholders to learn about the data, information, and methodologies that the Agency used in revising its risk assessment for atrazine.
The technical briefing will be held on, April 16, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The technical briefing will be held at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), 4301 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA, telephone number (703) 907-5933. Metro accessibility—Ballston Metro Stop.
By mail: Kimberly Nesci Lowe, Special Review and Registration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8059; e-mail address: lowe.kimberly@epa.gov.
This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to specifically describe all the entities potentially affected by this action. The Agency believes that a wide range of stakeholders will be interested in the technical briefing on atrazine pesticides, including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates, the chemical industry, pesticide users, and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides on food. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
To access information about organophosphate pesticides, you can also go directly to the Home Page for the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides. In addition, a brief summary of the atrazine revised risk assessment is now available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides, as well as in paper as part of the public version of the official record as described in Unit I.B.2.
2.
This document announces the Agency's intention to hold a technical briefing for atrazine. The Agency is presenting the revised risk assessment for atrazine to interested stakeholders. This technical briefing is designed to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to become even more informed about the risk assessment. EPA will describe in detail the revised risk assessment: Including the major points (e.g., contributors to risk estimates); how public comment on the preliminary risk assessment affected the revised risk assessment; and the pesticide use information/data that was used in developing the revised risk assessment. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to ask clarifying questions.
The technical briefing is part of the pilot public participation process that EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are now using for involving the public in the reassessment of pesticide tolerances under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and the reregistration of individual pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The pilot public participation process was developed as part of the EPA-USDA Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), which was established in April 1998, as a subcommittee under the auspices of EPA's National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology. A goal of the pilot public participation process is to find a more effective way for the public to participate at critical junctures in the Agency's development of pesticide risk assessment and risk management decisions. EPA and USDA began implementing this pilot process in August 1998, in response to Vice President Gore's directive to increase transparency and opportunities for stakeholder consultation.
On the day of the technical briefing, in addition to making copies available at the meeting site, the Agency will also release for public viewing the atrazine revised risk assessment and related documents to the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch and the OPP Internet web site that are described in Unit I.B.1. In addition, the Agency will issue a
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
This notice announces final agency action on 27 TMDLs prepared by EPA Region 6 for waters listed in Louisiana's Mermentau and Vermilion/Teche river basins, under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This notice also announces final agency action removing 6 waterbody/pollutant combinations from the Louisiana 303(d) list because TMDLs are not needed. EPA evaluated these waters and prepared the 27 TMDLs needed in response to a partial consent decree entered in the lawsuit
Ellen Caldwell at (214) 665-7513.
In 1996, two Louisiana environmental groups, the Sierra Club and Louisiana Environmental Action Network (plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), styled
By this notice EPA is taking final agency action on the following 27 TMDLs for waters located within the Mermentau and Vermilion/Teche basins:
EPA requested the public to provide EPA with any significant data or information that may impact the 27 TMDLs in 66 FR 47673 (September 13, 2001). The comments received and EPA's response to comments may be found at
EPA requested the public to provide to EPA any significant data or information that may impact the determinations that 6 TMDLs are not needed in 66 FR 52403 (October 15, 2001). No comments were received.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of tentative approval.
Notice is hereby given that the State of Florida is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. Florida has adopted drinking water regulations for Lead and Copper and the definition of a Public Water System. EPA has determined that these sets of revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding Federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends on approving this State program revision.
All interested parties may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by April 22, 2002 to the Regional Administrator at the address shown below. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by April 22, 2002, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination shall become final and effective on April 22, 2002.
Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices:
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road,
Franklin Baker, EPA Region 4, Drinking Water Section at the Atlanta address given above or at telephone (404) 562-9442.
(Section 1420 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and 40 CFR part 142 of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations).
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice and request for comments.
The Export-Import Bank as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments should be received on or before May 20, 2002 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all comments and requests for additional information to Carlista Robinson, Export-Import Bank of the U.S., 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3351.
1. Application for Quotation—Export Credit Insurance, EIB 92-34.
2. Beneficiary Certificate and Agreement, EIB 92-37.
3. Application for a Financial Institution Buyer Credit Policy, EIB 92-41.
4. Application for Export Credit Insurance Financing or Operating Lease Coverage EIB 92-45.
5. Application for Medium Term Export Credit Insurance Quotation EIB 92-48.
6. Short-Term Multi-Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy Application, EIB 92-50.
7. Exporter's Application for Short-Term Single-Buyer Policy, EIB 92-64.
8. Application for Export Credit Insurance Umbrella Policy, EIB 92-72.
9. Broker Registration Form EIB 92-79.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; solicitation of comments.
In this document, the Common Carrier Bureau sought comment on Smith Bagley's petition requesting the Commission's consent to the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission's proposed “service area” definition for areas served by the Century Tel of the Southwest, Inc. (Century Tel) within New Mexico.
Comments are due on or before April 4, 2002. Reply comments are due on or before April 15, 2002.
See Supplementary Information section for where and how to file comments.
Richard D. Smith (202) 418-7400, TTY: (202) 418-0484.
On March 1, 2002, Smith Bagley filed with the Commission a petition, pursuant to section 54.207 of the Commission's rules, requesting the Commission's consent to the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission's (New Mexico Commission) proposed “service area” definition for areas served by Century Tel of the Southwest, Inc. (Century Tel) within New Mexico. The New Mexico Commission proposes to define Smith Bagley's service area as an area different from the study area of Century Tel for the purpose of determining federal universal service obligations and support mechanisms. Specifically, the New Mexico Commission proposes to modify Smith Bagley's service area to include the Zuni, Ramah, and Fence Lake wire centers and Smith Bagley's existing service contour within the Pine Hill, Vanderwagn, Gallup, and Grants wire centers. The New Mexico Commission recommended that Century Tel's noncontiguous Pecos exchange be delineated as its own service area and that the exchanges served by Smith Bagley be grouped together as a second separate service area.
If the Commission does not act on the petition within 90 days of the release of this Public Notice, the definition proposed by the New Mexico Commission will be deemed approved by the Commission and shall take effect in accordance with state procedures.
The New Mexico Commission conditioned Smith Bagley's ETC designation upon confirmation of its proposed service area designation by this Commission. In compliance with the request of the New Mexico Commission, Smith Bagley has filed a petition with the Commission seeking approval of the proposed modified service area definition.
Section 54.207(c)(3) of the Commission's rules provides that the Commission may initiate a proceeding to consider a petition to redefine the service area of a rural telephone company within ninety days of the release date of a Public Notice. If the Commission initiates a proceeding to consider the petition, the proposed definition shall not take effect until both the state commission and the Commission agree upon the definition of a rural service area, in accordance with section 214(e)(5). If the Commission does not act on the petition within 90 days of the release date of the Public Notice, the definition proposed by the state commission will be deemed approved by the Commission and shall take effect in accordance with state procedures. Under § 54.207(e) of the Commission's rules, the Commission delegates its authority under § 54.207(c) to the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau.
An original and four copies of all comments must be filed with William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., TW-B204, Washington DC 20554. In addition, four copies of each comment must be delivered to Sheryl Todd, Common Carrier Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-A520, Washington, DC 20554, and one copy to Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington DC, 20554. In accordance with the Commission's earlier Public Notice announcing that hand-delivered or messenger-delivered filings are no longer accepted at the Commission's headquarters, hand-delivered or messenger-delivered filings must be delivered to 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location will be 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Other messenger-delivered documents, including documents sent by overnight mail (other than United States Postal Service (USPS) Express Mail and Priority Mail), must be addressed to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. This location will be open 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The USPS first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should continue to be addressed to the Commission's headquarters at 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. The USPS mail addressed to the Commission's headquarters actually goes to our Capitol Heights facility for screening prior to delivery at the Commission.
In addition to filing paper comments, parties are encouraged also to file comments electronically using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Pursuant to § 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR. 1.1206, this proceeding will be conducted as a permit-but-disclose proceeding in which
Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International (202) 863-2893. Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by April 5, 2002. See § 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.
The 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 4, 2002.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 15, 2002.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 15, 2002.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 15, 2002.
Administration on Aging, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration on Aging (AoA) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by April 22, 2002.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725 17th St. NW., rm. 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Allison Herron Eydt, Desk Officer for AoA.
David Bunoski, Office of Evaluation, Administration on Aging, Room 344G, Hubert Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201, (202) 260-0669.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, AoA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The Administration on Aging is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget for approval the National Outcome Measures Surveys of Older Americans Act (OAA) Clients, pursuant to requirements set forth by congressional statute. Through a contract with WESTAT, Inc., AoA will draw samples of individuals served through Area Agencies on Aging across the country for the purpose of obtaining OAA program service assessments from these individuals. The surveys will utilize information collection instruments and methods developed and tested by experts in the field of gerontology and by State and local entities that administer OAA programs. The surveys will include assessments from among the following service categories: nutrition, transportation, caregiver support, home-care, and information and assistance.
AoA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
In the
In a letter dated January 22, 2002, Patricia P. Pine, Ph.D., Director of the New York State Office for the Aging, made the following recommendations:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability and receipt of application.
This notice advises the public that Strawberry Tierra, Inc. (Applicant) has applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended. The Service proposes to issue a 3-year permit to the Applicant that would authorize the incidental take of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Preble's) (
The Service requests comments on the EA/HCP for the proposed issuance of the incidental take permit. We provide this notice pursuant to section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). All comments on the EA and permit application will become part of the administrative record and will be available to the public.
Written comments on the permit application and EA/HCP should be received on or before May 20, 2002.
Persons wishing to review the permit application or the EA/HCP, may obtain a copy by writing to LeRoy Carlson, Field Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, 755 Parfet Street, Suite 361, Lakewood, Colorado 80215, or by calling (303) 275-
Ms. Kathleen Linder, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Field Office, telephone (303) 275-2370.
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and Federal regulations prohibit the “take” of a species listed as endangered or threatened (take is defined under the Endangered Species Act as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct). However, the Service may issue permits to authorize “incidental take” (defined by the Endangered Species Act as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity) of listed species under limited circumstances. Regulations governing permits for threatened species are promulgated in 50 CFR 17.32. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are promulgated in 50 CFR 17.22.
The proposed action is the issuance of a permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act to allow the incidental take of Preble's during the construction of a proposed retail development. The proposed project will permanently affect 0.10 acres and temporarily affect 5.37 acres of potential habitat for Preble's. An HCP has been developed as part of the preferred alternative. The proposed HCP will allow for the incidental take of the Preble's by permitting construction of a retail development in an area that may be periodically used as foraging or hibernation habitat. Proposed construction will result in about 0.10 acres of permanent habitat loss and another 5.37 acres of temporary effects to the habitat associated with this localized disturbance.
Alternatives considered in addition to the proposed action were—building at an alternate location, and no action. The draft EA analyzes the onsite, offsite, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project and all associated development and construction activities and mitigation activities on the Preble's, other threatened or endangered species, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, geology/soils, land use, water resources, air and water quality, or cultural resources. None of the proposed impacts occur within the riparian corridor. The majority of impacts are in upland areas outside the 100-year floodplain. The Applicant, using the Service's definition of Preble's habitat, has determined that the proposed project would impact approximately 5.47 acres of potential Preble's habitat. The mitigation for the identified impacts will provide a net increase of 2.06 acres to the Preble's and other wildlife by improving potential mouse habitat through revegetation with native grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees.
The Preble's is the only known Federally listed species that occurs on site and has the potential to be directly affected by the proposed project. The Applicant has agreed to implement the following measures to minimize and mitigate impacts that may result from incidental take of Preble's; in order to compensate for the loss of Preble's habitat, a total of 7.53 acres adjacent to the 100-year floodplain of Cherry Creek will be preserved and enhanced at a ratio of greater than 1.5:1 through seeding and planting native species.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
Regent Development (Applicant) seeks an incidental take permit (ITP) from the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. The ITP would authorize incidental take of the endangered Nashville crayfish (
The Service announces the availability of the HCP for the incidental take application. Copies of the HCP may be obtained by making a request to the Regional Office (see
The Service specifically requests information, views, and opinions from the public via this Notice on the federal action. Further, the Service specifically solicits information regarding the adequacy of the HCP as measured against the Service's ITP issuance criteria found in 50 CFR Parts 13 and 17.
If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of several methods. Please reference permit number TE049322-0 in such comments. You may mail comments to the Service's Regional Office (see
Due to Court order, the Department of Interior has temporarily lost access to the internet and may not regain it by the time this notice is published. Commentors are encouraged to submit comments by mail or express courier, or to call (see
Finally, you may hand deliver comments to either Service office listed below (see
Written comments on the ITP application and HCP should be sent to the Service's Regional Office (see
Persons wishing to review the application, supporting documentation, and HCP may obtain a copy by writing the Service's Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. Documents will also be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the Regional Office, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (Attn: Endangered Species Permit Coordinator), or Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, Tennessee 38501. Written data or comments concerning the application or HCP should be submitted to the Regional Office. Requests for the documentation must be in writing to be processed. Please reference permit number TE049322-0 in such comments, or in requests of the documents discussed herein.
Mr. David Dell, Regional Permit Coordinator, (see
Nashville crayfish are limited to the Mill Creek watershed in Davidson and Williamson counties, Tennessee, near metropolitan Nashville. This species has been collected in both pool (adults only) and riffle areas (adults and juveniles). The crayfish take cover under flattened limestone slabs and rocks of varying sizes on the predominately gravel and limestone bedrock substrate found in Mill Creek and its tributaries. Habitat degradation from road and bridge construction, stream channel modifications, and point and non-point source runoff threatens the continued survival of the Nashville crayfish in this restricted range.
The Applicant, Regent Development, requests a permit for incidental take of Nashville crayfish which would occur from the draining of a 5-acre lake at Lenox Village, a proposed development site in Davidson County, Tennessee. The lake is being drained to provide suitable substrate for construction of houses. If the Applicant decided not to build in this area, the lake would still be drained to either remove or repair the dam that is currently holding back the water. The dam has been deemed unsafe by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and the Applicant has been instructed to either remove the dam or repair it.
Under section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations, “taking” of endangered and threatened wildlife is prohibited. However, the Service, under limited circumstances, may issue permits to take such wildlife if the taking is incidental to and not the purpose of otherwise lawful activities. The Applicant has developed an HCP as required for their incidental take permit application.
The HCP describes measures the Applicant will take to minimize and mitigate taking at the Project site. To minimize impacts to the Nashville crayfish from the draining of Resha Lake, the Applicant will:
1. Install proper erosion control measures prior to draining of the lake to insure minimal loss of sediment to the downstream channel during the draining process.
2. Conduct a sweep of the lake prior to initiation of the lake draining process to remove Nashville crayfish. These crayfish will be relocated to area(s) designated by the Service.
3. Conduct periodic sweeps throughout the entire lake draining process to ensure removal of all Nashville crayfish.
To mitigate for any Nashville crayfish that may be taken, the applicant will provide the following:
1. Reconstruction of the stream channel:
a. The channel will be placed in the lake bed and will mirror the up- and down-stream portions of the existing stream channel.
b. Slabrocks will be placed in the reconstructed channel to provide habitat for Nashville crayfish recolonizing the channel.
c. Native vegetation will be planted in buffer zones along the stream bank.
d. The reconstructed stream channel will be designated as greenspace in perpetuity.
2. Installation of wet cells:
Retention basins (wet cells) will be strategically located throughout the property to collect runoff to allow materials harmful to aquatic species to settle out before that water is released to the stream.
3. Education:
a. Informational signs discussing the Nashville crayfish and its habitat will be installed along the reconstructed stream channel.
b. Informational flyers will be distributed through the Homeowners Association to all residents of Lenox Village discussing the Nashville crayfish and ways that residents can protect the species' habitat.
As stated above, we have determined that the HCP is a low-effect plan that is categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis, and does not require the preparation of an EA or EIS. This preliminary information may be revised due to public comment received in response to this notice. Low-effect HCPs are those involving: (1) Minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources. The Applicant's HCP qualifies for the following reasons:
1. Approval of the HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on the Nashville crayfish and its habitat. We do not anticipate significant direct or cumulative effects on this species as a result of this project, but rather expect the species to benefit.
2. Approval of the HCP would not have adverse effects on known geographic, historic, or cultural sites, or involve unique or unknown environmental risks.
3. Approval of the HCP would not result in any significant adverse effects on public health or safety.
4. The project does not require compliance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), or the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, nor does it threaten to violate a federal, state, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for protection of the environment.
5. Approval of the HCP would not establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects.
The Service will evaluate the HCP and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If it is determined that those requirements are met, the ITP will be issued for the incidental take of Nashville crayfish on the Applicant's project site. The Service will also evaluate whether issuance of the section
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
Vestcor Fund XV, Limited (Applicant) requests an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U.S.C. 1531
The Applicants' Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) describes the mitigation measures proposed to address the effects of the Project to the protected species. These measures are outlined in the
The Service announces the availability of the HCP for the incidental take application. Copies of the HCP may be obtained by making a request to the Regional Office (see
The Service specifically requests information, views, and opinions from the public via this Notice on the federal action. Further, the Service specifically solicits information regarding the adequacy of the HCP as measured against the Service's ITP issuance criteria found in 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.
If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of several methods. Please reference permit number TE042708-0 in such comments. You may mail comments to the Service's Regional Office (see
Due to Court order, the Department of Interior has temporarily lost access to the internet and may not regain it by the time this notice is published. Commentors are encouraged to submit comments by mail or express courier, or to call (see
Finally, you may hand deliver comments to either Service office listed below (see
Written comments on the permit application, Determination of Low Effect and HCP should be sent to the Service's Regional Office (see
Persons wishing to review the application, HCP, and supporting documentation may obtain a copy by writing the Service's Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. Documents will also be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the Regional Office, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (Attn: Endangered Species Permits), or Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3559. Written data or comments concerning the application, HCP, or supporting documents should be submitted to the Regional Office. Requests for the documentation must be in writing to be processed. Please reference permit number TE042708-0 in such comments, or in requests of the documents discussed herein.
Mr. David Dell, Regional Permit Coordinator, (see
In southwest Florida, there are an estimated 85 active RCW clusters; 51 percent are on Federal lands, 35 percent are on State lands, and 14 percent are on private lands. The known RCW populations on public lands are periodically monitored and the status of birds on these lands range from increasing to decreasing. Effective land management actions are currently ongoing in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Cecil Webb Wildlife Management Area where 27 known active RCW clusters occur. This population is about 40 miles north of the project area and the RCW population is considered stable. Big Cypress National Preserve is about 25 miles southeast of the project area and contains 43 clusters that are actively managed and this population is increasing. In relation to the project site, the closest public land (within two miles) that supports RCWs is the Picayune Strand State Forest where three active clusters exist. This population has been in decline for several decades, but much of the decline resulted from lack of habitat management prior to acquisition by the State of Florida. Recent implementation of aggressive land management actions within the State forest is likely to stabilize this population in the near future and result in long-term increases in the number of active clusters.
The Applicant's project lies within the urban boundary of Naples. Areas surrounding the project site are represented by a mosaic of urban uses and undeveloped property. The location of RCWs on private lands in the Naples area has never been well documented because of a lack of access for survey purposes. Based largely on anecdotal information, observations from roadsides, and limited information gathered from onsite observations in the 1980s and early 1990s, about 12 active clusters are thought to exist on private lands west of the Picayune Strand State Forest and dense urban areas further to the west.
Of the 12 RCW clusters on private lands, two historic localities are known from private lands near the project site. Application of a one-half mile radius circle around these cluster sites indicates that the project site may be within the home range of one, and possibly both of these clusters. However, due to construction time constraints, and lack of access to neighboring properties, adequate RCW foraging habitat surveys could not be conducted on the project site to determine definitively whether RCWs forage in the area. Preliminary habitat assessments looked for, but did not find, active or inactive nest trees. Much of the project area consists of hydric pine flat woods that are relatively undisturbed. Lacking sufficient time to conduct foraging surveys, and the apparent suitability of the project site as foraging habitat and the proximity of RCW clusters, the Applicant opted to consider the entire project area to be RCW foraging habitat.
The Service worked with the Applicant in the design of the mitigation measures. To mitigate for loss of RCW foraging habitat, the Applicant will purchase a minimum of 18.3 acres of suitable RCW foraging habitat within (e.g., inholdings) or adjacent to the Belle Meade tract of the Picayune Strand State Forest. The Applicant will, in cooperation with the Florida Division of Forestry, develop a habitat management plan for the mitigation parcel(s), conduct any initial management actions required to restore acquired mitigation parcels, and contribute sufficient funds into a management endowment to ensure future management of the mitigation parcels. Except for avoidance of RCWs observed during construction, no project minimization measures were proposed by the Applicant because the property was acquired prior to the realization that RCWs may forage on the site. Accordingly, the smallest acreage necessary to construct the proposed multi-family units was acquired. Thus, the existing 18.3 acres will accommodate the proposed development, but does not provide sufficient area to create buffers or to otherwise minimize impacts to foraging habitat. The Applicant has indicated that downsizing the proposed development will not be economically viable. From a biological perspective, onsite preservation is not likely to result in conservation benefits to RCWs in this increasingly urban landscape. On-site preserves established for RCWs during previous section 7 consultations in this area have proven ineffective because they have become surrounded by urban development. The concept of on-site preserves for RCWs may be appropriate for large-scale developments that provide ample open space and sufficient residual habitat, particularly when the preserves are adjacent to actively managed public lands. However, habitat preserves set aside within relatively small development projects of southwest Florida tend to result in small, fragmented parcels of habitat that become increasingly hostile to RCWs as urban development encroaches. In such cases, RCWs often abandoned these small, isolated preserves because sufficient habitat is not available.
As stated above, we have determined that the HCP is a low-effect plan that is categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis, which does not require the preparation of an EA or EIS. Low-effect HCPs are those involving: (1) Minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources. The Applicant's HCP qualifies for the following reasons:
1. Approval of the HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on the red-cockaded woodpecker and its habitat. We do not anticipate significant direct or cumulative effects on this species as a result of this project.
2. Approval of the HCP would not have adverse effects on known geographic, historic, or cultural sites, or involve unique or unknown environmental risks.
3. Approval of the HCP would not result in any significant adverse effects on public health or safety.
4. The project does not require compliance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), or the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, nor does it threaten to violate a federal, state, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for protection of the environment.
5. Approval of the HCP would not establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects.
The Service will evaluate the HCP and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If it is determined that those requirements are met, the ITP will be issued for the incidental take of RCWs on the Applicant's project site. The Service will also evaluate whether the issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. The results of the Biological Opinion, in combination with the above findings, will be used in the final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
Soulen Livestock, Inc. (Soulen Livestock) has applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an enhancement of survival permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The permit application includes a proposed Southern Idaho Ground Squirrel Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (Agreement) between Soulen Livestock, the Service, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Idaho Governor's Office of Species Conservation.
Under the proposed Agreement, the parties would implement conservation measures for southern Idaho ground squirrels (
We request comments from the public on the permit application, Agreement, and the Environmental Assessment. All comments we receive, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public.
Written comments should be received on or before April 22, 2002.
Comments should be addressed to Dennis Mackey, Project Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, Idaho 83709, (facsimile: 208/378-5262).
Dennis Mackey at the above address or telephone 208/378-5267.
You may obtain copies of the documents for review by contacting the individual named above. You also may make an appointment to view the documents at the above address during normal business hours.
Under a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances, participating landowners voluntarily implement conservation activities on their property to benefit unlisted species that are proposed or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act, or other sensitive species. Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation efforts, and reduce threats to unlisted species by assuring landowners that they will not be subjected to increased property use restrictions, beyond those identified in the agreement, if the species is listed in the future under the Endangered Species Act. Application requirements and issuance criteria for enhancement of survival permits through Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances are found in 50 CFR 17.22(d) and 17.32(d).
On October 30, 2001, the Service formally identified the southern Idaho ground squirrel as a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act (66 FR 54807). Southern Idaho ground squirrels are currently found within an approximately 518,000-acre area comprised of lower elevation shrub/steppe habitat in the Weiser River Basin, in southwest, Idaho. The species appears to have undergone a substantial population decline throughout its range since 1985. Southern Idaho ground squirrels are largely dependent on private lands: 85 percent of the occupied ground squirrel sites are located on private lands, mostly ranches and farms; 12 percent are under federal management by the Bureau of Land Management; and 3 percent of the sites are on lands managed by the Idaho Department of Lands. Conservation measures implemented on private lands are important for the long-term survival of the species.
Landowners may be willing to implement measures that enhance populations of sensitive species on their property, but reluctant to do so because of potential land-use restrictions that could occur should the species eventually be listed under the Endangered Species Act. As a result of this potential regulatory concern, Soulen Livestock developed the Southern Idaho Ground Squirrel Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances, in cooperation with the agencies, and is applying to the Service for a permit under section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act, authorizing incidental take of southern Idaho ground squirrels.
Under the proposed Agreement and permit, Soulen Livestock and the agencies would implement various conservation measures over the 43,145 acres of Soulen Livestock's property depending on present and future occupancy of sites by southern Idaho ground squirrels and the location of ground squirrel reintroduction/translocation sites. The proposed conservation measures can be described in three categories: (1) Measures to be applied on all 43,145 acres; (2) measures that would occur on currently occupied ground squirrel sites (30 acres); and (3) measures on 43,115 acres where ground squirrel occupancy and habitat suitability is currently unknown. On all 43,145 acres of enrolled lands, Soulen Livestock would not authorize the shooting, trapping, or poisoning of southern Idaho ground squirrels and would allow agency personnel access to these lands to conduct ground squirrel surveys. Currently, three sites, covering 30 acres have been identified in the site-specific plan as occupied by southern Idaho ground squirrels and specific conservation measures have been identified at these sites to protect ground squirrels from activities that may have adverse affects to individual ground squirrels or their habitat. The ground squirrel conservation measures on the 30 acres include: (1) Continue reintroduction efforts, (2) monitor ground squirrel populations and habitat characteristics to identify habitat enhancement/rehabilitation measures; (3) implement habitat enhancement measures such as seeding native or non-native vegetation species, fertilizing vegetation, prescribed burning, and providing escape cover; (4) minimize direct mortality from ground disturbing activities; (5) provide supplemental feeding, if necessary; (6) prohibit shooting, trapping, or poisoning of ground squirrels; and (7) control Columbian ground squirrels and badgers. Columbian ground squirrels compete with southern Idaho ground squirrels for food and burrow sites. Badgers can cause severe impacts on prey species, especially if they are at critically low numbers. The remaining
We provide this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act and implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1506.6). We will evaluate the permit application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act regulations. If we determine that the requirements are met, we will sign the Agreement and issue an enhancement of survival permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act to Soulen Livestock for take of southern Idaho ground squirrels incidental to otherwise lawful activities in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. We will not make our final decision until after the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all comments received during the comment period.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of closure of public lands to camping and off-highway vehicle use.
Notice is hereby given that the following described lands are temporarily closed until further notice to camping and off-highway vehicle use for the protection of public health and safety under the provisions of 43 CFR 8364.1 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701). Persons with authorization to utilize the area by BLM regulations, contracts, leases or permits, may use the area described in accordance with those authorizations. Nothing in this closure effects the exercise of valid existing rights created by a contract, right-of-way, lease, permit or mining claim that is carried out in accordance with the regulations under which the rights were established. The closure will remain in effect until rescinded or modified by the Phoenix Field Manager.
This order is effective upon the signature of the authorized officer.
The public lands involved (approximately 301 acres), located at University Drive/Sossman Road and Camelback Road/Agua Fria River, are adjacent to areas of expanding urban development. Unregulated and extended overnight camping and off-highway vehicle use is not consistent with the orderly growth of the communities and presents health, safety and law enforcement problems.
Fugitive dust resulting from operation of off-highway vehicles in air quality non-attainment areas is a growing and continuing problem. Landowner compliance with Maricopa County and State of Arizona dust abatement and management regulations is becoming critical in the urban areas of Maricopa County. BLM is subject to these rules, especially Maricopa County Rules 301, 302, and 310.01. Air quality issues include considerable PM10 dust from the operation of off-highway vehicles, extensive PM10 accumulations from OHV activities during late afternoons and on weekends, and significant numbers of complaints from concerned citizens.
Increasing levels of local law enforcement time have been allocated to answering disturbance calls from residents and property owners adjacent to these public lands. Law enforcement service calls included OHV-related dust, noise, trespass, random gunfire, drug and alcohol violation arrests, fireworks use, suspicious circumstance calls, illegal dumping of dirt, debris and trash and other illicit activities.
This closure will be monitored and enforced by BLM, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department and other law enforcement agencies. The following persons, operating within the scope of their official duties, are exempt from the provisions of these closures: BLM employees, state or federal law enforcement and fire protection personnel.
Because of prior existing rights, the following parties (and their representatives) will be allowed access to the above described lands:
Notice is hereby given that effective the date of a signature by the authorized officer of this notice, the above described lands are closed to camping and off-highway vehicle use until further notice. Any person who fails to comply with a closure or restriction order issued under 43 CFR 8364 is subject to the penalties provided in 43 CFR Subpart 8360.0-7.
Michael A. Taylor, Field Manager, Phoenix Field Office, 21605 North 7th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85027, (623) 580-5500.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior Department.
Temporary closure of affected public lands in Lyon, Storey, Churchill, Carson, Douglas, Mineral and Washoe Counties on and adjacent to permitted special events such as: Motorized Off Highway Vehicle, Mountain Bike, Horse Endurance competitive event sites and routes.
Competitive events (races) are conducted along dirt roads, trails, washes and areas approved for such use through the Special Recreation Use Permit application process. Events occur from April through November, 2002. Closure period is from 6 a.m. race day until race finish or until the event has cleared between affected Check Point locations; approximately 2 to 24 hour periods. The general public will be advised of each event and Closure specifics via local newspapers and mailed public letters within seven (7) to thirty (30) days prior to the running of an event. Event maps and information will be posted at the Carson City Field Office.
Locations most commonly used for permitted events include, but are not limited to:
1. Lemmon Valley MX Area—Washoe Co., T21N R19E S8.
2. Hungry Valley Off Highway Vehicle Area—Washoe Co., T21-23N R20E.
3. Pine Nut Mountains—Carson, Douglas & Lyon Counties: T11-16N R20-24E.
4. Virginia City/Jumbo Areas—Washoe & Storey Counties: T16-17N R20-21E.
5. Yerington/Weeks Areas—Lyon Co.: T12-16N R23-27E.
6. Fallon Area (Including Sand Mtn.)—Churchill Co.: T14-18N R27-32E.
7. Hawthorne Area—Mineral County: T5-14N R31
The Assistant Manager, Non-Renewable Resources announces the temporary closure of selected public lands under his administration. Persons with authorization to utilize the area by BLM regulations, contracts, leases or permits, may use the area described in accordance with those authorizations. Nothing in this closure affects the exercise of valid existing rights created by a contract, right of way, lease, permit of mining claim that is carried out in accordance with the regulations under which the rights were established. This action is taken to provide for public and participant safety and to protect adjacent natural and cultural resources during the conduct of permitted special recreation events.
April through November, 2002. Events may be canceled or rescheduled at short notice.
Fran Hull, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Carson City Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 5665 Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, Nevada 89701, Telephone: (775) 885-6161.
Bureau lands to be temporarily closed to public use include the width and length of those roads and trails identified as the race route by colorful flagging, chalk arrows in the dirt and directional arrows attached to wooden stakes. The authorized applicants or their representatives are required to post warning signs, control access to, and clearly mark the event routes during closure periods.
Public uses generally affected by a Temporary Closure include: road and trail uses, camping, shooting of any kind of weapon including paint ball, and public land exploration.
Spectator and support vehicles may be driven on open roads only. Spectators may observe the races from specified locations as directed by event and agency officials.
A map and schedule of each closure area may be obtained at the contact address.
43 CFR part 8364 and 43 CFR part 8372.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Meeting of the Central California Resource Advisory Council.
Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (sec. 309), the Bureau of Land Management Resource Advisory Council for Central California will meet in Bakersfield.
Friday and Saturday, April 12-13, 2002.
Red Lion Hotel, 2400 Camino Del Rio Court, Bakersfield, California.
The 12 member Central California Resource Advisory Council is appointed by the Secretary of the Interior to advise the Bureau of Land Management on public land issues. On Friday and Saturday beginning at 8 a.m., the Council will meet to discuss public land issues. The meetings are open to the public. Agenda items include a briefing on current issues and future planning by the four Field Managers of the central California region of the BLM, and an information session on healthy rangelands. There will be a Friday afternoon field trip to the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The public is welcome on the field trip, but must supply their own transportation. There will be public comment periods at 11:30 a.m. on Friday, April 12, and 1 p.m. on Saturday, April 13, at which time the Council will hear comments on any public land issue. Written comments will also be accepted, either at the meeting or at the address below.
Larry Mercer, Public Affairs Officer, Bureau of Land Management, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93308, telephone 661-391-6010.
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: A field tour to Crescent Valley to view/discuss grazing and mining issues, approval of minutes of the previous meetings, Off-Highway Vehicle Draft Guidelines, Vegetation Draft Guidelines, 3809 Guidelines, Field Managers' and District Ranger's reports.
All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal
The time and location of the meeting is as follows: Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, BLM Battle Mountain Field Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, Nevada, 89820; Field Tour April 24, 2002, beginning at 9 a.m. and returning at 5 p.m.; Business Meeting April 25, 2002 beginning at 9 a.m., public comment period 1:30 p.m.; tentative adjournment at 5 p.m.
Mike Brown, Public Affairs Specialist, Elko Field Office, 3900 E. Idaho Street, Elko, NV 89801, telephone (775) 753-0386.
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.
Medford District Office, Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The Medford District Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Medford. Agenda topics include review of last meeting minutes, role of alternates, presentations on proposed fiscal year 2002 Title II projects, and discussion regarding proposed projects.
April 11, 2002. The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. A public comment period will be held from 2 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. The meeting is expected to adjourn at 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Medford District Office, located at 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, Oregon.
Karen Gillespie, Medford District Office (541-618-2424).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committees Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Pub. L. 94-579), the U. S. Bureau of Land Management's Northwest California Resource Advisory Council will meet Wednesday and Thursday, April 24 and 25, 2002, in Arcata, CA, for a field tour and business meeting. The tour and meeting are open to the public, but anyone participating in the tour must provide their own transportation and lunch.
The meeting begins at 10 a.m. Wednesday, April 24, at the BLM Arcata Field Office, 1695 Heindon Rd., Arcata. Members will convene, then depart immediately for field tour of sites managed by the Arcata Field Office. On Thursday, April 25, the council will convene a business meeting at 8 a.m. in the Conference Room of the BLM Arcata Field Office. Agenda topics will include discussion of a community forest proposal in Trinity County, a status report on planning for the Headwaters Forest Reserve, and a status report on a proposed amendment to the BLM Redding Field Office Resource Management Plan. Council members will also hear status reports from the managers of the BLM's Arcata, Redding and Ukiah field offices.
Time will be set aside for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, a time limit may be established.
Contact Lynda J. Roush, BLM Arcata Field Manager, at (707) 825-2300; or Public Affairs Officer Joseph J. Fontana at (530) 257-5381.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The United States Department of Veterans Affairs has filed an application to transfer jurisdiction of 49.83 acres of public land withdrawn for the Department of the Navy, Pensacola Naval Air Station. The land is needed for expansion of the Barrancas National Cemetery. The land has been and would remain closed to surface entry and mining, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws.
Comments must be received by June 19, 2002.
Comments should be sent to the Field Manager, BLM, 411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404, Jackson, Mississippi 39206.
Duane Winters, Jackson Field Office, 601-977-5403.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has filed an application to transfer jurisdiction of the following described public lands, which were withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the general land laws, including the mining laws, subject to valid existing rights for the Department of Navy, Pensacola Naval Air Station:
The area described contains 49.83 acres in Escambia County.
The Department of Navy has determined that this land is no longer needed for the Pensacola Naval Air Station and has agreed to a transfer of the land to the Department of Veterans Affairs for expansion of the Barrancas National Cemetery.
For a period of 90 days from the date of publication of this notice, all persons who wish to submit comments,
The application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2300.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
Notice of workshop.
The MMS and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) will jointly hold a workshop to discuss the transfer of responsibility to MMS for inspection and enforcement of USCG regulations for fixed facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf.
The workshop will be held on Friday, April 12, 2002, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon. Written questions you wish to discuss at the workshop must reach MMS by close of business on March 22, 2002.
The workshop will be held at the Sheraton North Houston Hotel's Amphitheater at George Bush International Airport, 15700 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Houston, Texas; telephone (281) 442-5100. Please submit your written questions by mail or fax to the following:
(1) By mail to Staci Atkins, Minerals Management Service, 381 Elden Street, MS 4023, Herndon, Virginia 20170; or,
(2) By Fax to Staci Atkins at (703) 787-1575.
Staci Atkins, telephone (703) 787-1620.
On February 7, 2002, the USCG published a final rule in the
The agenda for the meeting on April 12, 2002, is as follows:
• General welcome and overview;
• Presentation of the rulemaking history;
• Overviews of the current MMS and USCG inspection programs;
• Presentation of the integrated inspection program; and
• Question and answer session.
The MMS and USCG encourage you to submit questions and attend the workshop. We will consider your questions submitted in advance in preparing our presentations so that the workshop can focus on key topics. You may also pose questions during the question and answer session at the workshop.
To obtain information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request that we provide special assistance at the meeting, please contact Staci Atkins as soon as possible.
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement and General Management Plan for Devils Tower National Monument.
Pursuant to section 102 (2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Park Service announces the availability of a final Environmental Impact Statement and General Management Plan (FEIS/GMP) for Devils Tower National Monument, Wyoming.
The Draft EIS/GMP was on public review from July 2, through September 30, 2001. Responses to public comment are addressed in the FEIS/GMP. A 30-day no-action period will follow the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability of the FEIS/GMP.
Copies of the FEIS/GMP are available from the Superintendent, Devils Tower National Monument, P.O. Box 10, Devils Tower, WY 82714. Public reading copies of the FEIS/GMP will be available for review at the following locations:
Superintendent, Devils Tower National Monument, (307) 467-5282 x 14.
The FEIS/GMP analyzes five alternatives to manage natural and cultural resources, visitor use and access, general development and park operations. The alternatives address issues including the following. The national monument is subject to visitor congestion, including vehicular circulation and parking, and crowded visitor facilities. None of the four buildings where park staff works has adequate space for office requirements, storage, meetings, or breaks. The space available for the cooperating association's offices and bookstore is inadequate. Congestion and inadequate facilities limit the staff's ability to offer orientation and interpretation that would ensure visitor understanding of the monument's significance and allow visitors to make the best use of their time. Flood control structures on the Belle Fourche River inside and outside the monument have severely damaged the riparian woodland system. Modern recreational use, developments, and climbing on the Tower are sometimes in conflict with American Indian traditional cultural values. High levels of development, visitor use, and crowding at the base of the Tower are not consistent with the spiritual nature of the area. Alternative 1, the no action alternative represents the continuation of existing conditions and management at the monument. Alternative 2 would reduce overall development to improve the monument's natural setting, institute a reservation system during periods of peak visitation, and convert the parking area at the base of the Tower to a pedestrian plaza. Alternative 3, the NPS preferred alternative, would institute a shuttle system for use during peak
The FEIS/GMP in particular evaluates the environmental consequences of the proposed action and the other alternatives on the prairie dog (a candidate for listing as threatened by the Fish and Wildlife Service), wetlands, floodplains, ethnographic and historic resources, visitors' experience of monument resources, visitor access and freedom to go at one's own pace, access to orientation and interpretation, visitor safety, businesses and neighbors, and local and regional economy.
National Park Service, Department of the Interior
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Valley Forge National Historical Park General Management Plan.
Under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Park Service is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the Valley Forge National Historical Park General Management Plan. This Environmental Impact Statement will be approved by the Northeast Regional Director.
Valley Forge National Historical Park was authorized by Congress, Public Law 94-337, on July 4, 1976. As required, a General Management Plan was prepared and released in September 1982. NPS policy requires that such plans be prepared every 15-20 years. The 1982 plan has numerous deficiencies and left the park without appropriate management tools for resources and recreational use.
The park lies at the center of the wealthiest and most urbanized region of Pennsylvania, just beyond Philadelphia. Its visitation is mostly regional, and it is treasured more as an outstanding recreational and open space resource than as a cultural resource. Its 3400 acres lie in two counties and five municipalities; each jurisdiction has a distinct governance, planning, and zoning structure. The GMP process will begin in FY 02. It will address the following:
• The public's lack of understanding and appreciation for the cultural resources and values of the park, and of the park's mission;
• The need for consensus on defining and managing recreational use in the park;
• A strategic approach to management of the park's cultural resources, including landscapes, earthworks and structures:
• Mitigation of pressures on the park resources resulting from rapid residential and commercial development of areas surrounding the park; and
• Strategies for appropriate partnership opportunities that can enhance the park's visitor services.
A scoping meeting will be scheduled, and notice will be made of the meeting through a broad public mailing and publication of meeting notices in local newspapers. A newsletter introducing the project to the public will be done. Copies of the newsletter will be available by request to the Superintendent, Valley Forge National Historical Park at the phone number below or by email to
Contact Superintendent, Valley Forge National Historical Park, 610-783-1000 or at
Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on March 13, 2002, a proposed Consent Decree in
Under the Consent Decree, Boise Cascade is required to install state-of-the-art air pollution control equipment over the next three years at its Medford and Elgin, Oregon operations, and the Florien and Oakdale plants in Louisiana. In addition, the company must select one of three pollution control options to reduce volatile organic compound emissions (VOCs) from its particle board facility in Island City, Oregon. The company will spend an estimated $15 million to implement these compliance measures. The company will also pay $4.35 million in civil penalties and, under the settlement, Boise Cascade will be installing another $2.9 million in supplemental controls to reduce emissions at the Yakima and Kettle Falls, Washington plants, and to control certain units at the Medford, Oregon plywood facility. The state of Louisiana joined in the settlement and will receive a $250,000 share in the penalties.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611, and refer on its face to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, District of Oregon, 1000 SW. Third Ave., Suite 600, Portland, OR 97204-2902, and at EPA Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue OAQ-107, Seattle, Washington. A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611 or by faxing a request to Tonia Fleetwood, fax no. (202) 514-
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. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) is soliciting comments concerning the following proposed collections: (1) FECA Medical Report Forms and Claim for Compensation (CA-16b, CA-17b, CA-20, CA-1090, CA-1303, CA-1305, CA-1306, CA-1314, CA-1316, CA-1331, CA-1332, CA-1336, OWCP-5a, OWCP-5b, OWCP-5c, and CA-7); and (2) Rehabilitation Action Report (OWCP-44). A copy of the proposed information collection requests can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before May 20, 2002.
Ms. Patricia A. Forkel, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room S-3201, Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 693-0339, fax (202) 693-1451, EMail pforkel@feix2.dol-esa.gov. Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or e-mail).
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) provides for the payment of benefits for wage loss and/or for permanent impairment to a scheduled member, arising out of a work related injury or disease. Before compensation may be paid, the case file must contain medical evidence showing that the claimant's disability is causally related to the claimant's federal employment. As a particular claim ages, there is continuing need for updated information to support continuing benefits. The FECA Medical Report Forms collect medical information from physicians which is necessary to determine entitlement to benefits under the Act. Form CA-7, Claim for Compensation, requests information from the injured worker regarding pay rate, dependents, earnings, dual benefits, and third-party information. This information collection is approved by the Office of Management and Budget for use through August 2002.
The Department of Labor 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.
The Department of Labor seeks approval of this information collection request in order to carry out its statutory responsibility to compensate injured employees under the provisions of the Act. The OWCP has carefully reviewed usage of these forms and has determined that three forms formerly included as part of this OMB clearance number, (CA-1306, CA-1314, and CA-1316,) have not been used in the past year and are obsolete. These forms have been eliminated. The CA-1336 formerly approved as part of this information collection request has been replaced by the QCM Letters. In addition, the CM-1090, the OWCP 5a, 5b, and 5c have been revised.
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) administers the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. Section 8104(a) of the Act provides that eligible injured workers are furnished vocational rehabilitation services. The costs of these services are paid from the Employees' Compensation Fund. The Rehabilitation Action Report (OWCP-44) is submitted by a rehabilitation counselor to report transition periods in the vocational rehabilitation process and to request prompt adjudicatory action. The form gives prompt notification of key events requiring action in the vocational rehabilitation process. The form is currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget OMB for use through August 2002.
The Department of Labor 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.
The Department of Labor seeks an extension of approval to collect this information in order to gather information to enable OWCP to make timely, informed decisions about rehabilitation services for an injured worker. There is no change to the form since the last approval.
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.
The following parties have filed petitions to modify the application of existing safety standards under section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
Stamper Technical Service, Inc., 45 Stamper Lane, Pikeville, Kentucky 41501 has filed a petition for Solid Rock Construction, Inc., No. 1 Mine (I.D. No. 15-16643) located in Pike County, Kentucky, to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.41(f) (Plug and receptacle-type connectors). The petitioner proposes to use permanently installed, spring-loaded locking devices to secure battery plugs on mobile battery-powered machines to prevent unintentional loosening of the battery plugs from battery receptacles, and to eliminate the potential hazards associated with difficult removal of padlocks during emergency situations. The petitioner asserts that using padlocks to secure battery plugs would result in diminution of safety to the miners.
Stamper Technical Service, Inc., 45 Stamper Lane, Pikeville, Kentucky 41501 has filed a petition for the Aaron Coal Company, L.L.C., No. 2 Mine (I.D. No. 15-17813) located in Pike County, Kentucky, to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.41(f) (Plug and receptacle-type connectors). The petitioner proposes to use permanently installed, spring-loaded locking devices to secure battery plugs on mobile battery-powered machines to prevent unintentional loosening of the battery plugs from battery receptacles, and to eliminate the potential hazards associated with difficult removal of padlocks during emergency situations. The petitioner asserts that using padlocks to secure battery plugs would result in diminution of safety to the miners.
M & H Coal Company, P.O. Box 559, Hegins, Pennsylvania 17938 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1100-2(a) (Quantity and location of firefighting equipment) to its Mercury Slope Mine (I.D. No. 36-01920) located in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The petitioner requests a modification of the standard to permit use of only portable fire extinguishers to
White County Coal, LLC, 1525 County Road 1300 N, P.O. Box 457, Carmi, Illinois 62821 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.701 (Grounding metallic frames, casings, and other enclosures of electric equipment) to its Pattiki II Mine (I.D. No. 11-03058) located in White County, Illinois. The petitioner proposes to use a 200KW, 480-volt, diesel powered generator set with an approved diesel drive engine to move equipment in, out, and around the mine and to perform work in areas outby section loading points where equipment is not required to be maintained permissible. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Hobet Mining, Inc., P.O. Box 305, Madison, West Virginia 25130 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 77.206(c) (Ladders; construction; installation and maintenance) to its Beth Station No. 79 Preparation Plant (I.D. No. 46-05398) located in Boone County, West Virginia. The petitioner proposes to use a SAF-T-CLIMB fall prevention system on its counterweight tower structure for the overland system at the Beth Station No. 9 Preparation Plant in lieu of using a vertical ladder. The petitioner states that the counterweights are located inside the framework of a structure that is approximately 30 feet high, that the use of the SAF-T-CLIMB system would ensure the safety of individuals working around the counterweights, and that the SAF-T-CLIMB system would be installed so that it would be in compliance with OSHA regulations 29 CFR 1910.27. The petitioner asserts that application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners.
Energy West Mining Company, P.O. Box 310, Huntington, Utah 84528 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.350 (Air courses and belt haulage entries) to its Deer Creek Mine (I.D. No. 42-00121) located in Emery County, Utah. The petitioner requests that Item IV(d)(3) & (4) of the proposed decision and order for its previously granted petition for modification, docket number M-1999-044-C be amended to allow the use of a non-approved diesel grader in the two-entry section with miners inby for maintenance purposes only. The petitioner asserts that the specific terms and conditions listed in this petition would be met before implementing its proposed amendments and that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Snyder Coal Company, 66 Snyder Lane, Hegins, Pennsylvania 17938 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1100-2(a) (Quantity and location of firefighting equipment) to its N & L Slope Mine (I.D. No. 36-02203) located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. The petitioner requests a modification of the standard to permit use of only portable fire extinguishers to replace existing requirements where rock dust, water cars, and other water storage equipped with three (3) ten quart pails is not practical. The petitioner proposes to use two (2) fire extinguishers near the slope bottom and an additional portable fire extinguisher within 500 feet of the working face for equivalent fire protection for the N & L Slope Mine. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Persons interested in these petitions are encouraged to submit comments via e-mail to
The Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC or the licensee) is the holder of Possession Only License No. DPR-3, which authorizes possession and maintenance of the Yankee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS or plant). The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The facility is a permanently shutdown pressurized-water reactor (PWR) currently in the process of decommissioning and is located on the licensee's site in Franklin County, Massachusetts.
On February 27, 1992, the licensee submitted written certifications to the Commission that it had decided to permanently cease operations at YNPS and that all fuel had been permanently removed from the reactor. The NRC in a license amendment dated August 5, 1992, modified License No. DPR-3 to a Possession Only License (POL). The license is conditioned so that YAEC is not authorized to operate the reactor and fuel may not be placed in the reactor vessel, thus formalizing the YAEC commitment to permanently cease power operations. The YNPS spent nuclear fuel is currently being stored in the spent fuel pool, which is protected by a physical protection system meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, “Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological sabotage,” with exemptions as previously issued by the NRC. To complete the plant site decommissioning process, the spent fuel will be removed from the spent fuel pool and transferred to an onsite independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) for interim storage.
Pursuant to 10 CFR part 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear
Alternatively, an ISFSI can be constructed under a 10 CFR part 72 specific license, which requires a licensee to develop a detailed security plan in accordance with 10 CFR 73.51, “Requirements for the physical protection of stored spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.” The design objective of 10 CFR 73.51 is to protect against a loss of control of the facility that could be sufficient to cause radiation exposure exceeding the dose as described in 10 CFR 72.106, “Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS (monitored retrievable storage).”
In an August 21, 2000,
Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), licensees who store their spent fuel under the provisions of 10 CFR part 72, subpart K, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites,” as YAEC proposes to do, are required to “Protect the spent fuel against the design basis threat of radiological sabotage in accordance with the same provisions and requirements as are set forth * * * ” in 10 CFR 73.55.
By letter dated September 28, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated October 12, 2000, April 18, 2001, May 29, 2001, June 28, 2001, and March 4, 2002, the licensee requested an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 73.55. YAEC proposed alternative approaches to meet the provisions of portions of 10 CFR 73.55(b) through (h) related to the security organization, physical barriers, access requirements, detection aids, communications, and response requirements. By this same correspondence, the licensee also requested a license amendment that would revise Facility Operating License No. DPR-3 to reference the revisions of the Physical Security Plan, Guard Training and Qualification Plan, and Safeguards Contingency Plan, and made available a copy of the YAEC plans to assist the staff in its review of the exemption and amendment requests.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, “Specific exemptions,” and 10 CFR 73.5, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations that it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public interest. Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55(a), the Commission may authorize a licensee to provide measures for protection against radiological sabotage other than those specified in the regulations if the licensee demonstrates that the measures have the same high assurance objective as specified in 10 CFR 73.55(a) and that the overall level of system performance provides protection against radiological sabotage equivalent to that which could be provided by paragraphs (b) through (h) of 10 CFR 73.55.
The staff has reviewed the proposed YAEC ISFSI and Fuel in Transit (FIT) Physical Protection Programs against the requirements of each section of 10 CFR 73.55 to determine whether the alternative measures that YAEC proposed should be authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55(a), or whether specific exemptions should be granted from the requirements of these regulations. As part of its review, the staff evaluated the offsite dose that would result from unimpeded access by the DBT of radiological sabotage without protracted loss of control of the facility. On the basis of YAEC's plan in the ISFSI Physical Protection Program to maintain the boundary of its controlled area at a minimum of 300 meters from the dry cask storage installation and provisions in the ISFSI Physical Protection Program that provide the capability to summon off-site local law-enforcement agency response forces to preclude a protracted loss of control of the facility, the staff concluded that the DBT of radiological sabotage would result in an offsite dose well below the 10 CFR 72.106(b) limits. The staff therefore concluded that the alternative measures proposed by YAEC are authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55(a), with one exception. With regard to the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5), the staff concluded that the measures proposed by YAEC did not meet the criteria of 10 CFR 73.55(a) to be authorized as alternative measures. However, the staff concluded that pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7 and 10 CFR 73.5, the proposed alternatives to the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) that YAEC requested could be granted as an exemption. A detailed discussion of the staff's evaluation is contained in the safety evaluation supporting these findings dated March 13, 2002, which safeguards information in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21 and therefore, is not available to the public.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7 and 10 CFR 73.5, exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) related to access requirements is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, “Finding of no significant impact,” the Commission has previously determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (66 FR 48720, dated September 21, 2001).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of public meetings in Beatty, Tonopah, and Ely, Nevada.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will hold three public meetings on regulation of a potential high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The meetings are intended to foster a common understanding among the stakeholders on safety and regulatory issues, should the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submit a license application to the NRC for a possible geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. All meetings will be facilitated by Francis X. Cameron, Special Counsel for Public Liaison, Office of the General Counsel, NRC.
The meetings are primarily to acquaint the public with the NRC oversight of a potential high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain. It will begin with an overview of NRC's responsibilities, include a discussion of NRC's regulations and preparations for evaluating a potential U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) license application, and conclude with an overview of the NRC's role with respect to the transportation of high-level waste. Several opportunities for questions will be provided. In addition, members of the NRC staff will be available for discussion with members of the public. The dates, times, and locations of the public meetings are shown below.
Francis X. Cameron, Special Counsel for Public Liaison, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by telephone: (301) 415-1642 or e-mail:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
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 9, 2002, 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 9, 2002, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.
Xcel Energy, Inc., (“Xcel”), a registered holding company, and its wholly owned subsidiary, NRG Acquisition Company, LLC (“Acquisition Company,” and together with Xcel, “Applicants”), both located at 800 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, have filed an application-declaration under sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10, 11, 12(b), 32 and 33 of the Act and rules 51, 53, 54 and 58 under the Act.
Applicants propose to commence a tender or exchange offer (“Exchange Offer”) for Xcel to acquire the outstanding common stock of NRG Energy, Inc. (“NRG”),
Under the terms of the Exchange Offer, in order to be successful, enough shares of NRG common stock will need to be tendered so that Xcel's ownership level of NRG reaches 90 percent. If the Exchange Offer results in 90 percent ownership, Wholesale will contribute enough shares of NRG common stock to Acquisition Company to permit Xcel to own at least 90 percent of NRG. Subsequently, Acquisition Company will merge through the Short-Form Merger with and into NRG. Each outstanding share of NRG common stock not acquired in the Exchange Offer will be converted in the Short-Form Merger into the right to receive 0.4846 shares of Xcel in the Exchange Offer. After completion of the Exchange Offer and the Short-Form Merger, Xcel will own NRG as an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary. Xcel states that its investment in NRG will be included as part of Xcels's investment in exempt wholesale generators and foreign investment companies for purposes of sections 32 and 33 of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change permits Data Services Only Members to access Fund/Serv to process non-NSCC settling mutual fund purchase and redemption transactions and related instructions.
In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Data Services Only Members are permitted access only to those services which are specifically enumerated under NSCC's Rules and which do not involve money settlement through NSCC's facilities. The proposed rule permits Data Services Only Members to access Fund/Serv, provided as part of NSCC's Mutual Fund Services, to process non-NSCC settling mutual fund purchase and redemption transactions and related instructions. The proposed rule also extends this processing only functionality to those Settling Members and Fund Members who wish to utilize it.
The ability of Data Services Only Members and Settling Members to utilize Fund/Serv for processing only is being added at the request of NSCC Fund Members and the Investment Company Institute (“ICI”) in order to permit broker-dealers and their financial planner representatives to be able to transmit transaction data to funds in an automated format. Such transmissions are currently being handled manually which is extremely time-intensive.
Accordingly, NSCC's Rule 52 (Mutual Fund Services), Section A (Fund/Serv) is being amended (1) to make Data Services Only Members eligible to utilize the service for the limited purpose of processing (but not settling through NSCC) transactions and related instructions and (2) to enable Settling Members to process transactions and related instructions through Fund/Serv that will settle outside of NSCC. Historically, Fund Members have always had the right to designate parameters within which their orders will be processed. Clarifying language is now being added to set forth this right explicitly. Accordingly, the functionality allowing Data Services Only Members and Settling Members to input transactions for Fund/Serv processing that will settle outside of NSCC will be available to the extent those parameters are selected by Fund Members.
This rule change will increase automation of mutual fund transaction processing between Fund Members, broker-dealers, and other entities and thus facilitates the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. The proposed rule change is therefore consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will impact or impose a burden on competition.
No written comments relating to the proposed rule change have been solicited or received. NSCC has, however, worked closely with the ICI and a representative group of mutual fund industry participants in developing this functionality, and all concur with the proposed changes. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments it receives.
The foregoing 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 proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 450 Fifth Street NW, Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NSCC. All submissions should refer to the File No. SR-NSCC-2001-18 and should be submitted by April 11, 2002.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change consists of revisions to NSCC's fee schedule.
In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to (i) establish fees for the XML-based account inquiry feature of NSCC's Mutual Fund Services (“MFS”), (ii) establish fees for the XML-based communications interface that transmits fund transaction data to NSCC's Fund/SERV for processing, (iii) establish base participation fees for those Fund Members and Mutual Fund Processors
In addition to and in conjunction with these changes, the proposed rule change provides for Fund/SERV fees for Fund/SERV Processing Only transactions that will settle on a participant to participant basis outside of NSCC.
All of the proposed fees are payable by the applicable Fund Member or Mutual Fund Processor. Pursuant to this rule change, the Fund/
In addition, participating Fund Members and Mutual Fund Processors will be charged a monthly membership fee to use these services determined as follows: $250 per month for such members with less than twenty-five eligible mutual funds and/or eligible investment funds (identified by CUSIP) on Fund/SERV; $1,000 per month for such members with between twenty five and ninety nine eligible mutual funds/investment funds on Fund/SERV; and $2,500 per month for such members with one hundred or more eligible mutual funds/investment funds on Fund/SERV. These fees will be effective from and after February 1, 2002.
Finally, this rule change provides that the Fund/SERV fees payable with respect to Fund/SERV Processing Only transactions will be $.175 per side, and the fee for both sides will be charged to and payable by the applicable Fund Member or Mutual Fund Processor, effective with respect to such services provided on and after April 1, 2002.
NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, since it provides for the equitable allocation of dues, fees, and other charges among NSCC's participants.
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will impact or impose a burden on competition.
No written comments relating to the proposed rule change have been solicited or received. NSCC has notified participants who use MFS of the Fund/
Because the foregoing rule change establishes and changes fees imposed by NSCC, it has become effective pursuant
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 450 Fifth Street NW, Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NSCC. All submissions should refer to the File No. SR-NSCC-2002-02 and should be submitted by April 11, 2002.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change amends OCC Rule 306 to facilitate financial reporting by clearing members that are FCMs not fully registered with the Commission as broker-dealers.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
As a result of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, entities registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) as futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) are allowed to trade in security futures upon notice registration with the Commission.
The purpose of this rule change is to facilitate financial reporting by clearing members that are FCMs not fully registered with the Commission as broker-dealers while providing OCC with the same level of financial oversight that OCC has with respect to other clearing members. Such FCMs will be permitted to file their monthly financial reports with OCC using the CFTC's Form 1-FR-FCM. However, notwithstanding the provisions of CFTC Regulation 1.10(b) generally requiring such reports to be filed with the CFTC on a quarterly basis, OCC will require such reports to be filed with OCC monthly. OCC believes that monthly reporting is conducive to the protection of OCC, its clearing members, and the public.
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the regulations thereunder because it protects investors and the public interest by ensuring the availability of adequate financial information to OCC regarding clearing members.
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC. All submissions should refer to the File No. SR-OCC-2001-17 and should be submitted by April 11, 2002.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change amends OCC's fee schedule to eliminate certain fees for discontinued or soon to be discontinued services.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this rule change is to amend OCC's fee schedule in two respects. First, OCC is eliminating ONN Fees, effective January 1, 2002. ONN is an electronic bulletin board service operated by OCC for clearing members and other subscribers to access pertinent information posted by OCC and the options exchanges.
Second, OCC is eliminating off-site microfiche retrieval charges. In 1996, OCC converted the media on which historical reports were made available to subscribing clearing members from microfiche to CD-ROM and amended its fee schedule to reflect the associated charges.
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act because it eliminates fees charged to clearing members and other subscribers for discontinued or soon to be discontinued services.
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.
Because the foregoing rule change eliminates fees charged clearing members by OCC, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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 Section, 450 Fifth Street NW, Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC. All submissions should refer to the File No. SR-OCC-2002-01 and should be submitted by April 11, 2002.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice.
The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments should be submitted to OMB within 30 days of the publication of this notice.
The following summarizes the information collection proposal submitted to OMB:
• 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 collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.
Copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents may be obtained from Richard Esper, Chief of Student Programs, Office of Recruitment, Bureau of Human Resources, U.S. Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW, Room H-518, Washington, DC 20522; 202-261-8924. Public comments and questions should be directed to the State Department Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20530, who may be reached on 202-395-3897.
The Department of State announces that the Advisory Committee for the Study of Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (Title VIII) will convene on Friday, April 19, 2002, beginning at 10 a.m. in Room 1107, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW, Washington, DC.
The Advisory Committee will recommend grant recipients for the FY 2002 competition of the Program for the Study of Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union in connection with the “Research and Training for Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union Act of 1983, as amended.” The agenda will include opening statements by the Chairman and members of the Committee and, within the Committee, discussion, approval, and recommendation that the Department of State negotiate grant agreements with certain “national organizations with an interest and expertise in conducting research and training concerning the countries of Eastern Europe and the independent states of the former Soviet Union,” based on the guidelines contained in the call for applications published in the
This meeting will be open to the public; however, attendance will be limited to the seating available. Entry into the Department of State building is controlled and must be arranged in advance of the meeting. Those planning to attend should notify Susan Nelson, INR/RES, U.S. Department of State, (202) 736-4610 by Tuesday, April 16, 2002, providing their date of birth, Social Security number, and any requirements for special needs. All attendees must use the 2201 C Street,
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice and request for comments.
As a Member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United States participates in negotiations for the terms of accession for new Members to the WTO. The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) is requesting written comments from the public concerning U.S. commercial interests and other issues related to the accessions of 23 countries seeking to join the WTO, and to assist the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in participation in negotiations for the terms of those accessions. These countries are the Azerbaijan Republic (Azerbaijan), Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Commonwealth of The Bahamas (The Bahamas) the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria (Algeria), the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia), Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Independent State of Samoa (Samoa), the Republic of the Sudan (Sudan), the Kingdom of Bhutan (Bhutan), the Kingdom of Cambodia (Cambodia), the Kingdom of Nepal (Nepal), the Kingdom of Tonga (Tonga), the Lao Democratic People's Republic (Laos), the Lebanese Republic (Lebanon), Principality of Andorra (Andorra), the Republic of Belarus (Belarus), the Republic of Cape Verde (Cape Verde), the Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan), the Republic of Seychelles (the Seychelles), the Republic of Tajikistan (Tajikistan), the Republic of Uzbekistan (Uzbekistan), the Republic of Yemen (Yemen), and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). With respect to Vietnam, comments may take into consideration submissions made in response to previous requests for written comments in the context of Vietnam's WTO accession and the negotiation of a Bilateral Trade Agreement.
Public comments should include, but not be limited to, information concerning those countries' current trade policies and practices which affect market access for U.S. exports, e.g., tariffs, non-tariff measures; trade and investment in services; other aspects of the trade regime affecting U.S. trade interests subject to WTO provisions; and other conditions or practices that impair the ability of these countries to grant the benefit of WTO provisions to their trading partners. Comments received will be considered in developing U.S. positions and objectives for the multilateral and bilateral negotiations that will determine the terms of WTO accession for Algeria, Andorra, Azerbaijan, The Bahamas, Belarus, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Kazakhstan, Laos, Lebanon, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Nepal, Samoa, the Seychelles, the Sudan, Tajikistan, Tonga, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia.
Public comments should be received by noon on Wednesday, May 15, 2002.
Public comment should be submitted to: Gloria Blue, Executive Secretary, TPSC, Office of the USTR, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. Attention: Office of WTO and Multilateral Affairs
Cecilia Leahy Klein, USTR Director for WTO Accessions (202-395-3063) concerning the WTO accession process and issues related to WTO rules; Paul Moore (
The countries of Algeria, Andorra, Azerbaijan, The Bahamas, Belarus, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Kazakhstan, Laos, Lebanon, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Nepal, Samoa, the Seychelles, the Sudan, Tajikistan, Tonga, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia have applied for accession to the WTO. Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization states that the terms of WTO Membership for these countries will be negotiated with current WTO Members bilaterally and in meetings of the Working Parties established by the Members of the WTO to conduct the negotiations. The results of these negotiations will include a Working Party report and Protocol of Accession, specifying how the applicants for accession will implement WTO Agreements, and Schedules of specific commitments and concessions on market access for imported goods and services, which will be annexed to the Protocol.
The Chairman of the Trade Policy Staff Committee invites written comments from the public on trade and other measures currently applied by Algeria, Andorra, Azerbaijan, The Bahamas, Belarus, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Kazakhstan, Laos, Lebanon, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Nepal, Samoa, the Seychelles, the Sudan, Tajikistan, Tonga, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia that could be subject to the provisions of the WTO, particularly tariffs applied to imports, and other market access issues for goods and services, or practices or measures that could affect the competitiveness of U.S. goods and services in those markets. All comments received will be considered in developing U.S. positions and objectives for participation in these negotiations.
Market access issues for goods of interest to the TPSC include, but are not limited to: (a) Comments on possible tariff reductions and the removal of restrictive border measures such as quotas or import licensing requirements; (b) uniform application of the trading system; (c) the provision of national
Market access issues for services of interest to the TPSC include, but are not limited to, (a) transparency in application of trade laws and regulations and the right of appeal in cases involving foreign service suppliers; (b) the right to establish a commercial presence in a foreign market to supply services; (c) the right to travel across national borders to make use of a service; (d) the ability to supply services when neither the supplier nor consumer travel, for example, via electronic means; and (e) the right to enter a foreign market temporarily to provide services.
Information on products or practices subject to these negotiations should include, whenever appropriate or possible, the import or export tariff classification number used for the product concerned, the CPC number used for classification of the services sector concerned, or the official citation of the law or regulation being discussed.
Persons submitting written comments should provide a statement, in twenty (20) copies, by noon, Wednesday, May 15, 2002, to Gloria Blue, Executive Secretary, TPSC, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. Where possible, please supplement written comments with a computer disk of the submission containing as much of the technical details as possible. The disk should have a label identifying the software used and the name of the respondent. Written comments submitted, except for information granted “business confidential” status pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.6, will be available for public inspection in the USTR Reading Room (Room 101) at the address noted above. An appointment to review the file may be made by calling the Reading Room at (202) 395-6186. The Reading Room is open to the public from 10 a.m. to 12 noon, and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Business confidential information, including any information submitted on disks, will be subject to the requirements of 15 CFR 2003.6. Any business confidential material must be clearly marked as such on the cover letter or page and each succeeding page, and must be accompanied by a non-confidential summary thereof. If the submission contains business confidential information, twenty copies of a public version that does not contain confidential information must be submitted. A justification as to why the information contained in the submission should be treated confidentially must be included in the submission. In addition, any submissions containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “Confidential” at the top and bottom of the cover page (or letter) and each succeeding page of the submission. The version that does not contain confidential information should also be clearly marked, at the top and bottom of each page, “public version” or “non-confidential.”
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection. The collection involves a small business research study that is looking into the potential for a national public education program on various highway programs. During a small-scale trial the public will be asked via the web and mailings to comment on local construction issues and proposals. The information collected will be used solely to determine if response levels and public involvement would justify developing the approach across a larger cross-section of the United States population. We are required to publish this notice in the
Please submit comments by May 20, 2002.
You may mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telefax comments to 202/493-2251; or submit electronically at
Ms. Kathleen Bergeron, 415-744-2613, Marketing Specialist, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Western Resource Center, Suite 2100, 201 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 or e-mail to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
List of applicants for exemptions.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, exemptions from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Part 107, Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular exemption is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2002.
Records Center, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the exemption application number.
Copies of the applications (See Docket Number) are available for inspection at the New Docket Management Facility, PL-401, at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 or at
This notice of receipt of applications for new exemptions is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
List of applications for modification of exemptions.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, exemptions from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications, they are not repeated here. Requests for modifications of exemptions (e.g. to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the suffix “M” denote a modification request. These applications have been separated from the new applications for exemptions to facilitate processing.
Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2002.
Records Center, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. In confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the exemption number.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, Nassif Building, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for modification of exemptions is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR Part 1152 Subpart F—
BNSF has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead traffic to be rerouted; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government agency acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or 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 shall be protected under
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to BNSF's representative: Michael Smith, Esq., Freeborn & Peters, 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000, Chicago, IL 60606-6677. If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
BNSF has filed a separate environmental report which addresses the abandonment's effects, if any, on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by March 26, 2002. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at (202) 565-1552. 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), BNSF 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 BNSF's filing of a notice of consummation by March 21, 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.
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR Part 1152 Subpart F—
BNSF has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic on the line can be rerouted over other lines; (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 and discontinuance shall be protected under
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
BNSF has filed an environmental report which addresses the abandonment's effects, if any, on the environment and historic resources. The Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by March 26, 2002. 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) 565-1552. [TDD for the hearing impaired is available at 1-800-877-8339.] 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), BNSF 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 BNSF's filing of a notice of consummation by March 21, 2003, 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 Form 8848, Consent to Extend the Time To
Written comments should be received on or before May 20, 2002 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, or through the Internet (
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, Treasury.
Notice of availability of report on closed meetings of the Art Advisory Panel.
The report is now available.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. I section 10(d), of the Federal Advisory Committee Act; and 5 U.S.C. 552b, the Government in the Sunshine Act: A report summarizing the closed meeting activities of the Art Advisory Panel during 2001, has been prepared. A copy of this report has been filed with the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Management and is now available for public inspection at: Internal Revenue Service, Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room 1621, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for copies should be addressed to: Director, Disclosure Operations Division, Attn: FOI Reading Room, Box 388, Benjamin Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20224, Telephone (202) 622-5164, (Not a toll free telephone number).
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has determined that this document is not a major rule as defined in Executive Order 12291 and that a regulatory impact analysis therefore is not required. Neither does this document constitute a rule subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6).
Karen Carolan, C:AP:ART, Internal Revenue Service/ Appeals, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, Telephone (202) 694-1861, (Not a toll free telephone 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 an existing final regulation, REG-209484-87 (TD 8814), Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) Taxation of Amounts Under Employee Benefit Plans (§ 31.3121(v)(2)-1).
Written comments should be received on or before May 20, 2002 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of this regulation should be directed to Allan Hopkins, (202) 622-6665, or through the Internet (
Title: Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) Taxation of Amounts Under Employee Benefits Plan.
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, GL-238-88 (TD 8549), Preparer Penalties—Manual Signature Requirement (§ 1.6695-1(B)).
Written comments should be received on or before May 20, 2002 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation be directed to Carol Savage, (202) 622-3945, or through the Internet (
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.
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 17 to the Treasury Department Circular 570; 2001 Revision, published July 2, 2001, at 66 FR 35024.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6779.
Gulf Insurance Company has redomesticated from the state of Missouri to the state of Connecticut effective October 1, 2001. The Company was last listed as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 66 FR 35041, July 2, 2001.
Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 2001 revision, on page 35041 to reflect this change.
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at
Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds Management Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F44, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document amends the Commission's rules to reflect the new organizational structure of the Federal Communications Commission, identifying their functions and appointed delegated authority.
Effective March 25, 2002.
Contact Mary Beth Richards, Office of the Chairman, Room 8-C750, 202/418-1514 or Yvette Barrett, Office of the Managing Director, Room 1-C828, 202/418-0603, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
This Order adopted January 16, 2001 and released March 14, 2002 by the Commission amends its rules to make conforming changes reflecting the reorganization of the Commission. In order to promote a more efficient, effective and responsive organizational structure, the Federal Communications Commission created: the Media Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau; reorganized the International Bureau; and consolidated enforcement and consumer information functions. Functions of the Media Bureau will include policy, licensing, and industry analysis as it relates to broadcast and cable services. The current Common Carrier Bureau will be reconfigured and renamed the Wireline Competition Bureau, which realigns functions in the wireline common carrier area and consolidates the technical and economical analysis with the new bureau. The Consumer Information Bureau will be reconfigured and renamed the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, which aligns like functions to enhance its policy role and increase its involvement with other government entities. The International Bureau will realign functions into one existing Division relating to satellites and two new Divisions: the Policy Division and the Strategic Analysis and Negotiations Division. In this Order, the Commission will amend its rules to reflect the new structure, describe their functions and delegated authority, and make other conforming organizational changes.
Authority for the adoption of the foregoing revisions is contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 5(b), 5(c), 201(b) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 155(b), 201(b) and 303 (r).
The amendments adopted herein pertain to agency organization, procedure and practice. Consequently, the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is inapplicable.
Accordingly,
Organization and functions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common carriers, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellite, Telecommunications, Television.
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television.
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
Communications common carriers.
Communications common carriers, Uniform systems of account.
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Communications common carriers, Telecommunications.
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accounting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Communications common carriers, Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Telecommunications.
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedures, Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted.
(a)
(1) Office of Managing Director.
(2) Office of Engineering and Technology.
(3) Office of General Counsel.
(4) Office of Plans and Policy.
(5) Office of Media Relations.
(6) Office of Legislative Affairs.
(7) Office of Inspector General.
(8) Office of Communications Business Opportunities.
(9) Office of Administrative Law Judges.
(10) Office of Workplace Diversity
(11) Wireline Competition Bureau.
(12) Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
(13) International Bureau.
(14) Media Bureau.
(15) Enforcement Bureau.
(16) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
(a) * * *
(5) Plan and administer the Commissions performance review system. Assure that objections, priorities, and action plans established by Bureau and Offices are consistent with overall Commission objectives and priorities.
(8) Plan and manage the administrative affairs of the Commission with respect to the functions of personnel and position management; labor-management relations; training; budget and financial management; information management and processing; organization planning; management analysis; procurement; office space management and utilization; administrative and office services; supply and property management; records management; personnel and physical security; and international telecommunications settlements.
(e) Maintain liaison with the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau on press and media issues concerning consumer assistance and information including informal consumer complaints.
(c) Assist the Office of the Managing Director in preparation of the annual report to Congress, the Commission budget and appropriations legislation to Congress; assist the Office of Media Relations in preparation of the Commission's Annual Report.
(g) Coordinate with the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau on issues involving informal consumer complaints and other general inquiries by consumers.
(n) To assist the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau on issues involving informal consumer complaints and other general inquiries by consumers.
(r) To assist the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau on issues involving informal consumer complaints and other general inquiries by consumers.
The Media Bureau develops, recommends and administers the policy and licensing programs for the regulation of media, including cable television, broadcast television and radio, and satellite services in the United States and its territories. The Bureau advises and recommends to the Commission, or acts for the Commission under delegated authority, in matters pertaining to multichannel video programming distribution, broadcast radio and television, direct broadcast satellite service policy, and associated matters. The Bureau will, among other things:
(a) Process applications for authorization, assignment, transfer and renewal of media services, including AM, FM, TV, the cable TV relay service, and related services.
(b) Conduct rulemaking proceedings concerning the legal, engineering, and economic aspects of media service.
(c) Conduct comprehensive studies and analyses concerning the legal, engineering, and economic aspects of electronic media services.
(d) Administer and enforce rules and policies regarding equal employment opportunity.
(e) Administer and enforce rules and policies regarding political programming and related matters.
(f) Administer and enforce rules and policies regarding:
(1) Radio and television broadcast industry services;
(2) Cable television systems, operators, and services, including those relating to rates, technical standards, customer service, ownership, competition to cable systems, broadcast station signal retransmission and carriage, program access, wiring equipment, channel leasing, and federal-state/local regulatory relationships. This includes: acting, after Commission assumption of jurisdiction to regulate cable television rates for basic service and associated equipment, on cable operator requests for approval of existing or increased rates; reviewing appeals of local franchising authorities' rate making decisions involving rates for the basic service tier and associated equipment, except when such appeals raise novel or unusual issues; evaluating basic rate regulation certification requests filed by cable system franchising authorities; periodically reviewing and, when appropriate, revising standard forms used in administering: the certification process for local franchising authorities wishing to regulate rates, and the substantive rate regulation standards prescribed by the Commission;
(3) Open video systems;
(4) Preemption of restrictions on devices designed for over-the-air reception of television broadcast signals, multichannel multipoint distribution service, and direct broadcast satellite services;
(5) The commercial availability of navigational devices;
(6) The accessibility of video programming to persons with disabilities;
(7) Program access and carriage;
(8) The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act; and
(9) Post-licensing for satellite consumer broadcast services (DBS, DTH and DARS).
The Media Bureau's enforcement authority does not include enforcement in those areas assigned to the Enforcement Bureau. See 47 CFR 0.111.
(g) Conduct rulemaking and policy proceedings regarding pole attachments.
(h) Process and act on all applications for authorization, petitions for special relief, petitions to deny, waiver requests, requests for certification,
(i) Assist the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau on issues involving informal consumer complaints and other general inquiries by consumers.
(j) Exercise authority to issue non-hearing related subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, schedules of charges, contracts, agreements, and any other records deemed relevant to the investigation of matters within the jurisdiction of the Media Bureau. Before issuing a subpoena, the Media Bureau shall obtain the approval of the Office of General Counsel.
(k) Carry out the functions of the Commission under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, except as reserved to the Commission under § 0.283.
The Wireline Competition Bureau advises and makes recommendations to the Commission, or acts for the Commission under delegated authority, in all matters pertaining to the regulation and licensing of communications common carriers and ancillary operations (other than matters pertaining exclusively to the regulation and licensing of wireless telecommunications services and facilities). The Bureau will, among other things:
(a) Develop and recommend policy goals, objectives, programs and plans for the Commission in rulemaking and adjudicatory matters concerning wireline telecommunications, drawing on relevant economic, technological, legislative, regulatory and judicial information and developments. Overall objectives include meeting the present and future wireline telecommunications needs of the Nation; fostering economic growth; ensuring choice, opportunity, and fairness in the development of wireline telecommunications; promoting economically efficient investment in wireline telecommunications infrastructure; promoting the development and widespread availability of wireline telecommunications services; and developing deregulatory initiatives where appropriate.
(b) Act on requests for interpretation or waiver of rules.
(c) Administer the provisions of the Communications Act requiring that the charges, practices, classifications, and regulations of communications common carriers providing interstate and foreign services are just and reasonable.
(d) Act on applications for service and facility authorizations, including applications from Bell operating companies for authority to provide in-region interLATA services and applications from wireline carriers for transfers of licenses and discontinuance of service.
(e) Develop and administer rules and policies relating to incumbent local exchange carrier accounting.
(f) Develop and administer recordkeeping and reporting requirements for telecommunications carriers.
(g) Provide federal staff support for the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service and the Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations.
(h) Review the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to ensure that such deployment is reasonable and timely, consistent with section 706 of the Act, and, where appropriate, recommend action to encourage such deployment.
(i) Provide economic, financial, and technical analyses of telecommunications markets and carrier performance.
(j) Interact with the public, local, state, and other governmental agencies and industry groups on wireline telecommunications regulation and related matters. Assist the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau on issues involving informal consumer complaints and other general inquiries by consumers.
(k) Review and coordinate orders, programs and actions initiated by other Bureaus and Offices in matters affecting wireline telecommunications to ensure consistency with overall Commission policy.
(l) Carry out the functions of the Commission under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, except as reserved to the Commission under § 0.331.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau has primary responsibility for informally resolving individual informal complaints from consumers against common carriers (wireline, wireless and international) and against other wireless licensees, and informal consumer complaints involving access to telecommunications services and equipment for persons with disabilities. The International Bureau has primary responsibility for complaints regarding international settlements rules and policies.
(2) * * *
The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau has primary responsibility for informally resolving individual informal complaints from consumers against non-common carriers subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under Title II of the Communications Act and related provisions.
(3) Resolve formal complaints regarding accessibility to communications services and equipment for persons with disabilities, including complaints filed pursuant to sections 225 and 255 of the Communications Act.
(4) * * *
The Office of Engineering and Technology has shared responsibility for radiofrequency equipment and device complaints.
(8) * * *
The Media Bureau has responsibility for enforcement of these limits in the broadcast television renewal context.
(11) * * *
The Media Bureau has primary responsibility for complaints regarding children's television programming requirements, and for political and related programming matters and equal employment opportunity matters involving broadcasters, cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors. The relevant licensing Bureau has primary responsibility for complaints involving tower siting and the Commission's environmental rules. The Media Bureau has primary responsibility for complaints regarding compliance with conditions imposed on transfers of control and assignments of licenses of Cable Antenna Relay Service authorizations.
(12) Resolve complaints regarding pole attachments filed under section 224 of the Communications Act.
(13) Resolve complaints regarding multichannel video and cable television service under part 76 of the Commission's rules.
The Media Bureau has primary responsibility for complaints regarding the following: subpart A (general), with the exception of § 76.11 of this chapter; subpart B (Registration Statements); subpart C (Federal-State/Local Relationships [Reserved]; subpart D (carriage of television broadcast signals); subpart E (equal employment opportunity requirements); subpart F (nonduplication protection and syndicated exclusivity); subpart G, §§ 76.205, 76.206 and 76.209 of this chapter (political broadcasting); subpart I (Forms and Reports); subpart J (ownership); subpart L (cable television access); subpart N, § 76.944 of this chapter (basic cable rate appeals), and §§ 76.970, 76.971 and 76.977 of this chapter (cable leased access rates); subpart O (competitive access to cable programming); subpart P (competitive availability of navigation devices); subpart Q (regulation of carriage agreements); subpart S (Open Video Systems); and subparts T, U and V to the extent related to the matters listed in this note.
(15) Identify and analyze complaint information, conduct investigations, conduct external audits and collect information, including pursuant to sections 218, 220, 308(b), 403 and 409(e) through (k) of the Communications Act, in connection with complaints, on its own initiative or upon request of another Bureau or Office.
(19) Provide information regarding pending complaints, compliance with relevant requirements and the complaint process, where appropriate and to the extent the information is not available from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau or other Bureaus and Offices.
(b) Protected field offices are located at the following geographical coordinates (coordinates are referenced to North American Datum 1983 (NAD83)):
(i) * * * Also assists the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau with informal consumer complaints and other general inquiries by consumers.
The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau develops and administers the Commission's consumer and governmental affairs policies and initiatives to enhance the public's understanding of the Commission's work and to facilitate the Agency's relationships with other governmental agencies and organizations. The Bureau is responsible for rulemaking proceedings regarding general consumer education policies and procedures and serves as the primary Commission entity responsible for communicating with the general public regarding Commission policies, programs, and activities in order to facilitate public participation in the Commission's decision-making processes. The Bureau also performs the following functions:
(a) Advises and makes recommendations to the Commission, or acts for the Commission under delegated authority, in matters pertaining to consumers and governmental affairs. This includes policy development and coordination as well as adjudication and rulemaking.
(b) Collaborates with, and advises and assists, the public, state and local governments, and other governmental agencies and industry groups on consumer matters.
(c) Advises the Commission and other Bureaus and Offices of consumer and governmental affairs-related areas of concern or interest; initiates, reviews, and coordinates orders, programs and actions, in conjunction with other Bureaus and Offices, in matters regarding consumer education policies and procedures, and any other related issues affecting consumer policy; represents the Commission on consumer and governmental-related committees, working groups, task forces and conferences within and outside the Commission; and provides expert advice and assistance to Bureaus and Offices and consumers regarding compliance with applicable disability and accessibility requirements, rules, and regulations.
(d) Collects and analyzes information from industry, other Bureaus and Offices, and the media, as well as information received in the Bureau from informal consumer inquiries and complaints, rulemakings, and consumer forums; identifies trends that affect consumers; in consultation with the Office of the Managing Director, provides objectives and evaluation methods for the public information portion of the Commission's Government Performance and Results Act submissions and other Commission-wide strategic planning efforts.
(e) Researches, develops, and distributes materials to inform consumers about the Commission's rules, proposals, and events, and to promote consumer participation in Commission rulemakings and activities; maintains the Commission's Consumer Information Directory; develops a library of commonly requested materials on issues of interest to all consumers. Ensures that alternative translations of Commission materials are available to Commission employees, Bureaus, Offices, and members of the public.
(f) Advises and makes recommendations to the Commission, or acts for the Commission under delegated authority, in matters pertaining to persons with disabilities.
(g) Plans, develops, and conducts consumer outreach and education initiatives to educate the public about important Commission regulatory programs. In coordination with other Bureaus and Offices, establishes liaison(s) for information sharing purposes to ensure coordination on all consumer outreach projects. Ensures that alternative translations of Commission materials are available to Commission employees, Bureaus, Offices and members of the public.
(h) Serves as the official FCC records custodian for designated records, including intake processing, organization and file maintenance, reference services, and retirement and retrieval of records; manages the Electronic Comment Filing System and certifies records for adjudicatory and court proceedings. Maintains manual and computerized files that provide for the public inspection of public record materials concerning Broadcast Ownership, AM/FM/TV, TV Translators, FM Translators, Cable TV, Wireless, Auction, Common Carrier Tariff matters, International space station files, earth station files, DBS files, and other miscellaneous international files. Also maintains for public inspection Time Brokerage and Affiliation Agreements, court citation files, and legislative histories concerning telecommunications dockets. Provides the public and Commission staff prompt access to manual and computerized records and filing systems.
(i) Provides informal mediation and resolution of individual informal consumer inquiries and complaints consistent with Commission regulations. Resolves certain classes of informal complaints, as specified by the Commission, through findings of fact and issuance of orders. Receives, reviews, and analyzes responses to informal complaints; maintains manual and computerized files that permit the public inspection of informal consumer complaints; mediates and attempts to settle unresolved disputes in informal complaints as appropriate; and coordinates with other Bureaus and Offices to ensure that consumers are provided with accurate, up-to-date information. Develops and fosters partnerships with state regulatory entities to promote the sharing of information pertaining to informal complaint files maintained by the Bureau.
(j) Provides leadership to other Bureaus and Offices for dissemination of consumer information via the Internet.
(k) In coordination with other Bureaus and Offices, handles Congressional and other correspondence related to specific informal consumer complaints, or other specific matters within the responsibility of the Bureau, to the extent not otherwise handled by the Office of General Counsel or other Bureaus or Offices. Responds to and/or coordinates due diligence and other requests for information pertaining to informal inquiries and complaints under the responsibility of the Bureau with other Bureaus and Offices.
(b) In coordination with the Office of Managing Director, which has responsibility for developing the Commission's Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP). Acts as Alternate Defense Coordinator in representations with other agencies with respect to planning for the continuity of the essential functions of the Commission under emergency conditions.
(a) * * *
(3) To act upon applications for international telecommunications and services pursuant to part 23 of this chapter and relevant portions of part 63 of this chapter, and coordinate with the Wireline Competition Bureau as appropriate;
The Chief, Media Bureau, is delegated authority to perform all functions of the Bureau, described in § 0.61, provided that the following matters shall be referred to the Commission en banc for disposition:
(a) Notices of proposed rulemaking and of inquiry and final orders in such proceedings, with the exception of rulemaking proceedings involving the allotment of FM and television channels.
(b) Application for review of actions taken pursuant to delegated authority.
(c) Matters that present novel questions of law, fact or policy that cannot be resolved under existing precedents and guidelines.
(d) The imposition, reduction or cancellation of forfeitures pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, in amounts of more than $20,000.
The history card, the station file, and other appropriate files are designated to be the official records of action taken by the Chief of the Media Bureau. The official records of action are maintained in the Reference Information Center in the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
(c)
(i) * * *
(2) The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, shall not have authority to act on petitions filed pursuant to part 69, subpart H, of this chapter for pricing flexibility involving common line and traffic sensitive services.
The application and authorization files are designated as the Commission's official records of action of the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau pursuant to authority delegated to the Chief. The official records of action are maintained in the Reference Information Center in the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
Authority is delegated to the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau jointly in cooperation with the Chief Engineer to act upon applications for registration of equipment to be directly connected to the telephone network;
(a) * * *
(6) Release of information pursuant to section 220(f) of the Communications Act, except for release of such information to a state public utility commission or in response to a Freedom of Information Act Request.
(c) Action on emergency requests for Special Temporary Authority during non-business hours shall be promptly reported to the responsible Bureau or Office.
See also § 0.182 of this chapter.
(f) Issue notices and orders to operators of industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) equipment, as provided in § 18.115 of this chapter.
(g) Act on requests for permission to resume operation of ISM equipment on a temporary basis, as provided by § 18.115 of this chapter, and requests for extensions of time within which to file final reports, as provided by § 18.117 of this chapter.
(h) Issue notices and orders to operators of part 15 devices, as provided in § 15.5 of this chapter.
(i) Issue notices and orders to suspend operations to multi-channel video programming distributors, as provided in § 76.613 of this chapter.
(j) Issue notices and orders to suspend operations to part 74 licensees, as provided in § 74.23 of this chapter.
The Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, is delegated authority to perform all functions of the Bureau, described in § 0.141, provided that the following matters shall be referred to the Commission en banc for disposition:
(a) For authority of the Chief of the Media Bureau to issue Emergency Alert System Authorizations (FCC Form 392), see §§ 0.284 (a) (4) and 73.913.
(a) * * *
(5) The location of the Office of General Counsel is 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.
The Commission maintains the following public reference rooms at its offices in Washington, DC, and Columbia, Maryland. Much of the information available from the public reference rooms may also be retrieved from the Commission's WorldWide Website at
(a) The Reference Information Center of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(E) All applications for common carrier authorizations acted upon by the Enforcement Bureau, and related files.
(b)
(f)
(g)
(i)
(j)
(m)
(1) All complaints regarding cable programming rates, all documents filed in connection therewith, and all communications related thereto, unless the cable operator has submitted a request pursuant to § 0.459 that such information not be made routinely available for public inspection.
(2) All cable operator requests for approval of existing or increased cable television rates for basic service and associated equipment over which the Commission has assumed jurisdiction, all documents filed in connection therewith, and all communications related thereto, unless the cable operator has submitted a request pursuant to § 0.459 that such information not be made routinely available for public inspection.
(3) Special relief petitions and files pertaining to cable television operations.
(4) Cable television system reports filed by operators pursuant to § 76.403 of this chapter.
Except as provided in §§ 0.453,0.457, and 0.459, records are routinely available for inspection in the Reference Information Center or the offices of the Bureau or Office which exercises responsibility over the matters to which those records pertain (see § 0.5), or will be made available for inspection at those office upon request. Upon inquiry to the appropriate Bureau or Office, persons desiring to inspect such records will be directed to the specific location at which the particular records may be inspected. A list of Bureaus and Offices and examples of the records available at each is set out below.
(a)
(2) Ruling lists which contain brief summaries of rulings.
(3) Congressional correspondence and related materials.
(4) Correspondence and other actions and decisions relating to cable television services that are not filed in the FCC Reference Information Center, e.g. rate regulation files and related documents.
(b)
(2) Valuation reports filed under section 213 of the Communications Act, including exhibits filed in connection therewith, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, with reasons therefor, pursuant to section 213(f) of the Communications Act. See § 0.457(c)(2).
(3) Computer II files and related materials.
(c)
(2) Files containing information concerning the history of the Commission's rules. These files are available for inspection in the Publications Group.
(3) See § 0.443.
(4) Reports filed pursuant to subpart E of part 19 of this chapter and applications for inspection of such reports. See § 0.460(k).
(d) Office of Engineering and Technology which includes the Bureau's Technical Library containing technical reports, technical journals, and bulletins of spectrum management and related technical materials. Also files containing approved applications for Equipment Authorization (Type accepted, certified and notified) and related materials are available for review. These files are available in the Commission's Laboratory in Columbia, Maryland.
(1) Experimental application and license files.
(2) The Master Frequency Records.
(3) Applications for Equipment Authorization (type accepted, type approval, certification, or advance approval of subscription television systems), following the effective date of the authorization. See § 0.457(d)(1)(ii). (Application files, technical journals and other technical materials are maintained at the Commission's Laboratory at Columbia, Maryland.)
(e)
(a) * * *
The name, address, telephone number, and schedule of fees for the current duplication contractor are published at the time of contract award of renewal in a Public Notice and periodically thereafter. Questions regarding this information should be directed to the Reference Information Center of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309 and 325(e).
(e) * * *
(4) Applications for review of final staff decisions issued on delegated authority in formal complaint proceedings on the Enforcement Bureau's Accelerated Docket (see, e.g., § 1.730) shall be filed within 15 days of public notice of the decision, as that date is defined in § 1.4(b). These applications for review oppositions and replies in Accelerated Docket proceedings shall be served on parties to the proceeding by hand or facsimile transmission.
All petitions for rule making (other than petitions to amend the FM, Television, and Air-Ground Tables of Assignments) meeting the requirements of § 1.401 will be given a file number and, promptly thereafter, a “Public Notice” will be issued (by means of a Commission release entitled “Petitions for Rule Making Filed”) as to the petition, file number, nature of the proposal, and date of filing, Petitions for rule making are available at the Commission's Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC and may also be available electronically over the Internet at
Certain applications do not require action by the Commission but, pursuant to the delegated authority contained in subpart B of part 0 of this chapter, may be acted upon by the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau subject to reconsideration by the Commission.
(a) * * *
(2)
(4)
(b) * * *
(3)
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Any interested party electing to file an opposition or comment in response to a pricing flexibility petition through a method other than ETFS must file an original and four copies of each opposition or comment with the Commission, as follows: the original and three copies of each pleading shall be filed with the Secretary, FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC,
(c) * * *
(1) Be derived by determining the full-time equivalent number of employees performing enforcement activities, policy and rulemaking activities, user information services, and international activities within the Wireline Competition Bureau, Media Bureau, International Bureau and other offices of the Commission, adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities, including such factors as service coverage area, shared use versus exclusive use, and other factors that the Commission determines are necessary in the public interest:
(d) * * *
Individual listeners or viewers submitting comments regarding a pending broadcast application pursuant to § 1.1204(a)(8) will not become parties simply by service of the comments. The Media Bureau may, in its discretion, make such a commenter a party, if doing so would be conducive to the Commission's consideration of the application or would otherwise be appropriate.
(h) All allegations of fact contained in petitions and related pleadings before the Commission must be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with actual knowledge thereof. An original and two copies of all petitions and pleadings should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. Copies of the petitions and related pleadings will be available for public inspection in the Reference Information Center, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. Copies will be available for purchase from the Commission's contract copy center, and the Commission decisions will be available on the Internet.
(d) Respondents may make requests for Commission non-disclosure of provider-specific data contained in FCC Form 477 under § 0.459 of this chapter by so indicating on Form 477 at the time that the subject data are submitted. The Commission shall make all decisions regarding non-disclosure or provider-specific information, except that the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau may release provider-specific information to a state commission provided that the state commission has protections in place that would preclude disclosure of any confidential information.
Secs. 1, 2, 4, 201-205, 208, 215, 218, 303, 307, 313, 403, 404, 410, 602, 48 Stat. as amended, 1064, 1066, 1070-1073, 1076, 1077, 1080, 1082, 1083, 1087, 1094, 1098, 1102, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201-205, 208, 215, 218, 303, 307, 313, 314, 403, 404, 602; 47 U.S.C. 552, 554.
(d) The provisions of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section will not apply to one MDS or MMDS channel used to provide locally-produced programming to cable headends. Locally-produced programming is programming produced in or near the cable operator's franchise area and not broadcast on a television station available within that franchise area. A cable operator will be permitted one MDS channel in an MMDS protected service area for this purpose, and no more than one MDS channel in an MMDS protected service area may be used by a cable television company or its affiliate or lessor pursuant to this paragraph. The licensee for a cable operator providing local programming pursuant to a lease must include in a notice filed with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau a cover letter explicitly identifying itself or its lessees as a local cable operator and stating that the lease was executed to facilitate the provision of local programming. The first application or the first lease notification in an area filed with the Commission will be entitled to the exemption. The limitations on one MDS channel per party and per area include any cable/MDS operations grandfathered pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section or cable/ITFS operations grandfathered pursuant to § 74.931(e) of this chapter. The cable operator must demonstrate in its MDS/MMDS application that the proposed local programming will be provided within one year from the date its application is granted. Local programming service pursuant to a lease must be provided within one year of the date of the lease or one year of grant of the licensee's application for the leased channel, whichever is later. If an MDS license for these purposes is granted and the programming is subsequently discontinued, the license will be automatically forfeited the day after local programming service is discontinued.
47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309, and 332.
(e) Frequencies between 816-865 MHz are available for use on a coordinated basis by both commercial and private wireless licensees.
(c)
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, and 337 unless otherwise noted.
(a) WCS service areas are Major Economic Areas (MEAs) and Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs) as defined in the Table immediately following paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Both MEAs and REAGs are based on the U.S. Department of Commerce's 172 Economic Areas (Eas). See 60 FR 13114 (March 10, 1995). In addition, the Commission shall separately license Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Gulf of Mexico, which have been assigned Commission-created EA numbers 173-176, respectively. Maps of the EAs, MEAs, and REAGs and the
47 U.S.C. 154(I), 154(j) and 220 as amended, unless otherwise noted.
To the end that uniform accounting shall be maintained within the prescribed system, questions involving significant matters which are not clearly provided for shall be submitted to the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, for explanation, interpretation, or resolution. Questions and answers thereto with respect to this system of accounts will be maintained by the Wireline Competition Bureau.
47 U.S.C. 154; Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, secs. 402(b)(2)(B), (c), 110 Stat. 56 (1996) as amended unless otherwise noted. 47 U.S.C. 211, 219, 220 as amended.
(g) Each incumbent local exchange carrier for whom price cap regulation is mandatory and every incumbent local exchange carrier that elects to be covered by the price cap rules shall file, by April 1 of each year, a report designed to capture trends in service quality under price cap regulation. The report shall contain data relative to network measures of service quality, as defined by the Wireline Competition Bureau, from the previous calendar year on a study area basis.
(h) Each incumbent local exchange carrier for whom price cap regulation is mandatory shall file, by April 1 of each year, a report designed to capture trends in service quality under price cap regulation. The report shall contain data relative to customer measures of service quality, as defined by the Wireline Competition Bureau, from the previous calendar year a study area basis.
Sections 1-5, 7, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 271, 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 151-55, 157, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 271, 332, unless otherwise noted.
(c) * * *
(3) In addition, one paper copy and one diskette copy must be sent to the “Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.” The diskette copy must be on a standard 3 1/2 inch diskette, formatted in IBM-compatible format to be readable by high-density floppy drives operating under MS DOS 5.X or later compatible versions, and shall be in a word-processing format designated, from time-to-time, in public notices released by the Bureau. The diskette must be submitted in “read only” mode, and must be clearly labeled with the carrier's name, the filing date, and an identification or the diskette's contents.
(e)
Sec. 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 155 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 3, 4, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-7, 251-2, 271 and 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225, 251-2, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted.
Sections 1-5, 7, 201-05, 218, 251, 253, 271-75, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 151-55, 157, 201-05, 218, 251, 253, 271-75, unless otherwise noted.
47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 201 205, 214, and 254 unless otherwise noted.
(f) * * *
(2) The Commission delegates its authority to review, modify, and approve the formula submitted by the Administrator pursuant to this paragraph to the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
(c) * * *
(a) * * *
Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-05 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-05 and 403, unless otherwise noted.
(c) * * *
Attention: Wireline Competition Bureau (here provide the statements required by section 61.152).
(a) * * *
(3) State whether copies have been delivered to the Commercial Contractor and the Chief, Pricing Policy Division.
(g) The letter of transmittal must be substantially in the following format:
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission; Washington, DC 20554
Attention: Wireline Competition Bureau
The accompanying tariff (or other publication) issued by ___, and bearing FCC No. ___, effective ___, 20 _, is sent to you for filing in compliance with the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. (Here give the additional information required.)
Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.
Attention: Wireline Competition Bureau (here provide the statements required by Sec. 61.152).
47 U.S.C. 154, 47 U.S.C. 225, 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1), 151, 154, 201, 202, 205, 218-220, 254, 302, 303, and 337 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply sections 201, 218, 225, 226, 227, 229, 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201-204, 208, 225, 226, 227, 229, 332, 501 and 503, unless otherwise noted.
(b) The attest engagement shall be an examination engagement and shall provide a written communication that expresses an opinion that the systems, processes, and procedures applied by the carrier to generate the results reported pursuant to § 43.21(e)(2) of this chapter comply with the Commission's Joint Cost Orders issued in conjunction with CC Docket No. 86-111, the Commission's Accounting Safeguards proceeding in CC Docket No. 96-150, and the Commission's rules and regulations including §§ 32.23 and 32.27 of this chapter, and § 64.901, and § 64.903 in force as of the date of the auditor's report. At least 30 days prior to beginning the attestation engagement, the independent auditors shall provide the Commission with the audit program. The attest engagement shall be conducted in accordance with the attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, except as otherwise directed by the Chief, Enforcement Bureau.
(c) The biennial financial audit shall provide a positive opinion on whether the applicable date shown in the carrier's annual report required by § 43.21(e)(2) of this chapter present fairly, in all material respects, the information of the Commission's Joint Cost Orders issued in conjunction with CC Docket No. 86-111, the Commission's Accounting Safeguards proceeding in CC Docket No. 96-150, and the Commission's rules and regulations including §§ 32.23 and 32.27 of this chapter, and § 64.901, and § 64.903 in force as of the date of the auditor's report. The audit shall be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, except as otherwise directed by the Chief, Enforcement Bureau. The report of the independent auditor shall be filed at the time that the carrier files the annual reports required by § 43.21(e)(2) of this chapter.
6. * * *
b. * * *
(2) * * *
(m) All reports submitted to the FCC should be directed to Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Washington, DC 20554.
Secs. 4, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 403, 48 Stat., 1066, 1072, 1077, 1094, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 218, 219, 220, 404.
(c) The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, may issue the notice described in § 65.101(a).
47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document amends the Commission's rules to reflect the reorganization of the existing Cable Services and Mass Media Bureaus into a new Media Bureau. The Commission also transfers the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Television Fixed Services from the Mass Media Bureau to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. This rule will promote a more efficient and effective organizational structure.
Effective March 25, 2002.
Susan Mort, 202-418-1043.
To promote a more efficient and effective organizational structure, the Commission has concluded that the proper dispatch of its business and the public interest will best be served by consolidating the existing Cable Services and Mass Media Bureaus into a Media Bureau. In the Order adopted March 11, 2002 and released March 14, 2002, we amend the Commission's Rules to make conforming changes reflecting the name of the new Bureau. The Order also transfers the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Television Fixed Services from the Mass Media Bureau to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
Authority for the adoption of the foregoing revisions is contained in sections 4(i), 5(b), 5(c) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 155(b), 155(c) and 303(r).
The amendments adopted herein pertain to agency organization, procedure and practice. Consequently, the notice and comment provision of the Administrative Procedure Act contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is inapplicable.
Accordingly, it is ordered that parts 21, 73, 74, 76 and 78 of the Commission's rules, set forth in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, are amended effective March 25, 2002.
Communications common carriers, Radio.
Radio, Television.
Radio, Television.
Cable television.
Cable television, Radio.
Secs. 1, 2, 4, 201-205, 208, 215, 218, 303, 307, 313, 403, 404, 410, 602, 48 Stat. as amended, 1064, 1066, 1070-1073, 1076, 1077, 1080, 1082, 1083, 1087, 1094, 1098, 1102; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201-205, 208, 215, 218, 303, 307, 313, 314, 403, 404, 602; 47 U.S.C. 552, 554.
(c) All correspondence or amendments concerning a submitted application shall clearly identify the radio service, the name of the applicant, station location, and the Commission file number (if known) or station call sign of the application involved. All correspondence or amendments concerning a submitted application may be sent directly to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
(a) If the public communication service provided by a station subject to this rule part is involuntarily discontinued, reduced or impaired for a period exceeding 48 hours, the station licensee shall promptly give notification thereof in writing to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at Washington, DC 20554. In every such case, the licensee shall furnish full particulars as to the reasons for such discontinuance, reduction or impairment of service, including a statement as to when normal service is expected to be resumed. When normal service is resumed, prompt notification thereof shall be given in writing to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.
(b) No station licensee subject to title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, shall voluntarily discontinue, reduce or impair public communication service to a community or part of a community without obtaining prior authorization from the Commission pursuant to the procedures set forth in part 63 of this chapter or complying with the requirements set forth at § 21.910. In the event that permanent discontinuance of service is authorized by the Commission, the station licensee shall promptly send the station license for cancellation to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554, except that station licenses need not be surrendered for cancellation if the discontinuance is a result of a change of status by a Multipoint Distribution Service licensee from common carrier to non-common carrier pursuant to § 21.910.
(c) Any station licensee, not subject to title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, who voluntarily discontinues, reduces or impairs public communication service to a community or a part of a community shall give written notification to the Commission within 7 days thereof. In the event of permanent discontinuance of service,
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
(c) * * *
(2) Whenever AM stations use direct reading power meters pursuant to § 73.51, a letter notification to the FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau, must be filed in accordance with § 73.54(e).
(c) A letter of notification must be filed with the FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau, when determining power by the direct method pursuant to § 73.51. The letter must specify the antenna or common point resistance at the operating frequency. The following information must also be kept on file at the station:
(e) If conditions beyond the control of the licensee prevent the restoration of the meter to service within the above allowed period, information requested in accordance with § 73.3549 may be filed by letter with the FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau, to request additional time as may be required to complete repairs of the defective instrument.
(b) A station having an antenna sampling system constructed according to the specifications given in paragraph (a) of this section may obtain approval of that system by submitting an informal letter request to the FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau. The request for approval, signed by the licensee or authorized representative, must contain sufficient information to show that the sampling system is in compliance with all requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
A public notice dated December 9, 1985 giving additional information on approval of antenna sampling systems is available through the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/letter/1985-12-09-sample.html.
(d) * * *
(1) Special Temporary Authority (see § 73.1635) shall be requested and obtained from the Commission's Audio Division, Media Bureau in Washington to operate with parameters at variance with licensed values pending issuance of a modified license specifying parameters subsequent to modification or replacement of components.
(c) If conditions beyond the control of the licensee prevent the restoration of the monitor to service within the allowed period, an informal letter request in accordance with § 73.3549 of the Commission's rules must be filed with the FCC, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau in Washington, DC for such additional time as may be required to complete repairs of the defective instrument.
(d) * * *
(5) An informal letter request for modification of license shall be submitted to the FCC, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau in Washington, DC within 30 days of the date of monitor replacement. Such request shall specify the make, type, and serial number of the replacement monitor, phase and sample current indications, and other data obtained pursuant to this paragraph (d).
(d) If conditions beyond the control of the licensee prevent the restoration of the meter to service within the above allowed period, an informal letter request in accordance with § 73.3549 may be filed with the FCC, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau, in Washington, DC for such additional time as may be required to complete repairs of the defective instrument.
(c) A departure from the regular schedule set forth in a time-sharing agreement will be permitted only in cases where a written agreement to that effect is reduced to writing, is signed by the licensees of the stations affected thereby, and is filed in triplicate by each licensee with the Commission, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau, prior to the time of the proposed change. If time is of the essence, the actual departure in operating schedule may precede the actual filing of the written agreement, provided that appropriate notice is sent to the Commission in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau.
(d) In the event that causes beyond the control of a permittee or licensee make it impossible to adhere to the operating schedule in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section or to continue operating, the station may limit or discontinue operation for a period not exceeding 30 days without further authority from the Commission provided that notification is sent to the Commission in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau, no later than the 10th day of limited or discontinued operation. During such period, the permittee shall continue to adhere to the requirements of the station license pertaining to the lighting of antenna structures. In the event normal operation is restored prior to the expiration of the 30 day period, the permittee or licensee will notify the FCC, Attention: Audio Division of the date that normal operations resumed. If
For allocations purposes, both (all) stations sharing time will be treated as unlimited time stations.
See §§ 73.1705, 73.1715, and 73.1740.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, an application may be filed for a channel or community not listed in the TV Table of Allotments if it is consistent with the rules and policies established in the Third Report and Order in WT Docket 99-168 (FCC 01-25), adopted January 18, 2001. Where such a request is approved, the Media Bureau will change the Table of Allotments to reflect that approval.
(c) * * *
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an application may be filed for a channel or community not listed in the DTV Table of Allotments if it is consistent with the rules and policies established in the Third Report and Order in WT Docket 99-168 (FCC 01-25), adopted January 18, 2001. Where such a request is approved, the Media Bureau will change the DTV Table of Allotments to reflect that approval.
(d) * * *
(3) * * * (i) Authority is delegated to the Chief, Media Bureau to grant an extension of time of up to six months beyond the relevant construction deadline specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section upon demonstration by the DTV licensee or permittee that failure to meet that construction deadline is due to circumstances that are either unforeseeable or beyond the licensee's control where the licensee has taken all reasonable steps to resolve the problem expeditiously.
(c) * * *
(2) Where a station is licensed pursuant to a time-sharing proposal, a change of the regular schedule set forth therein will be permitted only where a written agreement signed by each time-sharing licensee and complying with requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section is filed with the Commission, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau, prior to the date of the change.
(d) * * *
(2) Written authority to locate a main studio outside the locations specified in paragraph (a) or (c) of this section for the first time must be obtained from the Audio Division, Media Bureau for AM and FM stations, or the Video Division for TV and Class A television stations before the studio may be moved to that location. Where the main studio is already authorized at a location outside those specified in paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, and the licensee or permittee desires to specify a new location also located outside those locations, written authority must also be received from the Commission prior to the relocation of the main studio. Authority for these changes may be requested by filing a letter with an explanation of the proposed changes with the appropriate division. Licensees or permittees should also be aware that the filing of such a letter request does not imply approval of the relocation request, because each request is addressed on a case-by-case basis. A filing fee is required for commercial AM, FM, TV or Class A TV licensees or permittees filing a letter request under the section (see § 1.1104 of this chapter).
(g) Whenever a transmission system control point is established at a location other than the main studio or transmitter, a letter of notification of that location must be sent to the FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division (radio) or Video Division (television), Media Bureau, within 3 days of the initial use of that point. The letter should include a list of all control points in use, for clarity. This notification is not required if responsible station personnel can be contacted at the transmitter or studio site during hours of operation.
(d)
(b) Prior authority from the FCC is not required by licensees and permittees to erect and commence operations using an emergency antenna to restore program service to the public. However, an informal letter request to continue operation with the emergency antenna
The licensee of each station shall notify by letter the FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division (radio) or Video Division (television), Media Bureau, of the permanent discontinuance of operation at least two days before operation is discontinued. Immediately after discontinuance of operation, the licensee shall forward the station license and other instruments of authorization to the FCC, Attention: Audio Division (radio) or Video Division (television), Media Bureau, for cancellation. The license of any station that fails to transmit broadcast signals for any consecutive 12 month period expires as a matter of law at the end of that period, notwithstanding any provision, term, or condition of the license to the contrary. If a licensee surrenders its license pursuant to an interference reduction agreement, and its surrender is contingent on the grant of another application, the licensee must identify in its notification the contingencies involved.
(b) An informal application, see § 73.3511(b), may be filed with the FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division (radio) or Video Services Division (television), Media Bureau, to cover the following changes:
Requests for extension of authority to operate without required monitors, transmission system indicating instruments, or encoders and decoders for monitoring and generating the EAS codes and Attention Signal should be made to the FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division (radio) or Video Division (television), Media Bureau. Such requests must contain information as to when and what steps were taken to repair or replace the defective equipment and a brief description of the alternative procedures being used while the equipment is out of service.
Those applications which do not require action by the Commission but which, pursuant to the delegations of authority set forth in subpart B of part 0 of this chapter, may be acted upon by the Chief, Media Bureau, are forwarded to the Media Bureau for necessary action. If the application is granted, the formal authorization is issued. In any case where it is recommended that the application be set for hearing, where a novel question of policy is presented, or where the Chief, Media Bureau desires instructions from the Commission, the matter is placed on the Commission agenda.
(a)(1) Applications tendered for filing are dated upon receipt and then forwarded to the Media Bureau, where an administrative examination is made to ascertain whether the applications are complete. Except for applications for minor modifications of facilities in the non-reserved FM band, as defined in § 73.3573(a)(2), long form applications subject to the provisions of § 73.5005 found to be complete or substantially complete are accepted for filing and are given file numbers. In the case of minor defects as to completeness, a deficiency letter will be issued and the applicant will be required to supply the missing or corrective information. Applications that are not substantially complete will not be considered and will be returned to the applicant.
The Media Bureau and each of its Divisions provide information on the Internet regarding rules and policies, pending and completed rulemakings, and pending applications. These sites also include copies of public notices and texts of recent decisions. The Media Bureau's address is
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, 336(f), and 554.
(a) * * *
(4) A letter notification must be filed with the FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Video Division, Media Bureau, providing the name, address, and telephone number of a person or persons who may be called to secure suspension of operation of the transmitter promptly should such action be deemed necessary by the FCC. Such information shall be kept current by the licensee.
(c) Other equipment changes not specifically referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section may be made at the discretion of the licensee, provided that the FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Video Division, Media Bureau, is notified in writing upon the completion of such changes.
(b) In the event that causes beyond the control of the low power TV or TV translator station licensee make it impossible to continue operating, the licensee may discontinue operation for a period of not more than 30 days
(b) The licensee of a low power TV or TV translator station shall not rebroadcast the programs of any other TV broadcast station or other station authorized under the provisions of this Subpart without obtaining prior consent of the station whose signals or programs are proposed to be retransmitted. The FCC, Attention: Video Division, Media Bureau, shall be notified of the call letters of each station rebroadcast, and the licensee of the low power TV or TV broadcast translator station shall certify it has obtained written consent from the licensee of the station whose programs are being retransmitted.
(k) The provisions of paragraph (h) of this section will not apply to ITFS excess capacity leased directly or indirectly to cable operators or affiliates to provide locally-produced programming to cable headends. Locally-produced programming is programming produced in or near the cable operator's franchise area and not broadcast on a television station available within that franchise area. A cable operator or affiliate will be permitted to lease ITFS excess capacity equivalent to one MDS channel within 32 km (20 miles) of the cable television franchise area or service area for this purpose, and, within 32 km (20 miles) of the cable television franchise area or service area, no more ITFS excess capacity than the equivalent of one MDS channel may be used by a cable television company or affiliate pursuant to this paragraph (k). The licensee for a cable operator providing local programming pursuant to a lease must include in a notice filed with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau a cover letter explicitly identifying its lessee as a local cable operator or affiliate and stating that the lease was executed to facilitate the provision of local programming. The first lease notification for an MDS or ITFS channel in an area filed with the Commission will be entitled to the exemption. The limitations on the equivalent of one MDS channel per party and per area include any cable/ITFS operations grandfathered pursuant to paragraph (l) of this section or any cable/MDS operations grandfathered pursuant to § 21.912(f) of this chapter. Local programming service pursuant to a lease must be provided within one year of the date of the lease or one year of the grant of the licensee's application for the leased channel(s), whichever is later.
(a) * * *
(4) The FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau, shall be supplied by letter with the name, address, and telephone number of a person or persons who may be contacted to secure suspension of operation of the translator promptly should such action be deemed necessary by the Commission. Such information shall be kept current by the licensee.
The Media Bureau's Audio Division provides information on the Internet regarding FM translator and booster stations, rules, and policies at
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
(g) * * *
(3) Unless otherwise directed by the Commission, or upon motion by the Media Bureau Chief, the Media Bureau Chief shall not be deemed to be a party to a proceeding designated for a hearing before an administrative law judge pursuant to this paragraph (g).
Certifications pursuant to this section and these notes shall be sent to the attention of the Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Certifications made under this section shall be sent to the attention of the Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
(a) Cable system operators shall not scramble or otherwise encrypt signals carried on the basic service tier. Requests for waivers of this prohibition must demonstrate either a substantial problem with theft of basic tier service or a strong need to scramble basic signals for other reasons. As part of this showing, cable operators are required to notify subscribers by mail of waiver requests. The notice to subscribers must be mailed no later than thirty calendar days from the date the request waiver was filed with the Commission, and cable operators must inform the Commission in writing, as soon as possible, of that notification date. The notification to subscribers must state:
On (date of waiver request was filed with the Commission), (cable operator's name)
Individuals who wish to comment on this request for waiver should mail comments to the Federal Communications Commission by no later than 30 days from (the date the notification was mailed to subscribers). Those comments should be addressed to the: Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau, Washington, DC 20554, and should include the name of the cable operator to whom the comments are applicable. Individuals should also send a copy of their comments to (the cable operator at its local place of business). Cable operators may file comments in reply no later than 7 days from the date subscriber comments must be filed.
(h) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) A system may file with the Media Bureau an interlocutory appeal from any decision by the franchising authority requesting information from the system or tolling the effective date of a system's proposed rates. The appeal may be made by an informal letter to the Chief of the Media Bureau, served on the franchising authority. The franchising authority must respond within seven days of its receipt of the appeal and shall serve the operator with its response. The operator shall have four days from its receipt of the response in which to file a reply, if desired. If the maximum rate established on Form 1230 does not exceed $1.24 per channel, the burden shall be on the franchising authority to show the reasonableness of its order. If the maximum rate established on Form 1230 exceeds $1.24 per channel, the burden shall be on the operator to show the unreasonableness of the order.
(h) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii)* * *
(C)* * *
(
(d)* * *
(2) Parties are required to attach a cover sheet to the filing indicating that the submission is an open video system certification application. The only wording on this cover sheet shall be “Open Video System Certification Application” and “Attention: Media Bureau.” This wording shall be located in the center of the page and should be in letters at least
(e)* * *
(2) Parties wishing to respond to a FCC Form 1275 filing must submit comments or oppositions with the Office of the Secretary and the Bureau Chief, Media Bureau. Comments will not be considered properly filed unless filed with both of these Offices. Parties are required to attach a cover sheet to the filing indicating that the submission is a pleading related to an open video system application, the only wording on this cover sheet shall be “Open Video System Certification Application Comments.” This wording shall be located in the center of the page and should be in letters at least 1/2 inch in size. Parties shall also include the words “open video systems” on their mailing envelopes.
(b) * * *
(1)
Secs. 2, 3, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 48 Stat., as amended, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085; 47 U.S.C. 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309.
(a) Applications which are tendered for filing in Washington, DC, are dated upon receipt and then forwarded to the Media Bureau where an administrative examination is made to ascertain whether the applications are complete. Applications found to be complete or substantially complete, are accepted for filing and are given a file number. In case of minor defects as to completeness, the applicant will be required to supply the missing information. Applications which are not substantially complete will be returned to the applicant. Applications requiring fees as set forth at part 1, subpart G, of this chapter must be filed in accordance with § 0.401(b) of this chapter.
(a) The European Union, including: the European Communities (the European Community, the European Coal & Steel Community, and the European Atomic Energy Community); institutions of the European Union, such as the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Central Bank, and the European Investment Bank; and any departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof; and
(b) The European Police Office (Europol), including any departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(ii)
(iii)
(a) provide advice to the President through the Assistant on developing and coordinating the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks;
(b) recommend to the President through the Assistant ways to improve coordination, cooperation, and communication among Federal, State, and local officials and private and other entities, and provide a means to collect scholarly research, technological advice, and information concerning processes and organizational management practices both inside and outside of the Federal Government;
(c) provide advice to the President through the Assistant regarding the feasibility of implementing specific measures to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist threats or attacks within the United States;
(d) examine, and advise the President through the Assistant on, the effectiveness of the implementation of specific strategies to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist threats or attacks within the United States; and
(e) report periodically, as appropriate, to the President through the Assistant on matters within the scope of the PHSAC's functions as described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(b) The PHSAC shall have an Executive Director selected by the Assistant.
(c) Members shall serve without compensation for their work on the PHSAC, the SACs, and any subcommittees thereof. However, members shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in Federal Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).
(d) To the extent permitted by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Office of Administration shall provide the PHSAC with administrative support and with such funds as may be necessary for the performance of the PHSAC's functions.
(b) The PHSAC, any SACs, and any SAC subcommittees shall terminate 2 years from the date of this order unless extended by the President.
(a) Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances;
(b) Assistant Administrator (Air and Radiation);
(c) Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste;
(d) Assistant Administrator (Water Programs);
(e) Assistant Administrator (General Counsel);
(f) Assistant Administrator (Enforcement and Compliance Assurance);
(g) Chief Financial Officer;
(h) Assistant Administrator (Research and Development);
(i) Assistant Administrator (International Activities);
(j) Assistant Administrator (Administration and Resources Management); and
(k) Assistant Administrator (Environmental Information).
(a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 2(a)-(k) in an acting capacity, by virtue of so serving, shall act as Administrator pursuant to this order.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this order, the President retains discretion, to the extent permitted by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345
(a) Section 3(a) of Executive Order 13241 of December 18, 2001, entitled “Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Agriculture,” is replaced with the following: “(a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 2(a)-(j) in an acting capacity shall, by virtue of so serving, act as Secretary pursuant to this order.”;
(b) Section 3(a) of Executive Order 13242 of December 18, 2001, entitled “Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Commerce,” is replaced with the following: “(a) No individual who is serving in an
(c) Section 3(a) of Executive Order 13243 of December 18, 2001, entitled “Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Housing and Urban Development,” is replaced with the following: “(a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 2(a)-(i) in an acting capacity shall, by virtue of so serving, act as Secretary pursuant to this order.”;
(d) Section 3(a) of Executive Order 13244 of December 18, 2001, entitled “Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of the Interior,” is replaced with the following: “(a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 2(a)-(f) in an acting capacity shall, by virtue of so serving, act as Secretary pursuant to this order.”;
(e) Section 3(a) of Executive Order 13245 of December 18, 2001, entitled “Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Labor,” is replaced with the following: “(a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 2(a)-(l) in an acting capacity shall, by virtue of so serving, act as Secretary pursuant to this order.”;
(f) Section 3(a) of Executive Order 13246 of December 18, 2001, entitled “Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of the Treasury,” is replaced with the following: “(a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 2(a)-(c) in an acting capacity shall, by virtue of so serving, act as Secretary pursuant to this order.”;
(g) Section 3(a) of Executive Order 13247 of December 18, 2001, entitled “Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Veterans Affairs,” is replaced with the following: “(a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 2(a)-(h) in an acting capacity shall, by virtue of so serving, act as Secretary pursuant to this order.”;
(h) Section 3(a) of Executive Order 13250 of December 28, 2001, entitled “Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Health and Human Services,” is replaced with the following: “(a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 2(a)-(c) in an acting capacity shall, by virtue of so serving, act as Secretary pursuant to this order.” and;
(i) Section 3(b) of Executive Order 13251 of December 28, 2001, entitled “Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of State,” is replaced with the following: “(b) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 2(a)-(m) in an acting capacity shall, by virtue of so serving, act as Secretary pursuant to this order.”.