Farm Service Agency
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
National Agricultural Library
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Community Services Office
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Management and Budget Office
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Community Services Office
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Minerals Management Service
National Indian Gaming Commission
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Parole Commission
Prisons Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Employment Standards Administration
Management and Budget Office
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
Thrift Supervision Office
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.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) finalizes crop provisions for the insurance of sugarcane. The intended effect of this action is to provide policy changes to better meet the needs of the insured. The changes will apply for the 2003 and subsequent crop years.
This rule is effective August 12, 2002.
Arden Routh, Risk Management Specialist, Product Development Division, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, United States Department of Agriculture, 6501 Beacon Drive, Kansas City, MO 64133, telephone (816) 926-7730.
This rule has been determined to be exempt for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053 through April 30, 2004.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The policy contained in this rule does not have any substantial direct effect on states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the states is not required.
This regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Additionally, the regulation does not require any greater action on the part of small entities than is required on the part of large entities. The amount of work required of the insurance companies will not increase because the information must already be collected under the present policy. No additional work is required as a result of this action on the part of either the insured or the insurance companies. Therefore, this action is determined to be exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), and no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was prepared.
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. The administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action for judicial review of any determination made by FCIC may be brought.
This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, and safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
On October 18, 2000, FCIC published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Following publication of the proposed rule the public was afforded 60 days to submit written comments and opinions. A total of 18 comments were received from two reinsured companies and a trade association. The comments received and FCIC's responses are as follows:
In addition to the changes described above, FCIC has made the following changes:
1. Added language in section 7(a)(1) to clarify when insurance attaches for plant cane.
2. Clarified that the language in section 9(a)(3) refers to sugarcane cut for seed.
3. Replaced the term “approved yield” with “production guarantee” in section 9(a)(2) to be consistent with section 10(c)(1)(i)(B) of the current Sugarcane Crop Provisions and also in section 9(a)(3) to be consistent with section 10(c)(1)(iv) of this final rule.
Crop insurance, Sugarcane, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 1506(1), 1506(p).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
The Sugarcane Crop Insurance Provisions for the 2003 and succeeding crop years are as follows:
1. Definitions.
3. Contract Changes.
In accordance with section 4 of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), the contract change date is June 30 preceding the cancellation date.
5. Insured Crop.
(a) In accordance with section 8 of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), the crop insured will be all the sugarcane in the county for which a premium rate is provided by the actuarial documents:
(1) In which you have a share;
(2) That is grown for processing for sugar or for seed; and
(3) That is not interplanted with another crop, unless allowed by a written agreement.
(b) In addition to the crop listed as not insured in section 8(b) of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), we will not insure any sugarcane:
(1) That was damaged the previous crop year to the extent the sugarcane is unable to produce the yield used to establish the production guarantee for the unit for the current crop year; or
(2) That exceeds the age limitations (by variety, if applicable) contained in the Special Provisions , unless we agree in writing to insure such acreage. An agreement in writing will not be provided unless, after an appraisal, we determine that the crop is able to produce at least the yield used to establish the production guarantee for the unit for the current crop year.
6. Insurable Acreage.
Section 9(a)(3) of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), is not applicable to the Sugarcane Crop Insurance Provisions.
7. Insurance Period.
(a) In addition to the provisions of section 11 of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), insurance attaches:
(1) On the later of the day we accept your application or at the time of planting for plant cane;
(2) On the first day following harvest of the previous crop for stubble cane except as contained in sections 7(a)(3) and (4);
(3) On the later of April 15 or 30 days following harvest of the previous crop for stubble cane damaged during the previous crop year in all states (except Louisiana); and
(4) On the later of April 30 or 30 days following harvest of the previous crop for stubble cane damaged during the previous crop year in Louisiana.
(b) In accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), the calendar date for the end of the insurance period is:
(1) January 31 in Louisiana; and
(2) April 30 in all other states.
9. Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss or Cutting the Sugarcane for Seed.
(a) In addition to your duties under section 14 of the Basic Provisions (§ 457.8), in the event of damage or loss:
(1) * * *
(2) You must give us notice at least 15 days before you begin cutting any sugarcane for seed. Your notice must include the unit number and the number of acres you intend to harvest as seed. Failure to give us timely notice will cause the acreage cut for seed to be considered as put to another use without consent. The production to count for such acreage will not be less than the production guarantee.
(3) You must request an appraisal if any time during the crop year sugarcane acreage cut for seed will not produce at least the production guarantee so we can determine the production to count. If you do not request an appraisal, the production to count for such acreage will be the production guarantee.
10. Settlement of Claim.
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
Assume you have a 100 percent share in a unit of 100 acres of sugarcane, an approved yield of 6,000 pounds of raw sugar per acre, a coverage election of 65 percent, and a price election of $0.12 a pound. The production guarantee would be 3,900 pounds of raw sugar per acre (6,000 × 65%). Further assume that you are only able to harvest 200,000 pounds of raw sugar because the unit was damaged by an insurable cause of loss. Your indemnity would be calculated as follows:
(1) 100 acres × 3,900 pound production guarantee = 390,000 pound production guarantee;
(2) 390,000 pound production guarantee−200,000 pounds harvested production = 190,000 pound production loss;
(3) 190,000 pound production loss × $0.12 price election = $22,800 loss; and
(4) $22,800 loss × 100 percent share = $22,800 indemnity payment.
Assume the same set of facts. Also, assume that you cut 20 acres of this unit for seed without giving notice that you were cutting this acreage for seed and that you are only able to harvest 200,000 pounds from the remaining 80 acres. Your indemnity would be calculated as follows:
(1) 100 acres × 3,900 pound production guarantee = 390,000 pound production guarantee;
(2) 390,000 pound production guarantee−278,000 (200,000 pounds harvested production + 78,000 pounds production for putting acreage to another use without consent, (20 acres × 3,900 pound production guarantee per acre)) = 112,000 pound production loss;
(3) 112,000 pound production loss × $0.12 price election = $13,440 loss; and
(4) $13,440 loss × 100 percent share = $13,440 indemnity payment.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Potential production on insured acreage harvested for seed (see section 9(a)(3));
(v) Potential production on insured acreage you want to put to another use or you wish to abandon and no longer care for, if you and we agree on the appraised amount of production. Upon such agreement, the insurance period for that acreage will end if you put the acreage to another use or abandon the crop. If agreement on the appraised amount of production is not reached:
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes, that requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the spoiler hold-down actuator supports located on the left and right wing rear spars; adjustment of the spoiler hold-down actuators; and replacement of cracked spoiler hold-down actuator supports with new, improved supports. This AD also requires replacement of all spoiler hold-down actuator supports with new, improved supports, which terminates the repetitive inspections. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect and correct as well as to prevent cracks in the spoiler hold-down actuator supports, which could lead to reduced spoiler hold-down capability, resulting in loss of the back-up protection of the spoiler float hold-down and unavailability of monitoring for an uncommanded spoiler movement.
Effective August 16, 2002.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 16, 2002.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model 717 series airplanes was published in the
The FAA has revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify the model designation as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.
Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule pertains to both initial and repetitive inspections of the spoiler hold-down actuator supports. For purposes of clarity, this AD has been revised to specify requirements for the initial inspection in paragraph (a) of this AD and those for repetitive inspections in paragraph (b) of this AD.
In addition, the FAA has changed all reference to a “detailed visual inspection” to a “detailed inspection” in this final rule.
Information pertaining to inspections accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-57A0002, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2001, has been removed from Note 3 of the proposed rule and incorporated into paragraph (c) of this AD to clarify the compliance time for performing the next repetitive inspection.
Information pertaining to replacement of a spoiler hold-down actuator support, accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 717-57-0004, dated May 30, 2001, has been removed from Note 4 of the proposed rule and incorporated into paragraph (d) of this AD to clarify that the replacement constitutes terminating action for the particular actuator support.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.
Two commenters request that the compliance time for terminating action be extended from 15 months to 60 months after the effective date of the AD. The commenters suggest that the proposed repetitive inspections at intervals of 500 flight hours will ensure airworthiness until the 60-month time limit is reached.
The FAA does not concur. The 15-month compliance period was based upon study of the consequences of failure of the spoiler hold-down actuator supports and associated parts, the availability of replacement parts, typical maintenance intervals, and the work
After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
There are approximately 52 McDonnell Douglas Model 717 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 36 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
It will take approximately 12 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required detailed inspection for cracks and the adjustment of the spoiler hold-down actuator supports at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection and adjustment on U.S. operators is estimated to be $25,920, or $720 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
It will take approximately 18 to 43 work hours per airplane to accomplish the replacement of the spoiler hold-down actuator supports and associated parts at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. The manufacturer has committed previously to its customers that it will bear the cost of replacement parts. As a result, the cost of those parts is not attributable to this AD. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $38,880 and $92,880, or between $1,080 and $2,580 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (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 detect and correct as well as to prevent cracks in the spoiler hold-down actuator supports, which could lead to reduced spoiler hold-down capability, resulting in loss of the back-up protection of the spoiler float hold-down and unavailability of monitoring for an uncommanded spoiler movement, accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 1,500 total flight hours (FH) or within 500 FH after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Perform a detailed inspection of the spoiler hold-down actuator supports on the left and right wing rear spar for cracks, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-57A0002, Revision 02, dated October 2, 2001.
(1) If no crack is detected: Prior to further flight, adjust the spoiler hold-down actuators in accordance with the service bulletin.
(2) If any crack is detected: Prior to further flight, adjust the spoiler hold-down actuators in accordance with the service bulletin. Within 500 flight hours after accomplishment of the inspection, replace the cracked spoiler hold-down actuator supports and associated idler link(s), hinge pins, and attaching parts with new parts and adjust the spoiler hold-down actuators, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 717-57-0004, Revision 01, dated October 2, 2001. Replacement of a cracked spoiler hold-down actuator support as required herein constitutes terminating action for that actuator support for the requirements of this AD.
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.”
(b) If the initial inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD does not detect cracks, repeat the detailed inspection of the spoiler hold-down actuator support, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-57A0002, Revision 02, dated
(c) If a detailed inspection for cracks of a spoiler hold-down actuator support was performed and the actuator was adjusted prior to the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-57A0002, Revision 01, dated February 28, 2001, repeat the detailed inspection in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-57A0002, Revision 02, dated October 2, 2001, within 500 FH of the last inspection or within 500 FH of the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(d) Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace spoiler hold-down actuator supports, idler links, hinge pin, and attaching parts with new parts and adjust the spoiler hold-down actuators, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 717-57-0004, Revision 01, dated October 2, 2001. Replacement of all spoiler hold-down actuators in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 717-57-0004, Revision 01, dated October 2, 2001, constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
(1) Any spoiler hold-down actuator supports, idler links, hinge pin, or attaching parts which have previously been replaced in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this AD do not need to be replaced.
(2) Any spoiler hold-down actuator supports, idler links, hinge pins, or attaching parts which were replaced prior to the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 717-57-0004, original issue, dated May 30, 2001, do not need to be replaced.
(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, 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.
(f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(g) The actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-57A0002, Revision 02, dated October 2, 2001; and Boeing Service Bulletin 717-57-0004, Revision 01, dated October 2, 2001; as applicable. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on August 16, 2002.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 767-300 series airplanes equipped with Rolls Royce RB211-524H series engines. This action requires re-routing a certain wire bundle containing control wiring for the thrust reverser actuation system. This action is necessary to ensure that control wiring for the thrust reverser actuation system is adequately separated. Inadequately separated wiring could allow a single failure to result in uncommanded deployment of a thrust reverser and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective July 29, 2002.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 29, 2002.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before September 10, 2002.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-108-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 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 Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
During inspections performed in the course of certificating Boeing Model 767-400ER series airplanes, the FAA discovered that control wiring for the thrust reverser actuation system brake was routed under the same clamps as wiring that controls the pressure regulating shut-off valve and the differential pressure valve of the thrust reverser system, as well as wiring of unrelated systems. Due to the criticality of an uncommanded deployment of a thrust reverser in flight, the thrust reverser
A subsequent review of wiring designs on other Model 767 series airplanes revealed that a condition similar to that described previously also exists on Model 767-300 series airplanes equipped with Rolls Royce RB211-524H series engines. Therefore, these airplanes are subject to the same unsafe condition.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-0085, dated November 8, 2001. That service bulletin describes procedures for re-routing wire bundle W518, which is located along the leading edge of the right wing from the outboard pressure seal to the wing/strut disconnect. The procedures include performing a functional test to verify proper operation of the thrust reverser actuation system following the re-routing of the wire bundle. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design that may be registered in the United States at some time in the future, this AD is being issued to ensure that control wiring for the thrust reverser actuation system is adequately separated. Inadequately separated wiring could allow a single failure to result in uncommanded deployment of a thrust reverser and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously.
None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes included in the applicability of this rule currently are operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that any of these subject airplanes are imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.
Should an affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would require approximately 10 work hours to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD would be $600 per airplane.
Since this AD action does not affect any airplane that is currently on the U.S. Register, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, prior notice and public procedures hereon are unnecessary and the amendment may be made effective in less than 30 days after publication in the
Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by notice and 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 shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
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 AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
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 and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-108-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To ensure that control wiring for the thrust reverser actuation system is adequately separated in order to prevent a single failure from resulting in uncommanded deployment of a thrust reverser and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, re-route wire bundle W518 (which is located along the leading edge of the right wing from the outboard pressure seal to the wing/strut disconnect), according to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-0085, dated November 8, 2001. Before the next flight after the re-routing, the functional test specified in the procedures in the service bulletin must be successfully completed.
(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, Seattle 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, Seattle ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-78-0085, dated November 8, 2001. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on July 29, 2002.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to all Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH (DG Flugzeugbau) Models DG-400 and DG-800A sailplanes. This AD requires you to inspect the rear plate of the propeller mount for marks and/or cracks and replace if necessary. This AD also requires you to inspect the mounting blocks for cracks and replace if necessary. This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect and correct cracks in the propeller mount plate and mounting blocks, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the propeller mounting structure. This could lead to a hazardous flight condition or loss of control of the sailplane.
This AD becomes effective on August 23, 2002.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of August 23, 2002.
You may get the service information referenced in this AD from DG Flugzeugbau, Postbox 41 20, D-76625 Bruchsal, Federal Republic of Germany; telephone: ++49 7257-890; facsimile: ++49 72578922. You may view this information at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002CE-12AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64016; telephone: (816) 329-4144; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for the Federal Republic of Germany, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all Model DG-400 and DG-800A sailplanes. The LBA reports that cracks have been found on the rear plate of the propeller mount on one DG-400 sailplane. The cracks were found during regular maintenance. Models DG-400 and DG-800A sailplanes are equipped with the same propeller mount structure.
This condition, if left undetected and corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the propeller mounting structure. This could lead to a hazardous flight condition or loss of control of the sailplane.
We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all DG Flugzeugbau Models DG-400 and DG-800A sailplanes. This proposal was published in the
The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. We did not receive any comments on the proposed rule or on our determination of the cost to the public.
After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:
We estimate that this AD affects 43 sailplanes in the U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to accomplish the inspection:
We estimate the following costs to accomplish any necessary replacements that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of sailplanes that may need such replacement:
The compliance time of the inspection is “within the next 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 3 calendar months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.”
The unsafe condition on these sailplanes is not a result of the number of times the sailplane is operated. Sailplane operation varies among operators. For example, one operator may operate the sailplane 50 hours TIS in 3 months while it may take another operator 12 months or more to accumulate 50 hours TIS. For this reason, the FAA has determined that the compliance time of this AD should be specified in both hours TIS and calendar time in order to ensure this condition is not allowed to go uncorrected over time.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the final 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, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Your alternative method of compliance provides an equivalent level of safety; and
(2) The Standards Office Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, approves your alternative. Submit your request through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Standards Office Manager.
This AD applies to each sailplane identified in paragraph (a) of this AD, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For sailplanes 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 you have not eliminated the unsafe condition, specific actions you propose to address it.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are
An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
Incorporation by reference-approved by the Director of the Federal Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK. 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description on each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA Form 8260 and the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent (P) Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) which are incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation's Regulations (FAR). Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained in the content of the following FDC/P NOTAMs for each SIAP. The SIAP information in some previously designated FDC/Temporary (FDC/T) NOTAMs is of such duration as to be permanent. With conversion to FDC/P NOTAMs, the respective FDC/T NOTAMs have been canceled.
The FDC/P NOTAMs for the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart changes to SIAPs by FDC/P NOTAMs, the TERPS criteria were applied to only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.
Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the TERPS. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, The FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; AND § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is adopting an amendment to a rule under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to clarify how to calculate assessments that are required to be paid by national securities exchanges and national securities associations pursuant to section 31(d) of the Exchange Act for security futures transactions. In addition, the amendment will provide guidance on how to calculate fees that are required to be paid by national securities exchanges and national securities associations pursuant to sections 31(b) and (c) of the Exchange Act, respectively, for sales of securities that result from the physical settlement of security futures.
August 12, 2002.
Kelly Riley, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 942-0752, Susie Cho, Special Counsel, at (202) 942-0748, and Geoffrey Pemble, Attorney, at (202) 942-0757, Division of Market Regulation, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street NW, Washington DC 20549-1001.
Section 31 of the Exchange Act
Section 31(d) of the Exchange Act provides that each national securities exchange and each national securities association shall pay an assessment “for each round turn transaction (treated as including one purchase and one sale of a contract of sale for future delivery) on a security future traded on such national securities exchange or by or through any member of such association otherwise than on a national securities exchange.”
Section 31(d) clarifies that a “round turn” transaction on a security future is “treated as including one purchase and one sale” of a contract for future delivery. The Commission believes that the correct interpretation of this phrase is a completed trade involving the simultaneous purchase and sale of a contract for future delivery by the two parties to the trade.
Exchanges and associations must pay Section 31(d) assessments for each “round turn transaction (treated as including one purchase and one sale of a contract of sale for future delivery).” The parenthetical makes clear that the assessment is applied on each purchase and sale of each
In addition to the assessments paid by exchanges and associations pursuant to section 31(d) of the Exchange Act, section 31(b) of the Exchange Act requires each national securities exchange to pay a fee based on the aggregate dollar amount of sales of securities transacted on such exchange. Similarly, section 31(c) of the Exchange Act requires each national securities association to pay a fee based on the aggregate dollar amount of sales transacted by or through any member of such association otherwise than on a national securities exchange.
Because at physical settlement of a security future a sale of the underlying security or securities occurs, each national securities exchange or national securities association is required to pay a fee to the Commission based on the dollar amount of such sale. Thus, as in the exercise of an option,
In the Proposing Release, the Commission proposed to amend the Preliminary Note to Rule 31-1 to clarify that the dollar amount of a sale of securities resulting from the physical settlement of a security future should be calculated based on the price at which the security future was entered into by the market participant effecting delivery of the underlying security at settlement. The Commission, however, sought comment on whether this was the appropriate price for determining the dollar amount of the sale.
All of the commenters to the Proposing Release argued that the original trade price should not be used as the benchmark for calculating fees under Sections 31(b) and (c).
The commenters further argued that using the sales price of the security future would be complicated and burdensome to implement. All of the commenters noted that neither The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) nor the exchanges retain original trade price information pertaining to open positions for more than one day.
Finally, the commenters argued that using the initial trade price as the price upon which Section 31 fees are assessed would create verification problems.
Instead, a majority of the commenters recommended that the Commission use the settlement price at expiration as the basis upon which to calculate the dollar amount of a sale of securities resulting from the physical settlement of a security future.
The Commission believes that the commenters make compelling arguments as to why the Section 31(b) and (c) fees should be based on the final settlement price, rather than on the price at which the security future was entered into by the market participant effecting delivery, and has amended Rule 31-1 accordingly.
A buyer and seller enter into a futures contract at the current futures price for delivery on a specified date of an underlying asset or instrument. At the close of trading, all futures contracts open on that day are marked-to-market. The mark-to-market is a risk reduction mechanism to reduce the clearinghouse's exposure to its members. The brokers for parties with long positions pay to (or receive from) the clearing agency any decrease (or increase) in the futures contract price since the trade. Similarly, the brokers for the parties with the short positions pay to (or receive from) the clearing agency any increase (or decrease) in the futures contract price since the trade. This exchange of mark-to-market payments is referred to as variation settlement. Thus, at expiration of a futures contract, any difference between the price at which a buyer and seller may have entered into their respective positions has been bridged by the intervening mark-to-market variation settlement,
The amendment we are adopting to the Preliminary Note to Rule 31-1 requires that the fees paid under Sections 31(b) and (c) when physical settlement of a security future occurs be based on the price received by the seller from the buyer in exchange for delivery of the security or securities underlying such security future—
The obligation to pay the Section 31(d) assessment on a security futures transaction rests with national securities exchanges and national securities associations. Similarly, national securities exchanges and national securities associations have the
If a national securities exchange or national securities association chooses to levy charges upon its members to cover the Section 31(d) assessments for security futures transactions, such exchange or association would need to adopt rules requiring its members to pay such assessments.
The Paperwork Reduction Act is not applicable to the amendment because it does not impose any collection of information requirements that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.
In the Proposing Release, the Commission considered preliminarily the costs and benefits of the amendment to Rule 31-1 and requested comment on all aspects of its cost-benefit analysis, including identification of any additional costs or benefits of the proposed amendment to Rule 31-1. None of the commenters provided dollar-based estimates regarding the overall costs and benefits of the proposed amendment to Rule 31-1. However, several commenters discussed issues related to the costs and benefits of the proposed amendment.
Specifically, commenters raised concerns with the proposal that fees on sales of securities that result from the physical settlement of security futures be calculated based on the original sale price of the security future.
The amendment to Rule 31-1 is for the purpose of providing guidance on how Section 31 assessments and fees are to be calculated for transactions in security futures and sales of securities resulting from physical settlement of security futures. Specifically, the amendment is intended to clarify: (1) The method by which assessments required pursuant to section 31(d) of the Exchange Act are calculated for round turn transactions on security futures traded on national securities exchanges or by members of national securities associations; and (2) the manner in which fees required pursuant to sections 31(b) and (c) of the Exchange Act are calculated for sales of securities resulting from physical settlement of security futures.
As noted above, the Commission has modified its proposal in response to comments and is adopting an amendment to Rule 31-1 requiring that the payment of the Section 31(b) or (c) fee be based upon the price received by the seller in exchange for delivery of the security or securities underlying such security future—
In addition, because the amendment to Rule 31-1 does not give rise to additional obligations on national securities exchanges, associations, or other market participants, but rather merely provides guidance on complying with existing statutory obligations, the Commission has concluded that there would be no costs imposed on market participants by the amendment to the rule.
The Commission has concluded that the amendment to Rule 31-1 will benefit exchanges and associations by providing clarification on the assessments and fees payable under sections 31(b), (c) and (d) of the Exchange Act. Although these sections of the Exchange Act set forth generally the obligations of national securities exchanges and national securities associations to pay assessments and fees on security futures transactions and sales of securities resulting from physical settlement of such futures, the Commission has concluded that guidance is necessary to clarify the mechanics of the assessment and fee calculation and collection process for security futures. The Commission's guidance in the amendment to Rule 31-1 will remove any potential ambiguity in the statute about, for example, the meaning of “round turn transaction” and the price on which fees for sales of securities that result from the physical settlement of security futures will be based.
Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission, when adopting rules under the Exchange Act, to consider the impact of such rules on competition.
The Commission has considered the amendment to the rule in light of these standards and has concluded that it will not impose a burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. As noted above, in amending Rule 31-1 the Commission is
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission amends Rule 31-1 under the Exchange Act pursuant to its authority under Exchange Act Sections 3(b), 23(a), and 31.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78
The additions read as follows:
1. The section 31 fee for options transactions occurring on a national securities exchange, or transactions in options subject to prompt last sale reporting occurring otherwise than on an exchange (with the exception of sales of options on securities indexes) is to be paid by the exchange or the national securities association itself, respectively, or by The Options Clearing Corporation on behalf of the exchange or association, and such fee is to be computed on the basis of the option premium (market price) for the sale of the option. In the event of the exercise of an option, whether such option is traded on an exchange or otherwise, a section 31 fee is to be paid by the exchange or the national securities association itself, or The Options Clearing Corporation on behalf of the exchange or association, and such fee is to be computed on the basis of the exercise price of the option.
2. The section 31(d) assessment on a round turn transaction on a security future traded on a national securities exchange, or by or through a member of a national securities association otherwise than on a national securities exchange, is to be paid by the exchange or the national securities association itself, respectively, or by The Options Clearing Corporation on behalf of the exchange or association, and such assessment is to be computed on the basis of the number of contracts of sale for future delivery traded on such exchange or by or through any member of such association otherwise than on an exchange. In the event of the physical settlement of a security future, a section 31 fee is to be paid by the exchange on which the round turn transaction on the security future was traded, or, if the round turn transaction on the security future was traded by or through a member of a national securities association otherwise than on a national securities exchange, by the association, or by The Options Clearing Corporation on behalf of such exchange or association. Such fee, whether paid under section 31(b) or section 31(c), is to be computed on the basis of the price received by the seller in exchange for delivery of the security or securities underlying the security future. The obligation to pay fees under section 31(b) or (c) does not accrue until the time that physical delivery occurs.
The following shall be exempt from section 31 of the Act:
By the Commission.
Department of State.
Final rule.
This Final Rule amends the regulations on the appointment of Foreign Service Officers to allow the Director General (DG) of the Foreign Service, or the Director General's delegatee, to review the case of a Department of State Foreign Service candidate who has been denied an unlimited medical clearance for assignment worldwide to determine whether or not it is in the best interest of the Service to appoint the candidate despite the medical disqualification. This decision, as to whether or not to grant a waiver of the Foreign Service worldwide availability requirement, was previously made by a committee created solely for that purpose. The shifting of this decision to the Director General, or the Director General's delegatee, in no way alters the rights or interests of any parties, nor does it alter the substantive criteria by which a decision whether or not to waive the worldwide availability requirement will be made. As with the committee's decisions at present, the decisions of the Director General, or the Director General's delegatee, will be final and will not be subject to further appeal.
In addition, while candidates must still be medically cleared for full overseas duty, the Department of State no longer considers the medical condition of eligible family members for pre-employment purposes. References to previous practices in this regard are therefore being removed as are references to the procedures of the former United States Information Agency.
This rule is effective August 12, 2002.
Elizabeth Amory, Office of the Legal Adviser, 202-647-4646.
When requested and authorized by the candidate, the Director General of the Foreign Service, or the Director General's delegatee, will review the case of any Department of State Foreign Service candidate who has been denied an unlimited medical clearance for assignment worldwide and will determine whether or not it is in the best interest of the Service to appoint the candidate despite the medical disqualification. This decision, as to whether or not to grant a waiver of the Foreign Service worldwide availability requirement, was previously made by a committee established solely for that purpose. The shifting of responsibility for this decision to the Director General, or the Director General's delegatee, is being made in appreciation of the magnitude of such decisions for the Service and as part of a general effort to increase the efficiency and transparency of the Foreign Service appointment process. This change in no way alters the rights or interests of any parties nor does it alter the substantive criteria by which a decision whether or not to waive the worldwide availability requirement will be made. As with the committee's decisions, the decisions of the Director General, or the Director General's delegatee, are final and are not subject to further appeal.
In addition, while candidates must still be medically cleared for full overseas duty, the Department of State no longer considers the medical condition of eligible family members for pre-employment purposes. References in 22 CFR § 11.1 (e)(4) to previous practices in this regard are hereby removed and the citation to the Foreign Affairs Manual has been updated. It should be noted, however, that the Department still requires medical clearances for family members before they can travel overseas to accompany an employee on assignment at US Government expense. Finally, references in 22 CFR Part § 11.1(e)(5) to the procedures of the former United States Information Agency are hereby removed pursuant to the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998.
Foreign Service.
22 U.S.C. 3926, 3941.
(e) * * *
(4)
(5)
(f) * * * Candidates who have completed the examination process; have passed their medical examination, or have obtained a waiver from the Director General of the Foreign Service, or his or her delegatee, or the equivalent in accordance with the procedures of the other participating agencies; and on the basis of their background investigation, have been found suitable to represent the United States abroad, will have their names placed on the functional rank-order register(s), or a special register, for the agency or agencies for which they have been found qualified. * * *
National Indian Gaming Commission.
Interpretive rule.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act established the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) as an independent federal regulatory agency responsible for federal oversight of Indian gaming. This interpretive rule explains the Commission's understanding of its oversight authority in the area of environment, public health and safety.
This rule is effective August 12, 2002.
Christine Nagle at 202-632-7003; fax 202-632-7066 (these are not toll-free numbers).
On October 17, 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701-21 (IGRA or Act), creating the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) and developing a comprehensive framework for the regulation of gaming on Indian lands to shield Indian tribes from organized crime and other corrupting influences; ensure that Indian tribes are the primary beneficiaries of gaming revenues; and assure that gaming is conducted fairly and honestly by both operators and players. To effect these goals, the Commission was granted, among other things, oversight and enforcement authority, including the authority to monitor tribal compliance with the Act, the Commission's regulations, and tribal gaming ordinances, 25 U.S.C. 2713.
A tribal government, as a condition precedent to the lawful operation of gaming activities on Indian lands, must adopt an ordinance governing gaming activities on its Indian lands, 25 U.S.C. 2710. The Act specifies a number of mandatory provisions to be contained in each tribal gaming ordinance and subjects such ordinances to agency review and the Chairman's approval. Approval by the Chairman is predicated on the inclusion of each of the specified mandatory provisions in the tribal gaming ordinance. Among these is a requirement that the ordinance must contain a provision ensuring that “the construction and maintenance of the gaming operation, and the operation of that gaming is conducted in a manner that adequately protects the environment and the public health and safety,” 25 U.S.C. 2710 (b)(2)(E).
The Act further extends authority to the Commission to impose sanctions, including civil fines and closure orders, if the Commission finds that gaming on Indian lands is being conducted in violation of the provisions contained in
Since 1993, when the Commission became operational, the Chairman has required each tribal gaming ordinance to include an express statement that gaming facilities under the control of the tribal government submitting the ordinance would be constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that adequately protects the environment, public health and safety. In 1999, the Commission undertook the development of regulations governing the method of oversight it will use in determining tribal compliance with this provision of IGRA.
The Commission recognizes that tribal governments, as an incident of inherent tribal sovereignty, have broad autonomy and authority over internal tribal affairs, including, in particular, matters pertaining to tribal lands and the health and welfare of the people and the community. Moreover, the Commission is aware that the principle of tribal self-determination is a cornerstone of federal Indian law and policy and has remained so for more than a quarter century. Accordingly, federal or other incursions upon tribal authority in such matters receive careful scrutiny by the courts. Cognizant of these facts, and bound by such federal laws and policies, the Commission approached this rulemaking effort with no small degree of caution and concern. Given the primacy of tribal regulation over the environment, public health and safety as well as federal policies regarding tribal consultation in matters directly affecting tribes, the Commission established a tribal advisory committee to assist in the development of an appropriate process through which the Commission could carry out its oversight responsibility under IGRA without improperly encroaching upon the authority of tribal government.
In November 1999, a Tribal-Commission Advisory Committee was formed to consult on the project and develop recommendations to the Commission. The Advisory Committee, was comprised of representatives of tribal governments and the Commission. It began its work in November 1999, producing a recommendation for the full Commission's consideration in May 2000. The Advisory Committee met four times to develop a regulatory proposal; an additional meeting was held after the close of the public comment period to discuss the comments that had been submitted. Upon consideration of the comments submitted, and discussions with the Tribal-Commission Advisory Committee, the Commission decided to revise and republish the proposal for additional comment.
The Advisory Committee through a consensus process produced a recommended rule for submission to the Commission. The recommendation was approved by the Commission for publication in the
The approach taken by the Committee reflects an effort to balance the need for a uniform system of oversight with the need for flexibility given the widely varying circumstances and geographic dispersion of Indian gaming operations. The proposal also reflects an effort to appropriately narrow and define the Commission's role given the fact that the Commission lacks the technical expertise and the capacity to review and evaluate tribal standards or programs or to itself establish and promulgate specific technical standards appropriate to the industry. It was the view of the Committee that Congress intended a narrow role for the Commission, particularly since the Act contains no other provisions pertinent to this issue, nor does the legislative history suggest that the Commission has the responsibility to develop expansive programs relative to the environment, public health and safety. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the Commission's role is properly confined to ensuring that tribal standards are in place in each of the five key areas identified by the Committee and ensure that such standards are enforced through an on-going process of monitoring and oversight by qualified personnel.
The purpose of the Plan was to provide the Commission with a tribe-specific description of the systems in place in order that the Commission would have a means of understanding the mechanisms specific to each tribe and tailor its oversight activities accordingly. Since tribal law and governmental structures may vary substantially as well as climate and geography, it was felt that the only way the Commission could fairly and appropriately conduct oversight is to ensure that it is based on a sound understanding of the circumstances, systems, and standards applicable to each gaming tribe.
At the close of the initial comment period the Commission had received 127 comments, all suggesting substantial changes to the proposed rule and many challenging the Commission's authority to promulgate the rule in the first instance. The comments reflected a widespread view that the proposed rule was both burdensome and intrusive, and questioned the need for it. State and local governments requested that they be given a role in deciding what was to be included in tribal Plans.
The general thrust of the comments led the Commission to conclude that in order to reflect the general purpose and intent of the rule, revision was warranted. The Commission also perceived the need for greater clarity with regard to its view that regulatory primacy and primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with the environment, public health and safety provision rests with tribal government. The Committee was re-convened to assist the Commission to revise the proposal in such a way to make clear that the purpose of the rule is to establish an appropriate process through which the Commission may carry out its discrete and limited oversight responsibility.
Upon reviewing the comments, the Advisory Committee recommended a number of revisions to the proposed rule, but left largely intact the provisions utilizing the Plan process. The revised proposal was published in the fall of 2000, allowing for a thirty-day comment period, which was later extended through December 29, 2001. In response, the Commission again received well over a hundred comments, largely raising the same objections, with the same polarization between tribal and state governments. A number of comments, however, further developed some of the issues that had been referenced in the first round of
The overwhelming majority of tribal commenters reasserted the view that the proposal was unduly burdensome and constituted an unwarranted intrusion into the governmental prerogatives of tribes so as to exceed the statutory authority delegated by the Congress in IGRA. Many commenters asserted that Congress could not have intended an extensive role for the Commission given the very limited reference to the environment, public health & safety within the Act. Moreover, the commenters pointed out, the Commission lacks appropriate expertise to properly evaluate tribal environment, public health and safety standards and practices as well as the capacity to do so. These Commenters also asserted that matters pertaining to the environment, public health and safety are more properly within the purview of other governmental agencies, both tribal and federal. It was also asserted that there was no explicit Congressional authority to impose additional enforceable burdens on tribal governments and that in doing so the Commission had run afoul of federal policies restricting the imposition of unfunded mandates in agency rulemaking.
The foregoing arguments are not without a degree of merit. In fact, these points were at the forefront of the Advisory Committee's concerns in developing its recommendation and by the Commission in its deliberations as well. While the Commission does not agree that it is without authority or responsibility altogether, it does accept Congress intended the Commission to play a limited, rather than expansive role. IGRA explicitly accords the Commission a role in ensuring compliance with the environment, public health and safety provision of IGRA. The question, therefore, is not whether the Commission has a responsibility in this regard, but rather the nature and extent of its responsibility.
The Commission does not agree that its responsibility is merely to ensure that each tribal gaming ordinance contains a rote recitation of the language set forth in 25 U.S.C. 2710 (b)(2)(E). Such interpretation would render this provision of the Act superfluous and constitute a breach of an agency's a fundamental duty to give full effect to the plain language of the Act in determining Congressional intent related thereto. Moreover, because IGRA authorizes the Commission to enforce compliance with tribal gaming ordinances and to sanction incidents of non-compliance through civil fine assessment and orders of temporary closure, it is impossible to conclude that Congress intended the Commission's role to be constrained to the degree suggested in some comments.
At the same time, the Commission recognizes that as a fundamental principle of federal law and policy, tribal governments have the right and authority to make their own choices in exercising their governmental powers. Tribal governmental powers are inherent and not derived from the federal government. As such, when a federal agency seeks to exert itself into an arena routinely controlled by tribal authority, the relevant inquiry is whether a statute, treaty or judicial decision authorizes federal activity in the particular area. Federal statutes affecting Indian affairs require broad construction when the rights of Indians are established or preserved and narrow construction when the rights of Indians are limited or abrogated.
In balancing the Commission's responsibility against the inherent rights of tribal governments the Commission has endeavored to find an objective method for meeting its oversight responsibility in a non-intrusive, non-burdensome manner respectful of tribal primacy in the environmental, public health and safety arenas. Having now had the benefit of the views and thoughts contained in nearly 300 comments, as well as opportunity for in-depth study of the issues and related federal law and policy, the Commission is of the view that the Plan process is more burdensome and intrusive than originally projected. It is further concerned that the estimation of the costs associated with the preparation of a Plan may have been underestimated. In considering the burden and financial impact the proposed rule may have had on tribal governments, the Commission recognizes that existing federal policy discourages the imposition of unfunded mandates on tribal, state, and local governments.
In the final analysis, the Commission has concluded that a simpler, less programmatic approach is warranted. This final rule represents the Commission's interpretation of its responsibility under 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(E) and provides guidance to tribal governments as to the oversight standard the Commission will apply in determining tribal compliance with this provision of the Act.
The Commission interprets section 2710 (b)(2)(E) of IGRA to mean that the Commission has a limited and discrete responsibility to provide regulatory oversight in relation to tribal compliance with this provision. The Commission discerns nothing within the Act or the legislative history to suggest that Congress intended a more extensive role for the Commission or manifesting any intent to relieve tribal government of any measure of authority or regulatory primacy over issues concerning the environment, public health and safety in any area within the authority of the tribe or to shift, alter, or otherwise effect any transfer of responsibility from tribal government to the National Indian Gaming Commission.
It is the Commission's view that section 2710 (b)(2)(E) requires tribal governments electing to conduct gaming on tribal lands to apply, adopt or issue standards designed to ensure that gaming operations on Indian lands are constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that adequately protects the environment, public health and safety, and, furthermore, to enforce compliance with such standards through an ongoing system of monitoring, conducted by qualified personnel. At a minimum, such standards must address: (1) Emergency preparedness; (2) food & water; (3) construction & maintenance; (4) hazardous and other materials; and (5) sanitation.
The Commission recognizes that tribal governments vary dramatically in terms of size, structure, and organization. Accordingly, compliance may be effected in any number of ways. For example, departments or agencies within tribal government may issue rules or procedures, conduct inspections, and bring enforcement actions. Another tribal government may enter into intergovernmental compacts with state, local or federal government to carry out such activities while others may contract privately for such functions. In the Commission's view, the particular manner in which compliance with tribal environment,
If the Commission determines that a tribal government has failed to apply, adopt, issue or enforce environmental, public health and/or safety standards covering gaming operations on Indian lands, the Commission will first notify the governing body of the tribe of its concern. If the absence of standards or failure to enforce does not present imminent jeopardy to the environment, public health or safety, the Commission will refer the matter to the appropriate tribal regulatory authority for appropriate action. The Commission will proceed to enforcement only where no corrective action has been undertaken within a reasonable time and such inaction results in a condition of imminent jeopardy to the environment, public health and safety.
A finding of imminent jeopardy represents the standard the Commission will apply in determining that a condition poses a threat of such severity to the environment or the public health or safety as to warrant the Commission's intervention. For purposes of this regulation, imminent jeopardy exists where conditions are present that pose a real and immediate threat: (1) To the environment, which, if uncorrected, would result in actual harm to life or destruction of property; or (2) to human health and well being, which, if uncorrected, could result in serious illness or death.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document amends the Commission's rules to reflect the new organizational structure of the Office of Media Relations of the Federal Communications Commission, identifying their new functions.
Effective July 15, 2002.
Mary Beth Richards, Office of the Chairman, 202/418-1514 or Yvette Barrett, Office of the Managing Director, 202/418-0603.
This Order adopted June 26, 2002 and released July 9, 2002 by the Commission amends its rules to reflect the new structure of the Office of Media Relations to include the management of audio and visual support services for the Commission.
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 (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0 as follows:
Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted.
(f) Manage the FCC's audio/visual support services and maintain liaison with outside parties regarding the broadcast of Commission proceedings.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD has issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide contract action reporting requirements for Fiscal Year 2003. The rule makes changes to the Individual Contracting Action Report and the corresponding reporting instructions.
October 1, 2002.
Ms. Susan Schneider, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, OUSD (AT&L) DP (DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0326; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2002-D010.
This final rule contains Fiscal Year 2003 requirements for completion of DD Form 350, Individual Contracting Action Report. DoD uses this form to collect statistical data on its contracting actions. The rule includes reporting changes related to indefinite-delivery contracts; performance-based service contracts; the SBA/OFPP pilot program for acquisition of services from small business concerns; purchases made using the Governmentwide purchase card; and purchases made by a DoD agency on behalf of another DoD or non-
DD Form 350, and other forms prescribed by the DFARS, are not included in the Code of Federal Regulations. The forms are available electronically via the Internet at
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
This rule will not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors, or a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD. Therefore, publication for public comment is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2002-D010.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 204 and 253 continues to read as follows:
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
(b) * * * The term does not include grants, cooperative agreements, or training authorizations. * * *
(c) * * *
(5) For the Defense Contract Management Agency (excluding contract administration office responsibilities in 204.670-4): Defense Contract Management Agency, ATTN: DCMA-DSP, 6350 Walker Lane, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22310-3226.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Multiple reports required by 204.670-6(c)(1) to separate foreign military sales (FMS) requirements from non-FMS requirements; or
(a) * * *
(2) Complete the DD Form 350 when funds are obligated or deobligated or when an indefinite-delivery contract is established with no initial obligation of funds. * * *
The revised text reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) * * * USACCE consolidates these transactions monthly and reports the cumulative dollar amounts and actions on one DD Form 350.
(c) * * *
(1) The action includes FMS requirements in addition to non-FMS requirements (Line B9 on the DD Form 350). Submit one DD Form 350 report for the FMS requirements and another DD Form 350 report for the non-FMS requirements.
Policy on use of a DD Form 350 is in 204.670-2. This subsection contains instructions for completion of the DD Form 350.
(a)
(1) LINE A1, TYPE OF REPORT. Enter one of the following codes:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(2) LINE A2, REPORT NUMBER. Enter the six-position local control number (see 204.670-3(a)(5)). Do not leave blank or enter all zeros. If Line A1 is coded 1 or 2, use the prior report number rather than a new one.
(3) LINE A3, CONTRACTING OFFICE.
(i) LINE A3A, REPORTING AGENCY FIPS 95 CODE. Enter one of the following codes: 2100 (Army); 1700 (Navy); 5700 (Air Force); 96CE (Army Civil Works); 97AS (DLA); 9763 (DCMA); 9700 (all other defense agencies).
(ii) LINE A3B, CONTRACTING OFFICE CODE. Enter the code assigned by the departmental data collection point in 204.670-1(c).
(4) LINE A4, NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICE. Enter sufficient detail to establish the identity of the contracting office.
(b)
(1) LINE B1, CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.
(i) LINE B1A, CONTRACT NUMBER.
(A) Enter—
(B) Do not leave spaces between characters, and do not enter dashes, slants, or any other punctuation marks.
(C) The DoD contract number is the basic (13-position alphanumeric character) procurement instrument identification number (PIIN) that was assigned in accordance with 204.7003 or constructed under an exception permitted by 204.7000. Do not enter any supplementary procurement instrument identification numbers as part of the contract number (these go on Line B2).
(ii) LINE B1B, ORIGIN OF CONTRACT. Enter the code that indicates the agency that assigned the contract number.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(iii) LINE B1C, BUNDLED CONTRACT. Enter one of the following codes:
(A)
(B)
(iv) LINE B1D, BUNDLED CONTRACT EXCEPTION. If Line B1C is coded Y, enter one of the following codes. Otherwise, leave Line B1D blank.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(v) LINE B1E, PERFORMANCE-BASED SERVICE CONTRACT (see FAR Subpart 37.6). Enter one of the following codes:
(A)
(B)
(2) LINE B2, MODIFICATION, ORDER, OR OTHER ID NUMBER. Enter the supplementary procurement instrument identification number if one was assigned in accordance with 204.7004 or as permitted by 204.7000. It can be up to 19 characters. Orders under DoD contracts have a four-position number (see 204.7004(d)); orders under non-DoD contracts have a 13-position number with an F in the ninth position; modifications to contracts and agreements have a six-position modification number (see 204.7004(c)); modifications to orders under DoD contracts have a two-position modification number following the four-position order number (see 204.7004(e)); and modifications to orders under non-DoD contracts have a six-position modification number following the 13-position order number.
(3) LINE B3, ACTION DATE.
(i) Enter the year, month, and day of the effective date for fiscal obligation purposes.
(ii) Enter four digits for the year, two digits for the month, and two digits for the day. Use 01 through 12 for January through December. For example, enter January 2, 2003, as 20030102.
(4) LINE B4, COMPLETION DATE.
(i) Enter the year, month, and day of the last contract delivery date or the end of the performance period. If the contract is incrementally funded, report the completion date for the entire contract. Report the completion date associated with an option quantity when the option is exercised.
(ii) Enter four digits for the year, two digits for the month, and two digits for the day. Use 01 through 12 for January through December. For example, enter January 2, 2003, as 20030102.
(5) LINE B5, CONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.
(i) Use data that relates to the contractor whose name and address appear in the contract document (Block 7 of the SF 26, Award/Contract; Block 8 of the SF 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract; Block 15A of the SF 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award; or Block 9 of the DD Form 1155, Order for Supplies or Services), except—
(A) For contracts placed with the Small Business Administration under Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, use data that relates to the company that will be performing the work;
(B) For Federal schedule orders, use data that applies to the contractor whose name appears on the schedule (not the data for the agent to whom orders may be sent); and
(C) For contracts with the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC), use data for the appropriate CCC office.
(ii) Some of the parts of Line B5 may not apply to the action being reported. Follow the instructions for each part.
(A) LINE B5A, CONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DUNS).
(B) LINE B5B, GOVERNMENT AGENCY. Enter one of the following codes:
(C) LINE B5C. Reserved.
(D) LINE B5D, CONTRACTOR NAME AND DIVISION NAME. Enter the contractor's name as stated in the offer and resultant contract. Include its division name.
(E) LINE B5E, CONTRACTOR ADDRESS. Enter the contractor's address as stated in the offer and resultant contract. Include street address or P.O. Box, city or town, state or country, and ZIP code, if applicable. Do not enter foreign postal codes.
(F) LINE B5F, TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. Enter the contractor's taxpayer identification number (TIN) (see FAR Subpart 4.9). Leave Line B5F blank if the contractor is—
(G) LINE B5G, PARENT TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. Enter the contractor's parent company (common parent) TIN (see FAR Subpart 4.9 and 52.204-3). If the contractor does not have a parent company or the parent company meets the exemption for Line B5F, leave Line B5G blank.
(H) LINE B5H, PARENT NAME. If a parent company TIN is entered on Line B5G, enter the name of the parent company (common parent) on Line B5H. Leave Line B5H blank if there is no parent company or the parent company is exempted from the requirement to have a TIN.
(6) LINE B6, PRINCIPAL PLACE OF PERFORMANCE.
(i) The place, or places, where the contract will be performed may be specified by the Government or listed by the contractor in response to the solicitation provision at FAR 52.214-14, Place of Performance—Sealed Bidding,
(A) Final assembly point for items manufactured under supply contracts;
(B) Location from where shipments from stock are made under supply contracts;
(C) Actual construction site for construction contracts;
(D) Planned construction site for architect-engineer contracts;
(E) Place of mining for mined supplies; or
(F) Place (including military installations) where a service is performed for service contracts.
(ii) When there is more than one location for any of paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A) through (F) of this subsection (e.g., more than one construction site), use the location involving the largest dollar amount of the acquisition. Do not show more than one location on Line B6.
(iii) If places of performance are too varied or not known, enter the contractor's home office location. However, if the contractor is a domestic concern and the entire contract will be performed outside the United States, enter the most frequent place of performance.
(iv) Follow the instructions for each part of Line B6 that applies to the action being reported.
(A) LINE B6A, CITY OR PLACE CODE.
(B) LINE B6B, STATE OR COUNTRY CODE.
(C) LINE B6C, CITY OR PLACE AND STATE OR COUNTRY NAME. Enter the name of the principal place of performance. Do not leave Line B6C blank.
(7) LINE B7, TYPE OBLIGATION. Enter one of the following codes:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(8) LINE B8, OBLIGATED OR DEOBLIGATED DOLLARS. Enter the net amount of funds (whole dollars only) obligated or deobligated by the action. Enter zero if the action is the initial award of an indefinite-delivery contract that neither obligates nor deobligates funds, i.e., Line B7 is coded 3.
(9) LINE B9, FOREIGN MILITARY SALE. Enter one of the following codes. If only part of the action is a foreign military sale, separately report the parts (see 204.670-6(c)).
(i)
(ii)
(10) LINE B10, MULTIYEAR CONTRACT. Enter one of the following codes:
(i)
(ii)
(11) LINE B11, TOTAL ESTIMATED CONTRACT VALUE. Enter the total estimated contract value (in whole dollars) only at the time of initial placement of the contract, including placement of an indefinite-delivery or multiyear contract. Include the total estimated value of orders and options anticipated to be placed over the life of the contract.
(12) LINE B12, PRINCIPAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE. Line B12 has five parts. Do not leave any parts of Line B12 blank. Codes for Line B12 can be found in the DoD Procurement Coding Manual (MN02) under “PRODUCT AND SERVICE CODE ASCII FILE DOWNLOADS” at the bottom of the following web page:
(i) LINE B12A, FEDERAL SUPPLY CLASS OR SERVICE CODE. Enter the 4-character Federal supply class (FSC) or service code that describes the contract effort. There are three categories of codes to choose from. If more than one category or code applies to the action, enter the one that best identifies the product or service representing the largest dollar value.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(ii) LINE B12B, DOD CLAIMANT PROGRAM CODE. Enter a code that identifies the commodity described on Line B12E. If more than one code applies to the action, enter the one that best identifies the product or service representing the largest dollar value. If the description on Line B12E is for—
(A) Research and development (R&D), enter the code that best represents the objective of the R&D. For example, if the objective of the R&D is a guided missile, enter code A20. If the R&D cannot be
(B) Ship repair, inspect and repair as necessary (IRAN), modification of aircraft, overhaul of engines, or similar maintenance, repair, or modification services, enter the code that best identifies the program;
(C) Equipment rental (including rental of automatic data processing equipment), enter code S10;
(D) Utility services, enter code S10;
(E) Services that cannot be identified to any listed program, enter code S10; or
(F) Supplies or equipment that cannot be identified to any listed program, enter code C9E.
(iii) LINE B12C, PROGRAM, SYSTEM, OR EQUIPMENT CODE.
(A) Enter a code that describes the program, weapons system, or equipment. If there is no code that applies to the action, enter three zeros. If more than one code applies to the action, enter the one that best identifies the product or service representing the largest dollar value.
(B) If the action is funded by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, enter code CAA.
(C) If the action supports environmental cleanup programs, enter one of the codes listed in Section II of the DoD Procurement Coding Manual (MN02) under the heading “Environmental Cleanup Programs” at
(D) Defense Logistics Agency and Defense Contract Management Agency activities must use the code assigned by the sponsoring military department.
(iv) LINE B12D, NAICS CODE. Enter the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the acquisition. Use the NAICS code in effect at the time of award. These codes are in the 2002 U.S. NAICS Manual (
(v) LINE B12E, NAME OR DESCRIPTION. Enter the name or a brief description of the commodity or service. If the description is classified, enter only the word “Classified.” Do not use “Classified” when a code name (e.g., Minuteman, Polaris, Trident, Pershing) or an identifying program number (e.g., WS-107A) can be used.
(vi) LINE B12F, EPA-DESIGNATED PRODUCT(S). Enter one of the following codes:
(vii) LINE B12G, RECOVERED MATERIAL CLAUSES. If an EPA-designated product was acquired,
(13) LINE B13, KIND OF ACTION. Some of the parts of Line B13 may not apply to the action being reported. Follow instructions for each part. When the action is a modification, complete Lines B13A and B13D.
(i) LINE B13A, CONTRACT OR ORDER. Enter one of the following codes:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(ii) LINE B13B, TYPE OF INDEFINITE-DELIVERY CONTRACT. If the action is the award or modification of an indefinite-delivery contract, i.e., Line B13A is coded 3 and the ninth position of B1A is coded D, complete Line B13B. If the action is an order or modification of an order under an indefinite-delivery contract, i.e., Line B13A is coded 5, complete Line B13B. Otherwise, leave Line B13B blank.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(iii) LINE B13C, MULTIPLE OR SINGLE AWARD INDEFINITE-DELIVERY CONTRACT. If the action is the award or modification of an indefinite-delivery contract, or an order or modification of an order under an indefinite-delivery contract, i.e., Line B13B is coded A, B, or C, complete Line B13C. Otherwise, leave Line B13C blank.
(A)
(B)
(iv) LINE B13D, MODIFICATION. If the action is a modification, enter one of the following codes. Otherwise, leave Line B13D blank.
(A)
(B)
(
(
(
(C)
(
(
(
(
(
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I)
(v) LINE B13E, MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACT FAIR OPPORTUNITY. If the action is an order under a multiple award indefinite-delivery contract, i.e., Line B13C is coded M, enter one of the following codes. Otherwise, leave Line B13E blank.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(vi) LINE B13F, INDEFINITE-DELIVERY CONTRACT USE. If the action is the initial award of an indefinite-delivery contract, enter one of the following codes to indicate if the indefinite-delivery contract can be used Government-wide, within DoD only, within the department or agency only, or by the contracting office only. Otherwise, leave Line B13F blank.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(vii) LINE B13G—INDEFINITE-DELIVERY CONTRACT ORDERING PERIOD ENDING DATE. If the action is the initial award of an indefinite-delivery contract and Line B13F is coded A, B, C, or D, enter the date the ordering period ends. Otherwise, leave Line B13G blank. Enter four digits for the year, two digits for the month, and two digits for the day. Use 01 through 12 for January through December. For example, enter January 2, 2003, as 20030102.
(14) LINE B14, CICA APPLICABILITY. Enter one of the following codes:
(i)
(ii)
(A) The action resulted from a solicitation issued on or after April 1, 1985, or is a modification coded A on Line B13D issued on or after April 1, 1985; and
(B) Neither code C nor code D applies.
(iii)
(iv)
(15) LINE B15, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES. If the action is for information technology products or services, enter one of the following codes. Otherwise, leave Line B15 blank.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(16) LINE B16, CLINGER-COHEN ACT PLANNING COMPLIANCE. If the action is for information technology products or services, enter one of the following codes. Otherwise, leave Line B16 blank:
(i)
(ii)
(c)
(1) Part C gathers data concerning contracting procedures, use of competition, financing, and statutory requirements other than socioeconomic (which are in Part D).
(2) Do not complete Part C if the action is with a government agency,
(3) In completing Part C, use codes that describe either the current action or the original contract as follows:
(i)(A) If the current action is a modification, other than a new work modification, or an order under an indefinite-delivery contract, code the lines in Part C to describe the original contract.
(B) If the current action is an order under a multiple award contract,
(C) Otherwise, code the lines in Part C to describe the current action.
(ii) If there are no codes for the original contract because a DD Form 350 was not required at the time, the original action is no longer available, the definition of the original code has changed, or a data element has been added to the system after the original contract report, use codes that best describe the original action.
(4) Complete Part C as follows:
(i) LINE C1, SYNOPSIS. Enter one of the following codes:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(ii) LINE C2, REASON NOT SYNOPSIZED. Enter one of the following codes if a synopsis was not prepared,
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(iii) LINE C3, EXTENT COMPETED. Enter one of the following codes:
(A)
(B)
Even though Part C is not completed for actions with a government agency, the database will automatically include these actions in the category of not available for competition.
(C)
(D)
(iv) LINE C4, SEA TRANSPORTATION. When the origin of the contract is DoD, i.e., Line B1B is coded A, enter one of the following codes. Otherwise, leave Line C4 blank.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(v) LINE C5, TYPE OF CONTRACT.
(A) If the action is a letter contract, including modifications and amendments to letter contracts, enter the code that describes the anticipated type of contract the letter contract will become when it is definitized.
(B) If there is more than one type of contract involved in the action, enter the code that matches the type with the most dollars. If the type with the least dollars exceeds $500,000, fill out separate DD Forms 350 (with different report numbers) for each type.
(C) Enter one of the following codes:
(vi) LINE C6, NUMBER OF OFFERORS SOLICITED.
(A) Leave Line C6 blank if—
(B) Otherwise, enter—
(vii) LINE C7, NUMBER OF OFFERS RECEIVED.
(A) Leave Line C7 blank if—
(B) Otherwise, enter the specific number of offers received (001-999).
(viii) LINE C8, SOLICITATION PROCEDURES.
(A) Leave Line C8 blank if—
(B) Otherwise, enter one of the following codes:
(3)
(ix) LINE C9, AUTHORITY FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION.
(A) Leave Line C9 blank if the original contract resulted from a solicitation issued before April 1, 1985 (i.e., before the effective date of the Competition in Contracting Act).
(B) Enter one of the following codes if the action resulted from use of other than full and open competition, i.e., Line C8 is coded N. Otherwise, leave Line C9 blank.
(x) LINE C10, SUBJECT TO LABOR STANDARDS STATUTES. Enter one of the following codes. When the action is an order or modification of an order under a Federal schedule, i.e., Line B13A is coded 6, leave Line C10 blank.
(xi) LINE C11, COST OR PRICING DATA. Enter one of the following codes when the origin of the contract is DoD, i.e., Line B1B is coded A. Otherwise, leave Line C11 blank.
(xii) LINE C12, CONTRACT FINANCING. When the origin of the contract is DoD,
(xiii) LINE C13, FOREIGN TRADE DATA.
(A) The term “United States (U.S.),” as used on Line C13, excludes the Trust Territory of Palau (
(B) LINE C13A, PLACE OF MANUFACTURE. Complete Line C13A only if the action is for a foreign end product or a service provided by a foreign concern under a DoD contract or a Federal schedule. Otherwise, leave Line C13A blank.
(C) LINE C13B, COUNTRY OF ORIGIN CODE.
(xiv) LINE C14, COMMERCIAL ITEM. Enter one of the following codes:
(A)
(B)
(d)
(1) Do NOT complete Part D if the action is—
(i) With a government agency,
(ii) An order under a Federal schedule,
(2) Use the codes on Lines B13A and B13D to determine whether the codes in Part D will describe the current action or the original contract.
(i) Code Part D to describe the current action when—
(A) The action is a new requirement,
(B) The action is an order from the Schedule or the Procurement List,
(ii) Otherwise, code Part D to describe the original contract. If there are no codes for the original contract because a DD Form 350 was not required at the time, the original action is no longer available, the definition of the original code has changed, or a data element has been added to the system after the original contract report, use codes that best describe the original action.
(3) Determine the status of the concern (
(4) Complete Part D as follows:
(i) LINE D1, TYPE OF CONTRACTOR.
(A) LINE D1A, TYPE OF ENTITY. Enter one of the following codes:
(B) LINE D1B, WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS. Enter one of the following codes:
(C) LINE D1C, HUBZONE REPRESENTATION. Enter one of the following codes when the contractor is a small business performing inside the United States, i.e., Line D1A is coded A or B. Otherwise, leave Line D1C blank.
(D) LINE D1D, ETHNIC GROUP.
(E) LINE D1E, VETERAN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS. Enter one of the following codes if the contractor is a veteran-owned small business. Otherwise, leave Line D1E blank.
(ii) LINE D2, REASON NOT AWARDED TO SDB. Enter one of the following codes when the contractor is a small business (other than a small disadvantaged business) or a large business performing in the United States,
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(iii) LINE D3, REASON NOT AWARDED TO SB. Enter one of the following codes when the contractor is a large business performing in the United States,
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(iv) LINE D4, SET-ASIDE OR PREFERENCE PROGRAM.
(A) LINE D4A, TYPE OF SET-ASIDE. Enter one of the following codes:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(B) LINE D4B, TYPE OF PREFERENCE. Enter one of the following codes, even if Line D4A is coded E:
(
(
(
(
(
(C) LINE D4C, PREMIUM PERCENT.
(
(
(
(
(
(v) LINES D5—D6. Reserved.
(vi) LINE D7, SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR) PROGRAM. Enter one of the following codes. When the action is an order or modification of an order under a non-DoD contract, i.e., Line B1B is coded B or C and Line B13A is coded 5, leave Line D7 blank.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(vii) LINE D8, SUBCONTRACTING PLAN—SB, SDB, HBCU, OR MI. Enter one of the following codes:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(viii) LINE D9, SMALL BUSINESS COMPETITIVENESS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. When the action is under a contract that was awarded before the demonstration program began (January 1, 1989) and does not involve a new work modification, enter code N on Line D9. When the action is an order or modification of an order under a non-DoD contract, i.e., Line B1B is coded B or C and Line B13A is coded 5, enter code N on Line D9. Otherwise, code Line D9 as follows:
(A)
(B)
(ix) LINE D10, SIZE OF SMALL BUSINESS.
(A) Complete Line D10 only when the contractor is a small business performing in the United States and the action is under the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program,
(B) Enter one of the following codes for the size of the business (number of employees or average annual gross revenue) as represented by the contractor in the solicitation provision at FAR 52.219-19, Small Business Concern Representation for the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(x) LINE D11, EMERGING SMALL BUSINESS.
(A) Complete this line only if the action is under the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program, i.e., Line D9 is coded Y, and the action is in one of the four designated industry groups, not one of the targeted industry categories. Otherwise, leave Line D11 blank.
(B) Enter one of the following codes:
(
(
(e)
(1) LINE E1, CONTINGENCY, HUMANITARIAN, OR PEACEKEEPING OPERATION.
(i) Enter code Y on Line E1 if the action exceeds $200,000 and is in support of—
(A) A contingency operation as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(13); or
(B) A humanitarian or peacekeeping operation as defined in 10 U.S.C. 2302(8).
(ii) Otherwise, leave Line E1 blank.
(2) LINE E2, COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS CLAUSE. Enter code Y on Line E2 if the contract includes a Cost Accounting Standards clause (see FAR Part 30). Otherwise, leave Line E2 blank.
(3) LINE E3, REQUESTING AGENCY CODE (FIPS 95). If making a purchase on behalf of a non-DoD agency, enter the four-position code from FIPS PUB 95 that identifies the non-DoD agency. If making a purchase for another DoD department or agency, enter 2100 for Army, 1700 for Navy, 5700 for Air Force, 97AS for DLA, 96CE for USACE, 9763 for DCMA, and 9700 for all other defense agencies. Otherwise, leave Line E3 blank.
(4) LINE E4, REQUESTING ACTIVITY CODE. If making a purchase on behalf of a non-DoD agency, enter the non-DoD agency's office code, if provided. Otherwise, leave Line E4 blank. If making a purchase on behalf of a DoD activity, enter the DoDAAC of the activity for whom the purchase was made. DoDAACs can be found at:
(5) LINE E5, NUMBER OF ACTIONS. If submitting a consolidated DD Form 350, enter the number of actions included in the consolidated report (see 204.670-6(b)). Otherwise, enter 1 on Line E5.
(6) LINE E6, PAYMENT BY GOVERNMENTWIDE PURCHASE CARD. If payment is to be made through use of the Governmentwide purchase card, enter Y on Line E6. Otherwise, leave Line E6 blank.
(f)
(1) LINE F1, NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER OR REPRESENTATIVE. Enter the name (Last, First, Middle Initial) of the contracting officer or representative.
(2) LINE F2, SIGNATURE. The person identified on Line F1 must sign.
(3) LINE F3, TELEPHONE NUMBER. Enter the telephone number (with area code) for the individual on Line F1. Installations with Defense Switched Network (DSN) must enter the DSN number.
(4) LINE F4, DATE. Enter the date that the DD Form 350 Report is submitted. Enter four digits for the year, two digits for the month, and two digits for the day. Use 01 through 12 for January through December. For example, enter January 2, 2003, as 20030102.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Correction to final rule.
DoD is issuing a correction to the final rule published at 67 FR 38020-38022 on May 31, 2002, pertaining to requirements for use of U.S.-flag vessels in the transportation of supplies by sea.
May 31, 2002.
Ms. Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, OUSD(AT&L)DP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0328; facsimile (703) 602-0350.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
Final rule.
RSPA is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations to require shippers and carriers to retain a copy of each hazardous material
This final rule is effective on August 12, 2002.
Deborah Boothe of the Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, (202) 366-8553, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) require a person who offers a hazardous material for transportation in commerce to describe the hazardous material on a shipping paper in the manner required in 49 CFR part 172, subpart C. A paper copy of the shipping paper must accompany a hazardous material during transportation. A shipping paper includes “a shipping order, bill of lading, manifest or other shipping document serving a similar purpose and containing the information required by §§ 172.202, 172.203 and 172.204.” 49 CFR 171.8 (definition of “shipping paper”). A hazardous waste manifest “may be used as the shipping paper” if it contains all the information required by part 172, subpart C. 49 CFR 172.205(h).
Since 1980, generators and transporters of hazardous waste have been required to retain a copy of the hazardous waste manifest “for three years from the date the waste was accepted by the initial carrier.” 49 CFR 172.205(e)(5), adopted in RSPA's May 22,1980 final rule, 45 FR 34560, 34698.
In 1994, Congress amended the Federal hazardous material transportation law (Federal hazmat law) to require that, after a hazardous material “is no longer in transportation,” each offeror and carrier of a hazardous material must retain the shipping paper “or electronic image thereof for a period of 1 year to be accessible through their respective principal places of business.” 49 U.S.C. 5110(e), added by Pub. L. 103-311, Title I, § 115, 108 Stat. 1678 (Aug. 26, 1994). That section also provides that the offeror and carrier “shall, upon request, make the shipping paper available to a Federal, State, or local government agency at reasonable times and locations.”
On September 12, 2001, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA, we) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the HMR to conform with § 5110(e) (66 FR 47443). We proposed to add a new § 172.201(e) and amend §§ 174.24, 175.30, 176.24, and 177.817 to require each shipper and carrier to retain a copy of the shipping paper, or an electronic image thereof, for a period of 375 days after the date a hazardous material is offered for transportation by the shipper and accepted by the carrier. An electronic image includes an image transmitted by a facsimile (FAX) machine, an image on the screen of a computer, or an image generated by an optical imaging machine. In order to facilitate compliance with and enforcement of the requirement, we proposed that the copy include the date that the shipment is accepted for transportation by the initial carrier. We further proposed to require the shipping paper copy or its electronic image to be accessible at or through the principal place of business of each person required to prepare or maintain it during transportation.
Except for hazardous waste manifests,
We received 16 written comments. The commenters included a university, utility companies, shippers, carriers, and representatives from industry associations representing a broad spectrum of businesses that offer hazardous materials for transportation or transport hazardous materials in commerce. Most commenters generally support the intent of the proposal to require a copy of the shipping paper or an electronic image thereof to be retained for 375 days after the date the initial carrier accepts the hazardous materials for transportation. One commenter suggests that we implement a system for tracking hazardous materials shipments. Other commenters suggest revisions to the NPRM proposals related to the shipping paper retention period, acceptance date, permanent shipping papers, mode-specific requirements, retention at principal place of business, and proposed legislative changes to the current shipping paper requirement in the Federal hazmat law.
Florida International University (FIU) suggests we require shippers and carriers to implement a tracking system that would show the exact date when transportation ends. According to FIU,
“With a better tracking system, shippers and carriers will be able to know when the shipment departs and when it arrives at its final destination. We think there should be a document or form, which should be created for the original carrier, all intermediate carriers (if any), and the final carrier who receives the cargo. This form should be returned to the previous carrier and originating location electronically notifying the shipment's arrival and condition. By doing this, it will ensure the tracking of the dates and time it takes exactly to arrive to each destination (if going through more than one destination). With a better tracking system it would even be convenient to make the original carrier responsible and liable for knowing at any given time the current location, final destination, and final date of transportation. All this, of course, in addition to keeping records of the materials. All second hand carriers should electronically report all information to the first carrier.”
The NPRM proposed to require shipping papers to be retained for 375 days (one year plus 10 days) for consistency with the statutory requirement that shipping papers be retained for one year
Several commenters object to the proposal to require shipping papers to include the date the shipment is accepted by the initial carrier. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) notes that for rail transportation, “the date on railroad shipping papers (waybills) is the date a shipment has been offered for transportation,
IME is concerned that a shipper may not always know when the carrier accepts a shipment, especially rail shipments. IME suggests that requiring both the shipper and carrier to date the shipping paper on the date the carrier accepts the shipment may not be the best approach. IME recommends “the date be keyed to when the shipper ‘prepares the shipping paper’ instead * * * This would also reduce the compliance burden, as the initial carrier does not have to add a subsequent ‘acceptance’ date.” We disagree. A shipper may prepare shipping papers well in advance of offering a shipment for transportation. The date of acceptance of a shipment by a carrier more closely approximates the actual beginning of transportation and is, thus, consistent with the current statutory requirement for retention of shipping papers for one year after transportation ends. As stated above, for rail shipments, this final rule permits the date on a shipping paper to be the date the carrier is notified that a shipment is ready for transportation as an alternative to the date the carrier picks up, or accepts, the shipment. This revision to the NPRM proposal should help to minimize the compliance burden on shippers and carriers.
The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) opposes inclusion of the acceptance date on shipping papers, as proposed. ARA states, “This proposal appears to be arbitrary and capricious. There will be a cost involved to change recordkeeping systems that are based on one year and without apparent benefit economically or safety-wise.” We disagree. The proposed 375-day retention period begins from the date a shipment is offered and accepted by the initial carrier for transportation. This is the same date that the three-year retention period for hazardous waste manifests starts. Well over 95 percent of hazardous materials shipments are delivered within 10 days after they are offered to a carriers. Therefore, for these shipments, our proposal to begin the 375-day retention period on the date a shipment is offered and accepted by the initial carrier is consistent with the statutory requirement for retention of shipping documents for one year after transportation ends.
AAR suggests that we require only the last modified version of the shipping paper to be retained. AAR states that “shipping papers can be changed multiple times in the course of a shipment. Reasons for changing shipping papers include: substitution of the scale weight for the initial estimate of the weight; diversion or reconsignment of a shipment; and addition of switching information. There is no reason to keep versions of shipping papers that have been superseded.” Provided the shipment notification date or date of acceptance is on the shipping paper, we agree that the current railroad practice to retain the last modified version of the shipping paper is acceptable for retention purposes proposed under this rulemaking.
Most commenters support the NPRM proposal as it applies to permanent shipping papers. However, three commenters oppose the proposal to require shippers to retain a record of each shipment made under a permanent shipping paper. SRP, an electric system operator and provider, and the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) state, “RSPA's proposal to require maintenance of a running record of each shipment made under a ‘permanent shipping paper’ goes above and beyond statutory requirements and existing regulatory practice to create a redundant recordkeeping obligation with little apparent value.” SRP further states that “ this requirement would significantly impact our workload, again with no gain from a transportation safety aspect.”
We disagree that the requirement to retain a copy of a daily record of the shipments made under a permanent shipping paper increases the recordkeeping burden. We also disagree that maintenance of a running record of each shipment made under a “permanent shipping paper” goes above and beyond statutory requirements and existing regulatory practice. It is our understanding that retention of this type
United Parcel Service (UPS) suggests that proposing to delete the second sentence of § 175.30(a)(2), which requires only the originating aircraft operator to retain a copy of the shipping paper, poses a new problem concerning the shipper's certification required by § 172.204. According to UPS, the current regulations for air, motor, and rail carriers allow for the shipper's certificate to be delivered to the originating operator. This provision continues in the regulations applicable to the surface modes that are proposed in this rulemaking. UPS states that “by proposing to delete the current sentence focused on the originating aircraft operator, RSPA has proposed to require that the certification be delivered to every and all air carriers involved in the movement of a specific shipment. This requirement has the potential to impose a significant burden on operators who rely on close partnerships with dedicated charter air carriers to extend their delivery networks and may use streamlined documentation to furnish the required hazardous materials information to those partner carriers.” UPS indicates a need for uniformity in application of the HMR for each mode. We agree that the application of the shipper's certification should be uniform as it applies to the modes. In this final rule, we revised § 175.30(a)(2) to indicate that the initial air carrier will receive the shipper's certification in accordance with provisions in § 172.204.
The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) requests clarification of the proposed language in § 176.24(a). TFI is concerned that “RSPA may have unintentionally narrowed the scope of exceptions to shipping paper requirements. Currently, this section references only the exceptions to shipping paper requirements specified in § 172.200(b). Section 173.315(m) also contains exceptions from shipping paper requirements under certain conditions. We strongly recommend that RSPA omit references to specific CFR sections and simply reference exceptions to shipping paper requirements in general.” We did not intend to eliminate the current exception from shipping paper requirements for hazardous materials shipped in accordance with § 173.315(m) or any other exceptions stated elsewhere in the HMR. In this final rule we have modified the language for clarity.
The American Trucking Associations suggest that the proposed revisions to § 177.817(a) relieve a motor carrier from the responsibility to carry a copy of the shipping paper with the shipment on the motor vehicle. We agree that the proposed language should be clarified, and have done so in this final rule. The American Trucking Associations further suggest that the proposed revisions to § 177.817(a) require a shipper's certification on all copies of the shipping paper instead of the initial carrier's copy. We disagree. Section 177.817(b) addresses a shipper certification on a shipping paper offered to an initial carrier. Paragraph (b) of § 177.817 is unchanged in this final rule.
Several commenters say that requiring shipping papers to be accessible at or through a central location or principal place of business, and to be “immediately available” upon request to authorized officials may cause problems. According to the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC; formerly the Hazardous Materials Advisory Council), “* * * production plants or other shipping points have the original signed documents. Copies, or electronic images thereof, can be transferred to a central location but not instantaneously as implied in the proposal.” DGAC suggested that the proposal be modified to require shipping papers to be “immediately available to shipping/origination points or available within 48 hours at a central location” in order to recognize a common industry practice of batch processing of documents for electronic transmission. Similarly, the Air Transport Association states that “* * * air carriers principal places of business must include all airport locations where the carrier operates, as carriers normally maintain shipping paper record files at the origin station. Requiring air carriers to maintain a storage or a data base for shipping papers at a headquarters office location would not appear feasible or desirable.” We disagree with the commenters. The proposal does not require duplicate sets of shipping records to be maintained at various locations. The proposal requires copies of shipping papers or electronic images of shipping papers to be immediately available at a company's principal place of business. With facsimile machines and email capabilities, companies can transmit copies of shipping papers from shipping locations to a principal place of business very quickly. A 48-hour period is not necessary to fax or email a copy of a shipping document. An authorized official will need to see a copy while he or she is on the premises conducting an inspection, not 48 hours later. The proposal is adopted in this final rule.
The Air Transport Association also expressed concern with the wording in the NPRM that allows retention of an “electronic image” of a shipping paper. According to the Air Transport Association, an image is not the same as an electronic record of the information on the shipping paper. The wording “electronic image” is taken directly from the Federal hazmat law. As we explained in the NPRM, an electronic image includes an image transmitted by a facsimile machine, an image on the screen of a computer, or an image generated by an optical imaging machine. The Air Transport Association's suggestion that we revise the proposal to permit retention of an electronic record of the information on the shipping paper is not consistent with the statutory requirement.
Two commenters note that the Administration's proposed legislation to re-authorize the hazardous materials transportation safety program requires retention of shipping papers for three years. Both commenters are opposed to the proposal in the re-authorization legislation. The bill is currently under consideration by the Congress. At such time as the legislation becomes law, we will address any revisions to the current shipping paper retention requirements.
This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule is not considered significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034).
This final rule implements a statutory requirement that has been in effect since 1994. We do not anticipate any additional costs on offerors and carriers of hazardous materials, and, preparation of a regulatory evaluation is not warranted.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). Federal hazardous materials transportation law preempts any State, local, or Indian tribe requirement on the preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous materials that is not substantively the same as this final rule, 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1)(B), but this final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)) preempting state, local, and Indian tribe requirements on certain covered subjects. Covered subjects are:
(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous materials;
(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous materials;
(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents;
(4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or
(5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material.
This final rule addresses covered subject item 3 above and preempts state, local, and Indian tribe requirements not meeting the “substantively the same” standard. This final rule is necessary to assure that the HMR requirements for retention of shipping papers are consistent with Federal hazardous materials transportation law.
Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at § 5125(b)(2) that, if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, DOT must determine and publish in the
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not have tribal implications, does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, and is required by statute, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule imposes no mandates and thus does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to an information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number. No new burdens are proposed under this final rule. RSPA has a current information collection approval under OMB No. 2137-0034, “Shipping Papers and Emergency Response Information” which includes the shipping paper retention requirement in the burden estimates.
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
This final rule does not affect packaging or hazard communication requirements for shipments of hazardous materials transported in commerce. We find that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with this final rule.
Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Labeling, Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive materials, Railroad safety.
Air Carriers, Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Maritime carriers, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Motor carriers, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
(e) Each person who provides the shipping paper must retain a copy of the shipping paper required by § 172.200(a), or an electronic image thereof, that is accessible at or through its principal place of business and must make the shipping paper immediately available, upon request, to an authorized official of a Federal, State, or local government
49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
(a) A person may not accept a hazardous material for transportation or transport a hazardous material by rail unless that person receives a shipping paper prepared in accordance with part 172 of this subchapter, unless the material is excepted from shipping paper requirements under this subchapter. Only an initial carrier within the United States must receive and retain a copy of the shipper's certification as required by § 172.204 of this subchapter. This section does not apply to a material that is excepted from shipping paper requirements by this subchapter.
(b) Each person receiving a shipping paper required by this section must retain a copy or an electronic image thereof, that is accessible at or through its principal place of business and must make the shipping paper immediately available, upon request, to an authorized official of a Federal, State, or local government agency at reasonable times and locations. For a hazardous waste, each shipping paper copy must be retained for three years after the material is accepted by the initial carrier. For all other hazardous materials, each shipping paper copy must be retained for 375 days after the material is accepted by the initial carrier. Each shipping paper copy must include the date of acceptance by the initial carrier. The date on the shipping paper may be the date a shipper notifies the rail carrier that a shipment is ready for transportation, as indicated on the waybill or bill of lading, as an alternative to the date the shipment is picked up, or accepted, by the carrier.
49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) Described and certified on a shipping paper prepared in duplicate in accordance with part 172 of this subchapter or as authorized by § 171.11 of this subchapter. Each person receiving a shipping paper required by this section must retain a copy or an electronic image thereof, that is accessible at or through its principal place of business and must make the shipping paper immediately available, upon request, to an authorized official of a federal, state, or local government agency at reasonable times and locations. For a hazardous waste, each shipping paper copy must be retained for three years after the material is accepted by the initial carrier. For all other hazardous materials, each shipping paper copy must be retained for 375 days after the material is accepted by the carrier. Each shipping paper copy must include the date of acceptance by the carrier. Only an initial carrier must receive and retain a copy of the shipper's certification as required by § 172.204 of this subchapter.
49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
(a) A person may not accept a hazardous material for transportation or transport a hazardous material by vessel unless that person has received a shipping paper prepared in accordance with part 172 of this subchapter, unless the material is excepted from shipping paper requirements under this subchapter.
(b) Each person receiving a shipping paper required by this section must retain a copy or an electronic image thereof, that is accessible at or through its principal place of business and must make the shipping paper immediately available, upon request, to an authorized official of a Federal, State, or local government agency at reasonable times and locations. For a hazardous waste, each shipping paper copy must be retained for three years after the material is accepted by the initial carrier. For all other hazardous materials, each shipping paper copy must be retained for 375 days after the material is accepted by the carrier. Each shipping paper copy must include the date of acceptance by the carrier.
49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
(a)
(f)
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to all SOCATA—Groupe AEROSPATIALE (Socata) Model TBM 700 airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to perform a test on the flight control system and adjust the control roll stop if jamming occurs during the test. This proposed AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for France. The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to prevent the flight control wheels from traveling beyond normal roll control limits, which could result in the control wheel becoming jammed. Such a condition could lead to reduced or loss of control of the airplane.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive any comments on this proposed rule on or before August 14, 2002.
Submit comments to FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-CE-15-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. You may view any comments at this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also send comments electronically to the following address:
You may get service information that applies to this proposed AD from SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE, Customer Support, Aerodrome Tarbes-Ossun-Lourdes, BP 930—F65009 Tarbes Cedex, France; telephone: 011 33 5 62 41 73 00; facsimile: 011 33 5 62 41 76 54; or the Product Support Manager, SOCATA—Groupe AEROSPATIALE, North Perry Airport, 7501 Pembroke Road, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023; telephone: (954) 893-1400; facsimile: (954) 964-4141. You may also view this information at the Rules Docket at the address above.
Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
The FAA invites comments on this proposed rule. You may submit whatever written data, views, or arguments you choose. You need to include the rule's docket number and submit your comments to the address specified under the caption
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. You may view all comments we receive before and after the closing date of the rule in the Rules Docket. We will file a report in the Rules Docket that summarizes each contact we have with the public that concerns the substantive parts of this proposed AD.
If you want FAA to acknowledge the receipt of your mailed comments, you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard, write “Comments to Docket No. 2002-CE-15-AD.” We will date stamp and mail the postcard back to you.
The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all Socata Model TBM 700 airplanes. The DGAC reports that, during a ground test of the flight control system on one of the affected airplanes, the pilot control wheel became jammed when performing dual actions (e.g., full up and full left) because the control wheel was turned beyond normal roll control travel limits. This was a result of a misadjustment of the roll control.
If this condition is not corrected, it could result in the flight control wheels traveling beyond normal roll control limits, which could result in the control wheel becoming jammed. This could lead to reduced or loss of control of the airplane.
Socata has issued Service Bulletin SB 70-095 27, dated November 2001.
The service bulletin includes procedures for:
The DGAC classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued French AD 2001-582(A), dated November 28, 2001, in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.
This airplane model is manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement.
Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept FAA informed of the situation described above.
The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC; reviewed all available information, including the service information referenced above; and determined that:
This proposed AD would require you to incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service bulletin.
The DGAC AD requires inspection, and, if necessary, adjustment prior to further flight after the effective date of the AD. We propose a requirement that you inspect, and, if necessary, adjust within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this proposed AD.
We do not have justification to require this action prior to further flight. We use compliance times such as this when we have identified an urgent safety of flight situation. We believe that 100 hours TIS will give the owners or operators of the affected airplanes enough time to have the proposed actions accomplished without compromising the safety of the airplanes.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 133 airplanes in the U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to accomplish the proposed initial inspection:
We estimate the following costs to accomplish any necessary modification that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need such modification:
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 proposed rule would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed action (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 has been placed 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, under 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. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD) to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Your alternative method of compliance provides an equivalent level of safety; and
(2) The Standards Office Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, approves your alternative. Submit your request through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Standards Office Manager.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in paragraph (a) of this AD, 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 you have not eliminated the unsafe condition, specific actions you propose to address it.
(f)
(g)
(h)
The subject of this AD is addressed in French AD 2001-582(A), dated November 28, 2001.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 8, 2002.
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 Boeing Model 757-200 series airplanes. This proposal would require repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking of certain areas of the forward and aft frames of the cargo doors and repair, if necessary. This action is necessary to find and fix such cracking, which could lead to rapid depressurization of the airplane and result in reduced structural integrity of the cargo doorway. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by August 26, 2002.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-192-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 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 Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2001-NM-192-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Dennis Stremick, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2776; fax (425) 227-1181.
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
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-192-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-192-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The FAA has received a report indicating that, during fatigue testing of the fuselage of a Boeing Model 757 series airplane, extensive cracking in the web and inner and outer chords of the number 1 and 2 cargo door frames was found. Subsequent to that testing, several reports were received from operators indicating cracking of the door frames on the number 1 and 2 cargo door frames on other Model 757 series airplanes. Cracking of the frame web was found on four of those airplanes. All of the cracking occurred at, or slightly outboard of, door stop number 6. Inner chord cracking ranged from 0.12 to 3.0 inches, and web cracking ranged from 0.40 inch to completely severed. The airplanes had accumulated between 22,199 and 27,528 flight cycles, and between 32,956 and 55,707 flight hours. Fatigue cracking of the cargo door frames, if not found and fixed, could lead to rapid depressurization of the airplane and result in reduced structural integrity of the cargo doorway.
This proposed AD is related to AD 86-17-05R1, amendment 5714 (52 FR 32534, August 28, 1987), which is applicable to certain Boeing Model 727 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of cargo door frames and repair, if necessary. That AD also provides a modification as terminating action for the forward frame of the number 3 cargo door.
This NPRM proposes similar actions for certain Boeing Model 757-200 series airplanes because the number 3 cargo door is very similar to the number 3 cargo door on Model 727 series airplanes.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0080, dated February 3, 2000, which describes procedures for repetitive detailed and high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the cargo door frames, and repair, if necessary. Group 1 and 2 airplanes described in the service bulletin have only number 1 and 2 cargo doors. Group 3 airplanes have an additional number 3 cargo door. The inspections include the frame webs, frame inner and outer chords, bear strap, and skin panels between the upper and lower sills of the cargo door. The service bulletin also describes procedures for detailed inspections for stringers 29R and 24R.
The service bulletin describes procedures for repair of cracking that is confined to the frame webs. The service bulletin specifies contacting Boeing for repair information if any cracking is found in one of the frame chords, the bear strap, or the skin panel adjacent to the cargo doorway, or if damaged areas are outside specified limits. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.
The compliance times specified in the tables in Section 1.E., Compliance, of the referenced service bulletin identify various inspection thresholds for doing the initial detailed and high frequency eddy current inspections, based on the number of flight cycles the airplane has accumulated (between 27,000 and 30,000). However, we have determined that the inspections required by this proposed AD must be done before the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of the AD, whichever is later. This determination is based on fleet data received from the manufacturer which show that fatigue cracking of the frames on the cargo door occurred on affected airplanes that have accumulated between 22,199 and 27,528 total flight cycles.
Although the service bulletin specifies that the manufacturer may be contacted for disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposed AD would require the repair of those conditions to be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the FAA to make such findings.
This is considered to be interim action. The manufacturer has advised that it currently is developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, the FAA may consider further rulemaking.
There are approximately 57 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 28 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
For all airplanes it would take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to do the proposed high frequency eddy current and detailed inspections, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspections proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,040, or $180 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
For Group 3 airplanes it would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to do the proposed additional detailed inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this proposed inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
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,
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by 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 (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To find and fix fatigue cracking of the cargo door frames, which could lead to rapid depressurization of the airplane and result in reduced structural integrity of the cargo doorway, accomplish the following:
(a) Before the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later: Do the applicable inspections specified in paragraph (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0080, dated February 3, 2000.
(1) For all airplanes: Do detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the door frames of the number 1 and 2 cargo doors (includes the frame webs, frame inner and outer chords, bear strap, and skin panels between the upper and lower sills of the cargo door). Repeat the detailed inspections every 3,000 flight cycles, and the HFEC inspections every 12,000 flight cycles.
(2) For Group 3 airplanes: Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the door frame of the number 3 cargo door. Repeat the inspection every 3,000 flight cycles.
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.”
(b) Before further flight, repair any cracking found in the frame webs per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0080, dated February 3, 2000. If any cracking is found in any other area and the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for disposition of those repairs, repair per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative (DER) who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a repair method to be approved, the approval must specifically reference this AD.
There is no terminating action currently available for the repetitive inspections required by this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle 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, Seattle ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
National Indian Gaming Commission.
Proposed rule withdrawal.
The National Indian Gaming Commission hereby gives notice that the proposed regulations establishing a formal process for the classification of games published in the
The proposed rule published on November 10, 1999, at 64 FR 61234 is withdrawn as of July 12, 2002.
Penny J. Coleman, Deputy General Counsel, NIGC, Suite 9100, 1441 L St. NW., Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 202-632-7003; and fax, 202-632-7066 (these are not toll-free numbers).
On October 17, 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701-21 (IGRA or Act), creating the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) and developing a comprehensive framework for the regulation of gaming on Indian lands. The Act establishes three classes of Indian gaming.
“Class I gaming” means social games played solely for prizes of minimal
“Class II gaming” means the game of chance commonly known as bingo, whether or not electronic, computer, or other technologic aids are used in connection therewith, including, if played in the same location, pull-tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars, instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo, and various card games, 25 U.S.C. 2703 (7)(A). Class II gaming, however, does not include any banking card games, electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance or slot machines of any kind, 25 U.S.C. 2703 (7)(B). Tribal governments and the NIGC share regulatory authority over Class II gaming without the involvement of state government.
Class III gaming, on the other hand, may be conducted lawfully only if the state in which the tribe is located and the tribe reach an agreement called a tribal-state compact. For a compact to be effective, the approval of the Secretary of the Interior of the compact terms must be obtained. “Class III gaming” includes all forms of gaming that do not constitute Class I or II gaming, 25 U.S.C. 2703 (8). Class III gaming thus includes all other games of chance, including most forms of casino-type gaming, such as slot machines, roulette and pari-mutuel wagering, and banking card games, such as blackjack.
Game classification is the key feature around which the legal and regulatory framework of tribal gaming is centered. Any doubts or confusion as to the proper classification of a game, therefore, will raise serious questions as to the legality of play of a particular game and may subject a gaming operation to an enforcement action. While Congress outlined the basic parameters for the classification of games, the Commission was left the task of defining certain key terms,
Notwithstanding the Commission's best efforts to produce clear, comprehensive definitions, issues in relation to the classification of games continued to emerge throughout the 1990's, resulting in a series of disputes between federal, state, and tribal government. Further complicating the situation, these disputes are not readily subject to judicial resolution because courts have generally recognized immunities among such sovereigns against suits by others,
The proposed rule represents the Commission's first attempt to confront these difficulties through the establishment of a formal process for the classification of games. In large measure this approach was in response to increases in the volume of disputes related to the classification of games. As this rulemaking effort got underway, decisions in the courts began to make it increasingly clear that some of the Commission's definitions were out of alignment with judicial interpretation of the Act. The definitions pertaining to games featuring the use of technological aids were particularly troublesome. Advances in technology had produced devices that in the view of the Commission blurred the distinction between simple technological aids and electromechanical facsimiles of games of chance, the earlier permissible without a compact, the latter unlawful without a compact. The analytical unanimity of the courts with regard to these cases impressed upon the Commission the need to reexamine its definitional regulations.
Early in 2001, the Commission undertook a thorough reexamination of its definitional regulations. Due to the interrelationship between the definitional rules and the proposed game classification procedural regulation, action on the proposed procedural rule was stayed pending a final determination with regard to the definitions. Having now issued a final rule amending the Commission's definitions for technological aids, electromechanical facsimile, and games similar to bingo, the Commission is now in a position to address the issue of procedure. 67 FR 41166, June 17, 2002.
Currently, there are three methods available to the Commission for addressing the classification of games. One is classification through formal notice and comment rulemaking. While such method produces certainty and finality, the process is slow, cumbersome, and insufficiently nimble to be practical for use on a routine basis. Another method is through the use of advisory opinions prepared and issued by the Commission's Office of General Counsel upon request by an interested party. To date, the Office General Counsel has issued more than thirty such opinions regarding the classification of individual games. These opinions, however, are merely advisory in nature and not the result of formal administrative processes. They are not, thus, entitled to the level of deference that must be accorded to final decisions of the Commission, though the courts have accorded them limited deference in certain circumstances.
The third method is through formal administrative enforcement action. These actions may be brought in instances where the Chairman determines that the games offered constitute Class III games and no compact is in place. While such administrative adjudications can provide reliable results, the process is cumbersome, time-consuming and resource-intensive for both the Commission and the affected party. A single enforcement action may be pending for many months or years before the administrative process produces a final agency determination, after which, the matter may be subject to another lengthy proceeding in the federal courts.
The Commission is of the view that none of the three methods presently available is ideal. As a matter of sound public policy as well as in the interest of fairness and due process, a regulated industry ought not to be forced to risk enforcement action in order to obtain a legally binding and judicially reviewable classification opinion from the Commission. Absent a fair, carefully thought-out procedure for classifying games, however, the Commission has no alternative but to follow the status quo, which has been unsatisfactory to all concerned.
The Commission's proposed rule establishing a classification procedure was severely criticized by tribal governments in written comments as well as in the testimony at the hearing on the proposal held January 24, 2000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The most vehement criticism was that the rule failed to recognize that the Commission shares responsibility for the regulation of Class
A second major criticism was that the rule was far too sweeping in that no game, even those games unquestionably falling within the Class II criteria, could be introduced for play without first receiving a classification decision from the Commission. Critics felt that given the large number of Class II games, the Commission would not be able to produce classification decisions in a reasonable or timely fashion. Many felt that the Commission's capacity to produce decisions under the rule would be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the workload. The Commission itself has concerns in this regard. Grandfathering those games in common play at the time of issuance was considered, but this approach also has its faults and the Commission has yet to discern a way of effecting a workable solution to the myriad of issues involved in resolving this difficulty.
Commenters raised a number of other significant questions, many of which possess great merit. The Commission is particularly sensitive to the concern that its workload capacity could be detrimentally affected. Indeed, classification decisions often present difficult technical issues and the process may be highly time intensive. In some cases, the expense may be substantial. On the other hand, the Commission recognizes that its lack of a uniform process for making gaming classification decisions fosters a climate of uncertainty, exacerbating disputes and increasing the likelihood of long, drawn out litigation.
The Commission recognizes that Congress intended a partnership between it and tribal gaming regulators. IGRA clearly anticipates that tribal and federal regulators must work collaboratively to insure the integrity of Indian gaming. The Commission believes that a middle ground can be found with regard to a formal mechanism for game classification; however, the current proposal does not satisfy this objective.
It is the Commission's view that the proposed rule would have more likely satisfied the concerns of all if there had been greater opportunity for tribal input during its development. The Commission has utilized collaborative processes in rulemaking for a number of years with favorable result. Given the joint system of tribal and federal regulation and the on-going relationship between tribal and federal regulators, the expertise and experience of tribal regulators would have greatly aided the Commission's effort to develop a proposal in better alignment with the concerns and needs of tribal governments and to assist in resolving the problems that remain outstanding. If, at a future time, the Commission reconsiders promulgation of a rule establishing a formal procedure for the classification of games, a tribal advisory committee should be established to advise the Commission as to the nature and content of such rule.
A proposed rule establishing a process for classification of games was published in the
Sixty-nine (69) comments were submitted in response to that publication. Comments were initially due on January 10, 2000. On December 27, 1999, the Commission issued a Notice of Extension of Time and Notice of Hearing. Written and oral testimony was submitted to the Commission at a public hearing on January 24, 2000, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Following the extension, comments were due February 24, 2000.
The National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that the proposed regulations establishing a formal process for the classification of games published in the
I respectfully dissent from the Commission's statement that attempts to bind a future Commission to establish a formal tribal advisory committee for the creation of a gaming classification rule. I believe strongly that tribal advisory committees are an effective way to obtain tribal input for rulemaking initiatives. Though I would prefer a mechanism that encourages even broader tribal participation in our rulemaking initiatives, I would encourage future Commissions to use tribal advisory committees in rulemaking initiatives. However, I believe that the current Commission simply lacks the power to bind future Commissions to a particular rulemaking process. Future Commissions are free to use the rulemaking approach that allows interested parties to participate in the process and that, ultimately, will produce the best rule under the circumstances.
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Bureau of Prisons proposes to revise its regulations on the management of infectious diseases. The changes address the circumstances under which the Bureau conducts voluntary and involuntary testing for HIV, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases. We intend this amendment to provide for the health and safety of staff and inmates.
Comments due by September 10, 2002.
Submit comments to: Rules Unit, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534.
Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.
The Bureau proposes to revise its regulations on the infectious disease management program (28 CFR, part 549, subpart A). These regulations were published in the
The Correction Officers Health and Safety Act of 1998 gave the Bureau new statutory authority for conducting HIV tests. Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has issued a variety of recommendations on prevention and control of HIV, Tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases. Consequently, the Bureau is proposing to revise its regulations in accordance with the new statutory authority and in consideration of CDC recommendations.
Currently, Bureau regulations on the management of infectious diseases provide for mandatory HIV testing of a yearly random sample, yearly new commitment sample, new commitment re-test sample, pre-release testing, and clinically indicated testing. Any inmate refusing an order for one of these mandatory HIV testing programs is subject to an incident report for refusing to obey an order. Current regulations do not allow for involuntary HIV testing of an inmate following any intentional or unintentional exposure, when there is a risk of transmission of HIV infection to Bureau employees or other persons in a Bureau institution.
The Correction Officers Health and Safety Act of 1998 provides that each individual convicted of a Federal offense who is sentenced to a period of six months or more is to be tested for HIV, if such individual is determined to be at risk for HIV infection in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Bureau. The act also provides for involuntary HIV testing following any intentional or unintentional exposure when there is a risk of transmission of HIV infection to Bureau employees or other persons in a Bureau institution. Because of this new statutory authority, the Bureau is proposing to amend its regulations to allow involuntary testing in those instances where an inmate refuses to be tested following any intentional or unintentional exposure. The inmate may also be subject to an incident report for refusing to obey an order.
The Bureau will continue to allow an inmate to request to be tested for HIV. Such testing is limited to no more than once per 12-month period, unless the Bureau determines that additional testing is warranted. The Bureau will also continue to provide pre- and post-test counseling, regardless of the test results.
The Bureau is also proposing to amend its regulations on infectious disease management to address testing requirements for tuberculosis (TB). The Bureau's general authority to protect and provide for the safekeeping and care of inmates in Bureau custody (18 U.S.C. 4042(a)) allows us to conduct medical tests as necessary to protect the health of the inmate population. Currently, testing of inmates for TB is conducted in accordance with the recommendations and guidelines published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in 1992. In response to the increased transmission of TB in correctional facilities, the CDC updated and expanded previously published recommendations for preventing and controlling TB in correctional facilities.
Based on these updated recommendations, the Bureau will screen each inmate for TB within two calendar days of initial incarceration. We intend to appropriately treat, isolate and/or protect inmates as a result of exposure in the two-day interim before testing. The Bureau will also conduct follow-up testing for each inmate annually. In addition, the Bureau will screen an inmate for TB when health services staff determine that the inmate may be at risk for infection. An inmate who refuses TB screening may be subject to an incident report for refusing to obey an order. If an inmate refuses PPD skin testing, and there is no contraindication to PPD skin testing, institution medical staff will educate and counsel the inmate regarding the need for such testing in an institutional setting (for example, the need to identify HIV+ inmates who have not received a course of prophylaxis and are at high risk for the development of active tuberculous disease). If an inmate still refuses PPD skin testing despite education and counseling, institution medical staff will test the inmate involuntarily. The intent of this amendment is to control TB among staff and inmates in correctional facilities.
To provide for the protection, safekeeping, and care of inmates in our custody (as required by 18 U.S.C. 4042(a)), we retain, revised for clarity, regulations on diagnostics (549.12(c)); Programming, Duty and Housing Restrictions (549.13); Confidentiality of Information (549.14); and Infectious Disease Training and Preventive Measures (549.15).
Finally, the Bureau is removing provisions in current § 549.13(c)(2) and (3) dealing with medical isolation and quarantining as these are governed by normal medical protocols and do not need to appear in the regulations. Removing these provisions from regulation and retaining them in Bureau policy allows us the flexibility to adhere to ever-changing medical standards and Federal medical guidelines.
Interested persons may participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting data, views, or arguments in writing to the Rules Unit, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., HOLC Room 754, Washington, DC 20534. Comments received during the comment period will be considered before final action is taken. Comments received after the expiration of the comment period will be considered to the extent practicable. All comments received remain on file for public inspection at the above address. The proposed rule may be changed in light of the comments received. No oral hearings are contemplated.
This rule has been reviewed as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule pertains to the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.
This 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 it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions
This rule is not a major rule as defined by § 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.
We try to write clearly. If you can suggest how to improve the clarity of these regulations, call or write Sarah Qureshi at the address listed above.
Prisoners.
Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, we amend 28 CFR part 549 as follows.
1. Revise the authority citation for 28 CFR part 549 to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4005, 4014, 4042, 4045, 4081, 4082, (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 4241-4247, 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984, as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.
2. Revise Subpart A to read as follows:
The Bureau will manage infectious diseases in the confined environment of a correctional setting through a comprehensive approach which includes testing, appropriate treatment, prevention, education, and infection control measures.
Each institution's Health Services Administrator (HSA) and Clinical Director (CD) are responsible for the operation of the institution's infectious disease program in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
(a)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(2) The Bureau conducts follow-up tests for each inmate annually.
(3) The Bureau will screen an inmate for TB when health services staff determine that the inmate may be at risk for infection.
(4) An inmate who refuses TB screening may be subject to an incident report for refusing to obey an order. If an inmate refuses PPD skin testing, and there is no contraindication to PPD skin testing, then, institution medical staff will test the inmate involuntarily.
(5) The Bureau conducts TB contact investigations following any incident in which inmates or staff may have been exposed to tuberculosis. Inmates will be tested according to paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(c)
(a) The CD will assess any inmate with an infectious disease for appropriateness for programming, duty, and housing. Inmates with infectious diseases, that are transmitted through casual contact, will be prohibited from employment in any area, until fully evaluated by a health care provider.
(b) Inmates may be limited in programming, duty, and housing assignments when their infectious disease is transmitted through casual contact. The Warden, in consultation with the CD, may exclude inmates, on a case-by-case basis, from work assignments based upon the security and good order of the institution.
(c) If an inmate tests positive for an infectious disease, that test alone does not constitute sole grounds for disciplinary action. Disciplinary action may be considered when coupled with a secondary action that could lead to transmission of an infectious agent. Inmates testing positive for infectious disease are subject to the same disciplinary policy that applies to all inmates (see 28 CFR part 541, subpart B). Except as provided for in our disciplinary policy, no special or separate housing units may be established for HIV-positive inmates.
Any disclosure of test results or medical information is made in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and the HHS Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Routine uses of such information maintained by the Bureau in its Privacy Act systems of records include the following:
(a) The HSA will ensure that each institution's respective state health department is informed of all cases of infectious diseases which are required by the state to be reported to the state health department.
(b) For all inmates being released from Bureau custody on parole, supervised
(c) If the inmate is being released to a halfway house, a copy of the USPO letter will be forwarded to the appropriate Community Corrections Manager (CCM). The CCM will notify the Director of the halfway house (if applicable).
(d) The HSA will notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of any inmate testing HIV positive or who is under treatment for
(a) The HSA will ensure that a qualified health care professional provides training, incorporating a question-and-answer session, about infectious diseases to all newly committed inmates, during Admission and Orientation.
(b) Inmates in work assignments which staff determine to present the potential for occupational exposure to blood or infectious body fluids will receive annual training on prevention of work-related exposures and will be offered vaccination for Hepatitis B.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule and request for comment.
The EPA is proposing to use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) in the evaluation of a delisting petition. Based on waste-specific information provided by the petitioner, EPA is proposing to use the DRAS to evaluate the impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment.
The EPA is also proposing to grant a petition submitted by Tokusen USA, Inc. (Tokusen) to exclude (or delist) a certain solid waste generated by its Conway, Arkansas, facility from the lists of hazardous wastes.
The Agency bases its proposed decision to grant the petition on an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner. This proposed decision, if finalized, would exclude the petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
If finalized, we would conclude that Tokusen's petitioned waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria and that the dewatered sludge generated from the on-site Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and not from a manufacturing process will substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of constituents from this waste. We would also conclude that their process minimizes short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned waste to human health and the environment.
We will accept comments until August 26, 2002. We will stamp comments received after the close of the comment period as late. These late comments may not be considered in formulating a final decision. Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by July 29, 2002. The request must contain the information prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d).
Please send three copies of your comments. You should send two copies to the Section Chief of the Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. You should send a third copy to Ali Dorobati, Hazardous Waste Division, Active Sites Branch, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), P.O. Box 8913, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72219-8913. Identify your comments at the top with this regulatory docket number: “F-02-ARDEL-TOKUSEN.”
You should address requests for a hearing to the Director, Carl Edlund, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.
Larry K. Landry (214) 665-8134.
The information in this section is organized as follows:
The EPA is proposing:
(1) to grant Tokusen's petition to have its dewatered WWTP sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste; and
(2) to use a fate and transport model to evaluate the potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment. The Agency would use this model to predict the concentration of hazardous constituents released from the petitioned waste, once it is disposed.
Tokusen's petition requests a delisting for an F006 listed hazardous waste. Tokusen does not believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it. Tokusen also believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. The EPA's review of this
Tokusen currently sends the petitioned waste to Envirite Corporation, a hazardous landfill in Harvey, Illinois. If the delisting exclusion is finalized, Tokusen intends to dispose of the petitioned waste, dewatered WWTP sludge, in a solid waste landfill in Little Rock, Arkansas called Waste Management Industrial Landfill.
RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires EPA to provide notice and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion until it addresses all timely public comments (including those at public hearings, if any) on this proposal.
RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 USCA 6930(b)(1), allows rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here, because this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes.
The EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately upon final publication because a six-month deadline is not necessary to achieve the purpose of section 3010(b), and a later effective date would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this petitioner. These reasons also provide good cause for making this rule effective immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting provisions would be affected. This would exclude two categories of States: States having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA requirements and their own requirements, and States who have received authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
Here are the details: We allow states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the State. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners to contact the State regulatory authority to establish the status of their wastes under the State law.
The EPA has also authorized some States (for example, Louisiana, Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA delisting program in place of the Federal program, that is, to make State delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized States unless that State makes the rule part of its authorized program. If Tokusen transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any State with delisting authorization, Tokusen must obtain delisting authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as nonhazardous in the State.
The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA. The EPA has amended this list several times and published it in §§ 261.31 and 261.32.
We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They typically and frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in subpart C of part 261 (that is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria for listing contained in §§ 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing description may not be hazardous.
For this reason, §§ 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that EPA should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating facility as a hazardous waste.
A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an authorized State to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes. The facility petitions the Agency because it does not consider the wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for which the waste was listed. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste are in part 261 and further explained in the background documents for the listed waste.
In addition, under § 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other than those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See part 261 and the background documents for the listed waste.)
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their waste remains nonhazardous based on the
Besides considering the criteria in § 260.22(a) and section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed wastes, EPA must consider any factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which we listed the waste if a reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
The EPA must also consider as hazardous waste mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or disposing of listed hazardous waste. See §§ 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the “mixture” and “derived-from” rules, respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).
On October 24, 2001, Tokusen petitioned the EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous waste contained in §§ 261.31 and 261.32, a dewatered WWTP sludge generated from the facility located in Conway, Arkansas. The waste falls under the classification of listed waste because of the “derived-from” rule in § 261.3. Specifically, in its petition, Tokusen requested that EPA grant an exclusion for 670 cubic yards of dewatered sludge resulting from its hazardous waste treatment process. The resulting waste is listed, in accordance with the “derived-from” rule.
The Tokusen facility is located in an industrial/commercial setting in the southern portion of the City of Conway, Faulkner County, Arkansas. The 47.25 acre Tokusen property contains a production facility measuring approximately 400,000 square feet in size. Plant process operations at the Tokusen facility are in support of a singular finished product, namely high carbon steel tire cord for use in radial tire manufacturing. The facility operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year with the exception of periodic planned shutdowns for routine maintenance.
The Tokusen facility manufactures steel cord used to produce steel belted radial tires. The steel cord is produced from steel rod which has been reduced in size and electroplated with copper and zinc to produce a brass coating. The plant generates four major types of waste and they are process wastewater, F006 dewatered WWTP sludge, sanitary sewage and other solid waste (rod wrappers, lube sludge, soap dust and other solids). The petitioned waste is generated from the wastewater treatment plant and not from the manufacturing process. The electroplating units which contribute wastewater to the WWTP are the copper and zinc electroplating baths. The waste code of the petitioned waste is EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. The constituents of concern for F006 are cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed).
To support its petition, Tokusen submitted:
(1) Historical information on past waste generation and management practices;
(2) Results of the total constituent list for 40 CFR Part 264 Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, metals, pesticides, herbicides, dioxins and PCBs;
(3) Results of the constituent list for Appendix IX on Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals;
(4) Analytical constituents of concern for F006;
(5) Results from total oil and grease analyses;
(6) Multiple pH testing for the petitioned waste.
The EPA believes that the descriptions of the Tokusen analytical characterization provide a reasonable basis to grant Tokusen's petition for an exclusion of the dewatered WWTP sludge. The EPA believes the data submitted in support of the petition show the dewatered WWTP sludge is non-hazardous. Analytical data for the dewatered WWTP sludge samples were used in the DRAS. The data summaries for detected constituents are presented in Table I. The EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by Tokusen and has determined they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting representative samples of the variations in constituent concentrations in the dewatered WWTP sludge. The data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in Tokusen's waste are presently below health-based levels used in the delisting decision-making. The EPA believes that Tokusen has successfully demonstrated that the dewatered WWTP sludge is non-hazardous.
For this delisting determination, EPA used such information gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water, surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the petitioned waste. The EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for Tokusen's petitioned waste. EPA applied the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR 58015 (September 27, 2000) and 65 FR 75637 (December 4, 2000), to predict the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste after disposal and determined the potential impact of the disposal of Tokusen's petitioned waste on human health and the environment. A copy of this software can be found on the world wide web at
The EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model represents a reasonable worst-case scenario for possible ground water contamination resulting from disposal of the petitioned waste in a landfill, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some reasonable worst-case scenarios resulted in conservative values for the compliance-point concentrations and ensures that the waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a significant threat to human health or the environment.
The DRAS also uses the maximum estimated waste volumes and the maximum reported total concentrations to predict possible risks associated with releases of waste constituents through surface pathways (e.g., volatilization or wind-blown particulate from the landfill). As in the above ground water analyses, the DRAS uses the risk level, the health-based data and standard risk assessment and exposure algorithms to predict maximum compliance-point concentrations of waste constituents at a hypothetical point of exposure. Using fate and transport equations, the DRAS uses the maximum compliance-point concentrations and back-calculates the maximum allowable waste constituent concentrations (or “delisting levels”).
In most cases, because a delisted waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste control, EPA is generally unable to predict, and does not presently control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after delisting. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate to consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and transport model. The EPA does control the type of unit where the waste is disposed. The waste must be disposed in the type of unit the fate and transport model evaluates.
The EPA also considers the applicability of ground water monitoring data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, Tokusen has never directly disposed of this material in a solid waste landfill, so no representative data exists. Therefore, EPA has determined that it would be unnecessary to request ground water monitoring data.
The EPA believes that the descriptions of Tokusen's hazardous waste process and analytical characterization provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the petitioned waste will be substantially reduced so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the environment are minimized.
The DRAS results which calculate the maximum allowable concentration of chemical constituents in the waste are presented in Table II. Based on the comparison of the DRAS results and maximum TCLP concentrations found in Table I, the petitioned waste should be delisted because no constituents of concern which tested, are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by products in Tokusen's waste. In addition, on the basis of explanations and analytical data provided by Tokusen, pursuant to § 260.22, the EPA concludes that the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See §§ 261.21, 261.22, and 261.23, respectively.
During the evaluation of Tokusen's petition, EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground water routes (i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne dispersion in particular, EPA believes that exposure to airborne contaminants from Tokusen's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, no appreciable air releases are likely from Tokusen's waste under any likely disposal conditions. The EPA evaluated the potential hazards resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous constituents released from Tokusen's waste in an open landfill. The results of this worst-case analysis indicated that there is no substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment from airborne exposure to constituents from Tokusen's dewatered WWTP sludge. A description of EPA's assessment of the potential impact of Tokusen's waste, regarding airborne dispersion of waste contaminants, is presented in the RCRA
The EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned waste via a surface water route. The EPA believes that containment structures at municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control surface water runoff, as the Subtitle D regulations (See 56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into surface waters. Furthermore, the concentrations of any hazardous constituents dissolved in the runoff will tend to be lower than the levels in the TCLP leachate analyses reported in this notice due to the aggressive acidic medium used for extraction in the TCLP. The EPA believes that, in general, leachate derived from the waste is unlikely to directly enter a surface water body without first traveling through the saturated subsurface where dilution and attenuation of hazardous constituents will also occur. Leachable concentrations provide a direct measure of solubility of a toxic constituent in water and are indicative of the fraction of the constituent that may be mobilized in surface water as well as ground water.
Based on the reasons discussed above, EPA believes that the contamination of surface water through runoff from the waste disposal area is very unlikely. Nevertheless, EPA evaluated the potential impacts on surface water if Tokusen's waste were released from a municipal solid waste landfill through runoff and erosion. See the RCRA public docket for this proposed rule for further information on the potential surface water impacts from runoff and erosion. The estimated levels of the hazardous constituents of concern in surface water would be well below health-based levels for human health, as well as below EPA Chronic Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms (USEPA, OWRS, 1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded that Tokusen's dewatered WWTP sludge is not a present or potential substantial hazard to human health and the environment via the surface water exposure pathway.
The descriptions of Tokusen's hazardous waste process and analytical characterization, with the proposed verification testing requirements (as discussed later in this notice), provide a reasonable basis for EPA to grant the exclusion. The data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in the waste are below the maximum allowable leachable concentrations (see Table II). We believe Tokusen's process will substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the petitioned waste. Tokusen's process also minimizes short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned waste to human health and the environment.
Thus, EPA believes we should grant Tokusen an exclusion for the dewatered WWTP sludge. The EPA believes the data submitted in support of the petition show Tokusen's process can render the dewatered WWTP sludge non-hazardous.
We have reviewed the sampling procedures used by Tokusen and have determined they satisfy EPA criteria for collecting representative samples of variable constituent concentrations in the dewatered WWTP sludge. The data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in Tokusen's waste are presently below the compliance point concentrations used in the delisting decision-making and would not pose a substantial hazard to the environment. The EPA believes that Tokusen has successfully demonstrated that the dewatered WWTP sludge is non-hazardous.
The EPA therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to Tokusen, in Conway, Arkansas, for the dewatered WWTP sludge described in its petition. The EPA's decision to exclude this waste is based on descriptions of the treatment activities associated with the petitioned waste and characterization of the dewatered WWTP sludge.
If we finalize the proposed rule, the Agency will no longer regulate the petitioned waste under parts 262 through 268 and the permitting standards of part 270.
The petitioner, Tokusen, must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, Table 1. The text below gives the rationale and details of those requirements.
(1)
The EPA selected the set of inorganic and organic constituents specified in Paragraph (1) of 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, Table 1, based on information in the petition. We compiled the inorganic and organic constituents list from the composition of the waste, descriptions of Tokusen's treatment process, previous test data provided for the waste, and the respective health-based levels used in delisting decision-making. These delisting levels correspond to the allowable levels measured in the TCLP extract of the waste.
(2)
(3)
The EPA believes that an initial period of 60 days is adequate for a facility to collect sufficient data to verify that the data provided for the dewatered WWTP sludge, in the 2001 petition, is representative.
If we determine that the data collected under this Paragraph do not support the data provided for the petition, the exclusion will not cover the generated wastes. If the data from the initial verification period demonstrate that the treatment process is effective, Tokusen may request quarterly testing. EPA will notify Tokusen, in writing, if and when they may replace the testing conditions in paragraph(3)(A)with the testing conditions in (3)(B).
(B)
The proposed subsequent testing would verify that Tokusen operates the manufacturing of steel cord as it did during the initial verification testing. It would also verify that the dewatered WWTP sludge do not exhibit
The EPA is proposing to require Tokusen to analyze representative samples of the dewatered WWTP sludge quarterly during the first year of waste generation. Tokusen would begin quarterly sampling on the anniversary date of the final exclusion as described in paragraph (3)(B).
(C)
If the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph 1, Tokusen must notify the Agency according to the requirements in paragraph 6. We will take the appropriate actions necessary to protect human health and the environment. The facility must provide sampling results that support the rationale that the delisting exclusion should not be withdrawn.
To confirm that the characteristics of the waste do not change significantly over time, Tokusen must continue to analyze a representative sample of the waste for organic constituents annually. If operating conditions change as described in paragraph (4); Tokusen must reinstate all testing in paragraph (1)(A). They must prove through a new demonstration that their waste meets the conditions of the exclusion. Tokusen must continue organic testing of the dewatered WWTP sludge for the exclusion of that waste.
(4)
(5)
If the proposed exclusion is made final, it will apply only to 670 cubic yards of dewatered WWTP sludge, generated annually at the Tokusen facility after successful verification testing.
We would require Tokusen to file a new delisting petition under any of the following circumstances:
(a) If they significantly alter the manufacturing process treatment system except as described in paragraph (4);
(b) If they use any new manufacturing or production process(es), or significantly change from the current process(es) described in their petition; or
(c) If they make any changes that could affect the composition or type of waste generated.
Tokusen must manage waste volumes greater than 670 cubic yards of dewatered WWTP sludge as hazardous until we grant a new exclusion.
When this exclusion becomes final, Tokusen's management of the wastes covered by this petition would be relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction. Tokusen must either treat, store, or dispose of the waste in an on-site facility. If not, Tokusen must ensure that it delivers the waste to an off-site storage, treatment, or disposal facility that has a State permit, license, or register to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.
(6)
This provision expressly requires Tokusen to report differing site conditions or assumptions used in the petition in addition to failure to meet the annual testing conditions within 10 days of discovery. If EPA discovers such information itself or from a third party, it can act on it as appropriate. The language being proposed is similar to those provisions found in RCRA regulations governing no-migration petitions at § 268.6.
The EPA believes that we have the authority under RCRA and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978)
The Agency believes a clear statement of its authority in delistings is merited in light of Agency experience. See Reynolds Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 and 62 FR 63458 where the delisted waste leached at greater concentrations in the environment than the concentrations predicted when conducting the TCLP, thus leading the Agency to repeal the delisting. If an immediate threat to human health and the environment presents itself, EPA will continue to address these situations case by case. Where necessary, EPA will make a good cause finding to justify emergency rulemaking.
(7)
If Tokusen violates the terms and conditions established in the exclusion, the Agency will start procedures to withdraw the exclusion. Where there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment, the Agency will evaluate the need for enforcement activities on a case-by-case basis. The Agency expects Tokusen to conduct the appropriate waste analysis and comply with the criteria explained above in Condition 1 of the exclusion.
The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. Please send three copies of your comments. Send two copies to Section Chief of the Delisting Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. Send a third copy to Ali Dorobati, Hazardous Waste Division, Active Sites Branch, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), P.O. Box 8913, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72219-8913 Identify your comments at the top with this
You should submit requests for a hearing to Carl Edlund, Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.
You may review the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule at the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. It is available for viewing in the EPA Freedom of Information Act Review Room from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page for additional copies.
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an “assessment of the potential costs and benefits” for all “significant” regulatory actions.
The proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant, since its effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thus enabling a facility to manage its waste as nonhazardous.
Because there is no additional impact from this proposed rule, this proposal would not be a significant regulation, and no cost/benefit assessment is required. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review under Section (6) of Executive Order 12866.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of the rule on small entities (that is, small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will not have any impact on a small entities.
This rule, if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact on small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs of EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be limited to one facility. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed regulation, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Information collection and record-keeping requirements associated with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
When such a statement is required for EPA rules, under section 205 of the UMRA EPA must identify and consider alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The EPA must select that alternative, unless the Administrator explains in the final rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.
Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
The EPA finds that this delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and does not impose any enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed delisting decision does not establish any regulatory requirements for small governments and so does not require a small government agency plan under UMRA section 203.
The Executive Order 13045 is entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This order applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
Because this action does not involve any requirements that affect Indian Tribes, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments.
If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation.
In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal governments to have “meaningful and timely input” in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
Under section 12(d) if the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, the Agency is directed to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires that Agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
This rule does not establish any new technical standards and thus, the Agency has no need to consider the use of voluntary consensus standards in developing this final rule.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that impose substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This action does not have federalism implication. It will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it affects only one facility.
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 1 of appendix IX of part 261 it is proposed to add the following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by High Mountain Broadcasting Corporation, licensee of station WVSX-TV, Lewisburg, West Virginia, proposing the substitution of DTV 8 for DTV channel 48 at Lewisburg. DTV Channel 8 can be allotted to Lewisburg at reference coordinates 37-46-22 N. and 80-42-25 W. with a power of 3.8, a height above average terrain HAAT of 568 meters.
Comments must be filed on or before August 26, 2002, and reply comments on or before September 10, 2002.
The Commission permits the electronic filing of all pleadings and comments in proceeding involving petitions for rule making (except in broadcast allotment proceedings).
Pam Blumenthal, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 02-178, adopted June 28, 2002, and released July 5, 2002. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via-e-mail
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Digital television broadcasting, Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under West Virginia is amended by removing DTV channel 48 and adding DTV channel 8 at Lewisburg.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document responds to a petition for rulemaking from General Motors Corporation concerning low-speed vehicles. A low-speed vehicle is defined as a four-wheeled vehicle, other than a truck, whose maximum speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour. The petitioner requested that the agency initiate rulemaking to amend the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for low-speed vehicles to require those vehicles to bear a label identifying safety hazards associated with the operation of low-speed vehicles in mixed traffic,
The agency is granting both requests. In this document, the agency is proposing to amend the standard to require low-speed vehicles to bear a warning label to ensure that drivers of those vehicles are alerted to the hazards associated with the operation of low-speed vehicles in mixed traffic. The agency is also proposing that low-speed vehicles be equipped with reflex reflectors or retroreflective conspicuity sheeting, a slow-moving vehicle emblem, and headlamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps that are illuminated while the low-speed vehicle is being operated to enhance their conspicuity.
You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than September 10, 2002.
You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System (DMS) Web site at
For technical and policy issues, you may call Richard Van Iderstine, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Visibility and Injury Prevention Division (Telephone: 202-366-2720, Fax: 202-493-2739).
For legal issues, you may call Dion Casey, Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992, Fax: 202-366-3820).
You may send mail to either of these officials at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
In the late 1990s, there was a growing public interest in using golf cars
However, the increased use of golf cars on public roads had resulted in several deaths and numerous serious injuries. By 1998, NHTSA estimated that there were an average of 3 deaths and 222 injuries per year as a result of on-road crashes involving golf cars.
In response, NHTSA published a final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, “Low-Speed Vehicles.” (63 FR 33193, June 17, 1998). A “low-speed vehicle” is defined as a four-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose maximum speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour. (49 CFR 571.3).
At the time of the final rule, NHTSA anticipated that sales of LSVs would grow, and, as a result, deaths and serious injuries resulting from crashes involving LSVs would occur.
NHTSA notes that in a September 1, 2000
The agency is not proposing any performance specifications in this document because of time considerations. As noted in the GM petition, some State ZEV mandates, including California's, will take effect this year, potentially causing a rapid increase in the number of LSVs operated on public roadways. In order to address this situation, the agency needed to propose a rule with requirements that could be implemented quickly and easily. The agency believes that the best way to do that is by requiring LSVs to be equipped with additional conspicuity features since such features can be added relatively quickly and easily. However, the agency is continuing to develop performance specifications for LSVs and remains committed to proposing such specifications in the future.
On January 9, 2002, the agency received a petition from General Motors Corporation (GM). GM requested that the agency amend Standard No. 500 to require all low-speed vehicles to be equipped with a label identifying safety hazards associated with the operation of low-speed vehicles in mixed traffic, and additional conspicuity features, such as paint color/markings or roof flags, to make low-speed vehicles more visible to other vehicles. GM also requested that the agency take the following steps related to the safety of LSVs:
(1) Notify state governmental agencies with responsibility for traffic safety of the potential risks associated with increased operation of LSVs on public roadways where they will potentially interact with conventional vehicles at substantial speeds and encourage those state agencies to consider appropriate measures to reduce the potential for harm.
(2) Monitor closely any increased usage of LSVs on public roads for the incidence of collisions and resulting injuries to determine if stronger measures should be incorporated in FMVSS 500 in the future to avoid any unreasonable risk to safety.
In support of its petition, GM noted that LSVs, with a top speed of 25 mph, move much more slowly than conventional motor vehicles.
GM also noted that in the 1998 final rule establishing Standard No. 500, NHTSA concluded that data available at that time did not support a requirement that LSVs meet the same safety requirements as conventional motor vehicles. The agency reasoned that the volume of LSVs was very small and that the natural market for LSVs seemed to be in places with controlled operating environments, such as gated or planned communities, typically built near golf courses. In addition, at that time the State of California, the largest likely market for LSVs, generally permitted LSVs on public roads only in localities that had adopted golf cart transportation plans, including separate golf cart lanes. At that time, only a few localities had done so.
In its petition, GM stated that circumstances have changed in two relevant ways since the final rule was issued:
First, the volume of NEVs [neighborhood electric vehicles] is growing substantially as a result of new regulations promulgated in several states. Specifically, NEVs qualify as zero emission vehicles [ZEVs] under state regulations that, if implemented, would mandate that vehicles with no tailpipe emissions be produced and sold as a condition to selling regular cars and trucks in the states that adopt the mandate. Known as the ZEV mandate, this requirement originated in California and is also under consideration in Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont. GM believes that the volume of NEVs in California alone will increase many fold from the current low levels—perhaps to as many as 50,000 units—by the end of 2002 and grown even higher beyond that. To the extent the Northeast states adopt and implement this mandate, the numbers will increase proportionately, even though these states have many fewer operating environments well suited to NEVs. In all four states, the growth in NEV volume will be far greater under the ZEV mandate than natural market forces would foster in the absence of these mandates.
Second, states that are likely to experience this proliferation of NEVs have not adopted the prudent restrictions that formerly limited LSVs to separated lanes on roads specifically designated for LSV use as part of specific, locally adopted golf cart transportation plans. In California, a state law enacted in 1999 (the year after NHTSA adopted the current rule) provides that LSVs may be operated on any roads with speed limits up to 35 mph, unless state or local regulators decide to impose tighter restrictions on specific roads.
GM claimed that these two new circumstances combine to create a sharply increased risk of injury for LSV occupants unless NHTSA adopts measures to mitigate the risk. GM admitted that it cannot precisely estimate the magnitude of the increased risk for two reasons: (1) because the LSV population is currently small, real world crash statistics involving LSVs are sparse; and (2) it is still too early to know the effect of the state law mandates on the number of LSVs sold. However, GM stated that “it is clear that a real basis for concern now exists and that the increased risk will be discernible unless effective measures are promptly taken.”
To mitigate the increased risk described above, GM requested that the agency amend Standard No. 500 to require all LSVs to be equipped with a label reading as follows:
GM also requested that the agency amend Standard No. 500 to require LSVs to be equipped with additional conspicuity features.
Finally, GM urged the agency to issue these amendments as soon as possible because thousands of additional LSVs could be purchased in the next year or two in at least four states. GM also requested that the agency implement a short phase-in period for these new requirements.
In the final rule establishing Standard No. 500, NHTSA made it clear that it has the authority to regulate anticipated as well as current safety problems. The agency stated:
NHTSA observes that its authority is preventive in nature. Congress has charged it with issuing standards to protect the public
The agency also made it clear that it intended to track any safety problems resulting from the use of LSVs and, if warranted, adjust the standard:
NHTSA will monitor the safety record of LSVs as the use of those vehicles increases. The agency will also consider whether Standard No. 500 meets the anticipated safety needs of LSV users.
NHTSA believes that it is reasonable to anticipate deaths and injuries resulting from crashes involving LSVs for the following reasons. First, as noted in the GM petition, more States are permitting the operation of LSVs. Second, as explained below, most of these States are not limiting LSV operation to controlled environments or to separate, marked traffic lanes. Instead, they are permitting the operation of LSVs on public roads with speed limits up to 35 mph. Thus, LSVs will be operated in a mixed traffic environment, with much heavier, faster, and aggressive conventional motor vehicles. Third, LSVs offer less crash protection than conventional motor vehicles.
NHTSA does not have any current national sales figures for LSVs. However, Global Electric Motorcars (GEM), the largest U.S. LSV manufacturer, produced more than 5,000 LSVs in 2000.
In the 1998 final rule, the agency estimated that there were an average of 3 deaths and 222 injuries per year as a result of on-road crashes involving golf cars.
At the time of the final rule, NHTSA anticipated that sales of LSVs would grow, and, as a result, deaths and serious injuries resulting from crashes involving LSVs would occur. As noted above, the agency does not have any information on the number of deaths and fatalities from crashes involving LSVs since 1998. The agency requests comment on this issue.
NHTSA observed in the final rule that it does not have the authority to prescribe the conditions under which LSVs are operated on the public roads; this is the prerogative of State and local jurisdictions. As noted in the GM petition, the State ZEV mandates that have been enacted since the final rule was published probably will substantially increase the sales of LSVs. The agency's review of State laws also indicates that, since the final rule was published, fifteen additional States have enacted laws allowing operation of LSVs on public roads.
In promulgating the final rule establishing Standard No. 500, NHTSA encouraged the States to limit the operation of LSVs to controlled environments, such as gated communities, or, if the States permitted the operation of LSVs on public roads with conventional vehicles, would require LSVs to be operated only in separate, designated lanes. The agency stated:
The driving environment should be appropriate to the vehicle and its characteristics. Limitation of LSV use to low-speed city and suburban streets is necessary, but [does] not eliminate the safety risks.
The City of Palm Desert permits on-road use of golf cars in the same lanes as passenger cars and other larger motor vehicles in speed zones posted for speeds up to 25 miles per hour. In speed zones posted for speeds over 25 miles per hour, golf cars may be operated on-road only if there is a lane designated for their use and if the golf car is, in fact, operated within that lane.
NHTSA recognizes that not all operating environments may be as controlled as that of the City of Palm Desert. The agency encourages other states and municipalities to study the features of the City of Palm Desert's plan, and to adopt those features to the extent practicable.
Based on the above table, the agency notes that the States have not adopted requirements limiting the operation of LSVs to controlled environments. On the contrary, the States seem to be expanding the environment in which they are permitting the operation of LSVs. For example, at the time of the 1998 final rule, California, Iowa, and Nevada permitted LSVs to be operated only on public and private roadways designated by local government. However, in 1999, California enacted a law permitting LSVs to be operated on
Moreover, many States permit LSVs to cross roadways with a posted speed limit greater than 35 mph. For example, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Oklahoma permit LSVs to cross roadways with a posted speed limit in excess of 35 mph. Kansas permits LSVs to cross roadways with a posted speed limit in excess of 40 mph.
As noted in the 1998 final rule, the operation of LSVs in an environment with heavier, faster moving vehicles raises obvious safety concerns. Because LSVs are much lighter than conventional vehicles and are not subject to the same Federal motor vehicle safety standards, they are less crashworthy than conventional vehicles. Thus, LSV drivers, especially those unused to the limited acceleration capabilities of LSVs, and passengers will be exposed to a greater risk of injury or death when operating an LSV on roadways with a posted speed limit of 35 mph, or when attempting to cross a roadway with a posted speed limit greater than 35 mph.
Accordingly, the agency anticipates that the increase in the number of States that permit LSVs to operate in mixed vehicular traffic on roadways with a posted speed limit of 35-40 mph or less, and that permit LSVs to cross roadways with a posted speed limit greater than 35-40 mph, may result in more crashes involving LSVs and conventional vehicles.
As noted above, the agency does not have any data on the number of crashes involving LSVs and conventional vehicles. However, the agency notes that LSVs typically weigh from 1,100 to 1,400 pounds, while conventional light vehicles can weigh anywhere from 2,000 to 10,000 pounds. Thus, in a crash between an LSV and a conventional vehicle, the driver of the LSV would be exposed to a greater risk of injury or death.
In the final rule establishing Standard No. 500, the agency noted that LSVs must be able to avoid crashes. The agency stated:
In the mixed motoring environment that will result when LSVs are introduced, crash avoidance will become all the more important. The small LSV must be easily detectable by drivers of larger vehicles.
Thus, NHTSA determined that the key to minimizing crashes between LSVs and conventional vehicles was enhanced conspicuity of LSVs. The agency described several suggestions to enhance the conspicuity of LSVs made by commenters on the NPRM. One commenter suggested that the agency require LSVs to be equipped with a high-intensity flashing yellow lamp on the rear or top of the LSV. Another recommended that a retroreflective orange triangle be applied to the front and rear of LSVs. However, because the agency hoped that the States would permit the operation of LSVs only in controlled environments,
The agency also believed that drivers of LSVs should be aware of the risks associated with operating an LSV in mixed traffic. The agency stated:
With respect to the operator, the safety goal is that the driver be familiar with the operating characteristics of the LSV so that he or she may drive appropriately to minimize the possibility of rollover, or hitting a pedestrian or other vehicle.
Since the States are permitting more widespread operation of LSVs than NHTSA originally hoped, the agency now believes that a warning label and additional conspicuity requirements may be necessary. Accordingly, the agency is proposing to amend Standard No. 500 to require LSVs to be equipped with a warning label and the following additional conspicuity features: either additional reflex reflectors on the sides and rear of the vehicle, as required for passenger cars by Standard No. 108, “Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,” or retroreflective conspicuity sheeting on the sides and rear of the vehicle, as required by S5.7.1.4.1(a) and S5.7.1.4.2 of Standard No. 108; a slow moving vehicle emblem; and headlamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps that are illuminated while the LSV is being operated.
LSVs would have to be equipped with a warning label that reads as follows:
The warning label would have to be permanently affixed in a location that is inside the vehicle and is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. The text area of the label would be no less than 175 cm
The agency notes that the use of yellow with the word “warning” would disagree with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. ANSI standards specify that when the word “warning” is used in the heading, the background color should be orange. However, in issuing a 1996 final rule requiring new warning labels for vehicles with air bags,
Yellow was the overwhelming color preference of the participants in the focus groups. Only two of the 53 participants preferred orange. Participants generally stated that yellow was more eye-catching than orange. Participants also noted that red (stop) and yellow (caution) had meaning to them, but not orange.
The agency also notes that several States require LSVs to be equipped with a notice conveying the operational restrictions of LSVs or the potential risks of driving LSVs to the driver. For example, Arizona and Hawaii require LSVs to have a notice of the operational restrictions applying to the vehicle permanently attached to or painted on the vehicle in a location that is in clear view of the driver.
NHTSA realizes that in these States, the warning label proposed in this document might partially duplicate the State-required notices. However, the agency believes that the proposed warning label would complement the State-required notices to inform LSV drivers both of the operational limitations of LSVs and the risks associated with driving LSVs in mixed traffic. To facilitate compliance with both the Federal and State warning label requirements, NHTSA is proposing to allow the proposed warning label to be combined with similar State-required labels. The agency requests comments from State agencies on these issues.
LSVs would have to be equipped with either reflex reflectors or retroreflective sheeting. If the LSV is equipped with reflex reflectors, the reflex reflectors would have to comply with Table III and Table IV of Standard No. 108 for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. This would require LSVs to be equipped with four red and two amber reflex reflectors. The reflex reflectors would have to be mounted at a height above the road surface of not less than 15 inches, nor more than 60 inches, and be located as follows: two red reflectors on the rear of the LSV, one on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable; one red reflector on each side of the LSV, as far to the rear as practicable; and one amber on each side of the LSV, as far to the front as practicable.
If the LSV is equipped with retroreflective sheeting, the retroreflective sheeting would have to comply with the requirements of
The retroreflective sheeting would have to be applied to the sides of LSVs as specified in S5.7.1.4.2 of Standard No. 108 for the side of trailers. This would require a strip of retroreflective sheeting, as horizontal as practicable, to be applied to each side of the LSV. The strip would have to originate and terminate as close as possible to the front and rear of the LSV as practicable. The strip would not have to be continuous as long as not less than half the length of the LSV was covered, and the spaces were distributed as evenly as possible.
The retroreflective sheeting also would have to be applied to the rear of LSVs as specified in S5.7.1.4.1(a) of Standard No. 108 for the rear of trailers. This would require a strip of retroreflective sheeting, as horizontal as practicable, to be applied across the full width of the rear of the LSV. The strip would have to originate and terminate as close to the extreme edges of the LSV as practicable. The strip would have to be located as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1565 mm above the road surface.
Following are drawings of an LSV with reflex reflectors and of an LSV with retroreflective sheeting.
NHTSA believes that the proposed requirements, if adopted, would significantly enhance the visibility of LSVs, from both the side and rear views, at night.
The agency notes that consumers may have an adverse reaction to retroreflective sheeting on the side of LSVs. However, the strip of retroreflective sheeting would have to cover only the rear of the vehicle and half the length of the vehicle. In addition, the agency is proposing to allow LSV manufacturers to use reflex reflectors instead of retroreflective sheeting. These reflectors might be more aesthetically pleasing than sheeting to drivers. Comments are invited on this issue.
LSVs also would have to be equipped with a slow moving vehicle emblem on the rear of the LSV. The slow moving vehicle emblem would have to comply with the emblem maintained by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ANSI/ASAE S276.5 MAY98, Slow-Moving Vehicle Identification Emblem), and would have to be mounted in accordance with ASAE requirements.
Following is a picture of the slow moving vehicle emblem with its dimensions.
The ASAE slow moving vehicle emblem is a fluorescent orange, equilateral triangle with a red retroreflective border. The ASAE standard specifies that the emblem is mounted with the point of the triangle upward in a plane perpendicular to the direction of travel and ± 20 degrees from the vertical. The emblem is displayed as near to the rear and centered, or as near to the left of center of the vehicle or equipment, as practical. It is located 0.6 to 3 meters (2 to 10 feet) above the ground measured from the lower edge of the emblem. The emblem is “securely and rigidly affixed to the equipment.”
NHTSA notes that several States, including Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia, currently require LSVs to be equipped with a slow moving vehicle emblem. However, most of these States require the emblem to conform to the ASAE standard as to specifications and mounting. The slow moving vehicle emblem proposed in this document would be consistent with those States' requirements.
Some States require that the emblem conform to different specifications. For example, Hawaii requires the emblem to be mounted at a height of 3 to 5 feet above the ground, and New Mexico requires the emblem to be mounted at a height of 2 to 5 feet above the ground. NHTSA notes that the ASAE height specification (2 to 10 feet above the ground) the agency is proposing to require would mesh with these State requirements. However, the agency invites comment on this issue.
LSVs also would have to be equipped with side marker lamps as specified in Table III and Table IV of Standard No. 108 for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. This would require LSVs to be equipped with 2 red and 2 amber side marker lamps. The side marker lamps would have to be mounted at a height above the road surface of not less than 15 inches, and be located as follows: one red on each side of the LSV, as far to the rear as practicable; and one amber on each side of the LSV, as far to the front as practicable.
The agency believes that the addition of side marker lamps would significantly enhance the visibility of LSVs, from the side view, at night.
An LSV's headlamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps also would have to be illuminated at all times while the LSV is being operated. Thus, when an LSV's ignition is activated, or the switch or device that provides power from the propulsion batteries to the propulsion motor(s) is in the activated or the ready-to-drive position, its headlamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps would have to illuminate automatically and remain illuminated.
The agency believes that requiring LSV headlamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps to be illuminated while the LSV is being operated would significantly enhance the conspicuity of LSVs from the front and rear during the daytime and twilight hours. While the agency has no data on the effectiveness of requiring headlamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps to be illuminated during vehicle operation, a June 2000 NHTSA report on the effectiveness of daytime running lamps (DRLs) indicated that passenger cars with DRLs were involved in 7 percent fewer non-fatal, two-vehicle crashes, and 28 percent fewer pedestrian fatalities.
The agency also notes that many LSVs operate on battery power, and that the
NHTSA requests comment on the impact of this proposed requirement on the conspicuity of LSVs, the maximum range of battery-powered LSVs, and the safety consequences of reduced battery power.
Finally, GM requested that the agency: (1) notify State agencies of the potential risks associated with the increased operation of LSVs on public roads and encourage those State agencies to consider appropriate measures to reduce the potential for harm; and (2) monitor any increased usage of LSVs on public roads for the incidence of collisions and resulting injuries to determine if stronger measures should be incorporated in Standard No. 500.
NHTSA believes these recommendations have merit. With so many States permitting LSVs to be operated on public roads, we agree that it would be worthwhile for the agency to emphasize its concerns to those State agencies about the risks associated with the operation of LSVs on public roads. As to monitoring LSV usage on public roads and fatalities and injuries as a result of crashes involving LSVs, we will consult with the state agencies on this matter.
As such, the agency believes that States should consider monitoring LSV usage on public roads and fatalities and injuries that result from crashes involving LSVs. The agency invites comment on how that monitoring should be done, both on a State and a national level, consistently and effectively. The agency also invites comment on the best way to consult with the States on this issue.
The agency requests answers to the following questions on the additional conspicuity requirements and warning label proposed in this document. Specifically:
1. Would these conspicuity features be appropriate and effective during the day? At night?
2. Should the agency require conspicuity features in addition to those being proposed?
3. What would the cost be of the proposed features? Of any additional features?
4. How can the agency increase conspicuity while maintaining consumer acceptance?
5. Should additional language or issues (
6. Where should the label be located on the LSV? Should the agency specify that the label must be visible to a normally seated driver using the occupant restraints? Should it specify that the location of the label in relation to the H-point of the driver's seat, as the agency has done with respect to the location of the telltale for the air bag on-off switch?
7. What color(s) should the label be?
8. What size should the label be? What size should the font be?
9. Should the label be required to be permanent?
10. What would the cost be of adding this warning label?
11. What steps can the agency take to mesh its proposed warning label and slow moving vehicle emblem with existing State requirements for warning labels and slow moving vehicle emblems?
12. What steps should the agency and States take to address the risks associated with the operation of LSVs in mixed traffic and to monitor crashes involving LSVs?
13. How would the proposed requirement that LSVs have their headlamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps illuminated at all times while the LSV is being operated impact LSVs that operate on battery power?
Please be as specific as possible in your answers to these questions and provide supporting data.
NHTSA is proposing to require these additional features, except for the side marker lamps, for LSVs manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 for the following reasons.
The ZEV mandate discussed above will take effect in California September 1, 2002. Thus, the agency anticipates that a high volume of LSVs could be sold and operating on the public roads later this year. The agency believes the safety of the drivers of these LSVs would be enhanced by requiring these LSVs to be equipped with the conspicuity features proposed in this document.
The agency also believes that LSV manufacturers and/or dealers would need little time to procure and install most of the items the agency is proposing to require because they are readily available and easily installed.
The agency notes that while the warning label is not readily available, it should not be difficult for LSV manufacturers and dealers to procure such a label when the content of the warning is already known. Warning labels also are easily installed. They typically have an adhesive backing and can be added as the LSV is assembled or some time after.
NHTSA also notes that the lights-on requirement would necessitate an additional relay that can be added after the LSV is assembled, by either the manufacturer or dealer. Instructions from the LSV manufacturer would simplify this process, especially if the manufacturer were to make available to LSV dealers a kit that would suffice until all LSVs were manufacturer with a standard lights-on feature.
The agency is proposing to require side marker lamps be installed on LSVs manufactured on or after September 1, 2003. The agency is proposing an additional year of lead time for this feature because the installation of side marker lamps requires a wiring harness change and possibly a higher current capable lighting switch/relay. Thus, the agency believes an extra year of lead time is appropriate for this feature.
NHTSA estimates that the cost of equipping an LSV with the proposed warning label would be from $0.08 to $0.13 per vehicle.
NHTSA estimates that the cost of equipping an LSV with the proposed slow moving vehicle emblem, including installation and overhead costs, would be $7.00 per vehicle.
NHTSA is proposing to require LSV manufacturers to equip LSVs with either three additional reflex reflectors (an additional one on each side and the rear of the vehicle) or retroreflective sheeting on the sides and rear of the vehicle. The retail cost of reflex reflectors is about $1.00. Thus, if LSV manufacturers choose to comply by equipping LSVs with additional reflex reflectors, the agency estimates that the cost, including installation and overhead costs, would be $3.00 per vehicle.
The average current price of 50 mm-wide retroreflective sheeting is $2.54 per meter. The average LSV is about 3 meters long and 1.42 meters wide. However, the agency is proposing to require that the retroreflective sheeting cover only half of the length of the sides of LSVs. Thus, the average LSV would require 4.42 meters of 50 mm-wide retroreflective sheeting, at a cost of $11.23. The agency estimates that the labor cost would be $3.30 per vehicle.
The agency notes that in a 1992 NHTSA rulemaking to require that trailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds be equipped with either retroreflective sheeting or reflectors,
The agency estimates that the cost of equipping an LSV with side marker lamps would be $28.30 per vehicle.
The agency has been unable to estimate the cost of requiring LSVs to have their headlamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps illuminated while the LSV is being operated. The agency notes that many LSVs operate on batteries, and requiring LSVs to have their headlamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps illuminated at all times while the LSV is being operated would have some impact on the battery power. However, the agency has not been able to quantify that impact or the cost of that impact. The agency invites comment on this issue.
Based on the cost estimates above, the total cost of this proposal would be from $38.38 to $53.89 per vehicle, depending on whether LSV manufacturers choose to comply with reflex reflectors or retroreflective sheeting.
NHTSA has not attempted to quantify the safety benefits of these proposals. The agency invites comment on this issue.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This regulatory action would require additional conspicuity features and a warning label on LSVs. If this proposal is adopted, the agency estimates that the cost of these additions would be from $38.38 to $53.89 per vehicle, depending on whether LSV manufacturers choose to comply with reflex reflectors or retroreflective sheeting. The agency does not know how many LSVs are manufactured each year. However, according to its petition, GM believes that the volume of LSVs could grow to 50,000 units per year by the end of 2002. Using the 50,000 figure, the total cost of this rulemaking would be from $1.9 million to $2.7 million.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
NHTSA has considered the effect of this proposed rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As noted above, this proposed rule would require additional conspicuity features and a warning label on LSVs. The agency does not believe that there are a significant number of small businesses that manufacture LSVs in the U.S. market. The agency knows of six LSV manufacturers. Three of them are aligned with large companies, and one is a foreign manufacturer, leaving only 2 small LSV manufacturers in the U.S.
Based on this analysis, I certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this proposed rule would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
The agency has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and has determined that it would have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. If adopted, the proposal would preempt State laws requiring slow moving vehicle emblems, other than the emblem specified by the ASAE, to be mounted on LSVs in accordance with requirements different from those specified by the ASAE. The proposal would also impact state requirements for warning labels on LSVs. Accordingly, the agency contacted the AAMVA, and officials from Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia prior to issuing this proposed rule.
This proposed amendment would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 33118, whenever a Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard is in effect, a State or political subdivision of a State may not adopt or maintain a different theft prevention standard for a motor vehicle or replacement part. 49 U.S.C. 32909 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This proposed rule does not have any requirements that would be considered information collection requirements as defined by OMB in 5 CFR part 1320.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
The agency is proposing to use the following standard from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers: ANSI/ASAE S276.5 MAY98, Slow-Moving Vehicle Identification Emblem.
The agency also notes that, in March 2002, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) adopted a standard on LSVs.
NHTSA is proposing to require that the reflex reflectors be mounted at a height above the road surface of not less than 15 inches and not more than 60 inches, and be located as follows: Two amber, mounted (one on each side) as far forward as practicable; two red, mounted (one on each side) as far rearward as practicable; and two red mounted on the rear, one on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable.
Thus, NHTSA's proposal differs from the SAE standard in one minor way: The SAE standard specifies a different color (yellow) than the agency's proposal (amber) for the two reflectors mounted on the side of the LSV as far forward as practicable. NHTSA is not proposing to adopt yellow as the color for these reflectors for the following reasons. First, the agency wants these LSV requirements to be consistent with the requirements for other light vehicles. Standard No. 108 requires reflex reflectors for other light vehicles to be amber (or red), not yellow. Second, Standard No. 108 refers to SAE standard J594f (January 1977) for the color of reflex reflectors. That SAE standard refers to SAE standard J578, “Color Specifications for Electric Signal Lighting Devices,” which uses “amber” and “yellow” interchangeably. Finally, the SAE standard for LSVs does not define “yellow.”
The SAE standard also contains optional specifications for side marker lamps. If side marker lamps are provided, the SAE standard specifies that they are to be mounted at a height above the road surface of not less than 15 inches and not more than 60 inches, and be located as follows: One yellow on each side of the LSV, as far forward as practicable; and one red on each side of the LSV, as far rearward as practicable.
NHTSA is proposing to require that side marker lamps be mounted at a height above the road surface of not less than 15 inches, and be located as follows: One amber on each side of the LSV, as far forward as practicable; and one red on each side of the LSV, as far rearward as practicable.
Thus, the agency's proposal differs from the SAE standard in two minor ways: The SAE standard contains a maximum height specification (60 inches above the road surface), and the agency's proposal does not; and the SAE standard specifies a different color (yellow) for the side marker lamps located as far forward as practicable than the agency's proposal (amber). NHTSA is not proposing a maximum height specification for side marker lamps because it is unnecessary. Reflex reflectors are required to be mounted between 15 and 60 inches above the road surface because they reflect light
Finally, the SAE standard specifies that LSVs be equipped with several safety warnings/signs. The SAE standard specifies that safety signs be permanently affixed to the vehicle, be visible to the operator, and convey the following information:
To avoid the risk of severe personal injury or death:
a. Only operate at maximum speed when on smooth, flat, non-congested roadways or paved pathways.
b. Do not operate the vehicle until all occupants are seated and seat belts are fastened (if so equipped).
c. Drive slowly in turns and when descending grades.
d. Set parking brake before leaving vehicle.
e. Place vehicle control in “Neutral/Park”, if so equipped, and remove the ignition key when not in use.
f. Do not operate under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.
NHTSA is proposing to require that the warning label be permanently affixed in a location that is inside the vehicle and is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. The warning label would have to convey the following information:
a. An LSV has less safety equipment than conventional motor vehicles;.
b. The operator and passengers have a higher risk of crash, serious injury, or death when the LSV is operated on roads with conventional motor vehicles or on roads where the posted speed limit exceeds 25 mph;
c. LSV operators and passengers should always wear safety belts.
The agency believes that the warning label proposed in this document addresses the safety problem discussed in this document,
The agency will consider any other relevant voluntary standards should they become available.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
If adopted, this proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually.
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this NPRM.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (
2. On that page, click on “search.”
3. On the next page (
4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, the agency recommends that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is proposing to amend part 571 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as follows:
39 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.500 would be amended by revising paragraph S5(b) introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(3), and (b)(5), and adding paragraphs S5(b)(11), (b)(12), and (b)(13) to read as follows:
S5. Requirements.
(b) Each low-speed vehicle must be equipped with:
(1) Headlamps that are illuminated when the ignition is activated, or the switch or device that provides power from the propulsion batteries to the propulsion motor(s) is in the activated or the ready-to-drive position,
(3) Taillamps that are illuminated when the ignition is activated, or the switch or device that provides power from the propulsion batteries to the propulsion motor(s) is in the activated or the ready-to-drive position,
(5)(i) Reflex reflectors as specified in Table III of Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, and mounted as specified in Table IV of Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), or
(ii) Retroreflective sheeting as specified in S5.7.1.1 through S5.7.1.3 of Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), located as specified in S5.7.1.4.1(a) of Standard No. 108 for the rear of trailers, and S5.7.1.4.2 of Standard No. 108 for the side of trailers,
(11) An emblem that complies with ANSI/ASAE S276.5 MAY98, Slow-Moving Vehicle Identification Emblem (American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2950 Niles Rd., St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659, USA ph. 616-429-0300, fax 616-429-3852,
(12) For LSVs manufactured on or after September 1, 2003, side marker lamps as specified in Table III of Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, that are:
(i) Mounted as specified in Table IV of Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), and
(ii) Illuminated when the ignition is activated, or the switch or device that provides power from the propulsion batteries to the propulsion motor(s) is in the activated or the ready-to-drive position, and
(13) A warning label that meets the following requirements—
(i) The label must be permanently affixed to a location that is inside the vehicle and is clearly visible from the driver's seating position.
(ii) The text area of the label must be not less than 175 cm
(iii) The header and footer areas must be yellow with black text, and the message area must be white with black text.
(iv) The font of the text in the header and footer areas must be not less than 6.25 mm (
(v) The label may be combined with a similar State-required warning label. On combined labels, the text specified in this section must be separated from the State-required text by a line.
(vi) The warning label must read as shown in Figure 1:
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this Notice announces the intention of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to request approval for information collection necessary to allow USDA's County Based Agency (CBA) customers to securely and confidently share data and receive services electronically. Authority for obtaining information from users is included in the Freedom to E-File Act, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, and Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (“E-SIGN”). This voluntary registration process will enable customers as well as CBA employees to register as authorized users and provide single sign-on capability for CBA on-line applications. The objectives of the registration process are to employ standardized methods for verifying the identity of CBA customers/partners and managing their credentials in support of electronic alternatives to traditional ink signatures and non-repudiation.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before September 10, 2002 to be assured consideration.
Brent Trout, Accountant, Accounting Systems and Planning Staff, Kansas City Finance Office, Farm Service Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, STOP 8548; 6501 Beacon Drive, Kansas City, MO 64133, telephone number (816) 823-1119; or Internet e-mail, BETROUT@kcc.usda.gov.
Comments should be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, and to Brent Trout, Accountant, Accounting Systems and Planning Staff, Kansas City Finance Office, Farm Service Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, STOP 8548; 6501 Beacon Drive, Kansas City, MO 64133, telephone number (816) 823-1119. Copies of the information collection may be obtained from Mr. Trout at the address above, or from a link at the FSA Web site at
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the value of donated foods or, where applicable, cash in lieu thereof, to be provided in the 2003 school year for each lunch served by schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) or by commodity only schools and for each lunch and supper served by institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
July 1, 2002.
Suzanne Rigby, Chief, Schools and Institutions Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302 or telephone (703) 305-2644.
These programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Nos. 10.550, 10.555, and 10.558 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires
This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to Office of Management and Budget review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice has been determined to be exempt under Executive Order 12866.
This notice implements mandatory provisions of sections 6(c), 14(f) and 17(h)(1) (B) of the National School Lunch Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1755(c), 1762a(f), and 1766(h)(1)(B)). Section 6(c)(1)(A) of the Act establishes the national average value of donated food assistance to be given to States for each lunch served in NSLP at 11.00 cents per meal. Pursuant to Section 6(c)(1)(B), this amount is subject to annual adjustments as of July 1 of each year to reflect changes in a three-month average value of the Price Index for Foods Used in Schools and Institutions for March, April, and May each year (Price Index). Section 17(h)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the same value of donated foods (or cash in lieu of donated foods) for school lunches shall also be established for lunches and suppers served in the Child and Adult Care Food Program. Notice is hereby given that the national average minimum value of donated foods, or cash in lieu thereof, per lunch under NSLP (7 CFR part 210) and per lunch and supper under the Child and Adult Care Food Program (7 CFR part 226) shall be 15.25 cents for the period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003.
The Price Index is computed using five major food components in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index (cereal and bakery products; meats, poultry and fish; dairy products; processed fruits and vegetables; and fats and oils). Each component is weighted using the relative weight as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The value of food assistance is adjusted each July 1 by the annual percentage change in a three-month average value of the Price Index for March, April and May each year. The three-month average of the Price Index decreased by 2.1 percent from 136.60 for March, April and May of 2001 to 133.79 for the same three months in 2002. When computed on the basis of unrounded data and rounded to the nearest one-quarter cent, the resulting national average for the period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 will be 15.25 cents per meal. This is an decrease of .25 cents from the school year 2002 rate.
In addition to the 15.25 cents per meal, Congress has authorized additional funds to be used to purchase foods under section 6(e) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1755(e)). Therefore, for this school year, schools will receive more than 15.25 cents per meal in commodities.
Section 14(f) of the Act provides that commodity only schools shall be eligible to receive donated foods equal in value to the sum of the national average value of donated foods established under section 6(c) of the Act and the national average payment established under section 4 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1753). Such schools are eligible to receive up to 5 cents per meal of this value in cash for processing and handling expenses related to the use of such commodities.
Commodity only schools are defined in section 12(d)(2) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1760(d)(2)) as “schools that do not participate in the school lunch program under this Act, but which receive commodities made available by the Secretary for use by such schools in nonprofit lunch programs.” For the 2003 school year, commodity only schools shall be eligible to receive donated food assistance valued at 35.25 cents for each free, reduced price, and paid lunch served. This amount is based on the sum of the Section 6(c) level of assistance announced in this notice and the adjusted section 4 minimum national average payment factor for school year 2003. The section 4 factor for commodity only schools does not include the two cents per lunch increase for schools where 60 percent of the lunches served in the school lunch program in the second preceding school year were served free or at reduced prices, because that increase is applicable only to schools participating in the NSLP.
Sections 6(c)(1)(A) and (B), 6(e)(1), 14(f) and 17(h)(1) (B) of the National School Lunch Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1755(c)(1)(A) and (B) and 6(e)(1), 1762a(f), and 1766(h)(1)(B)).
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement on a proposal to implement multiple resource management actions within the Prairie Project Area as directed by the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Prairie Project Area covers about 29,000 acres of National Forest System land and about 6,300 acres of interspersed private land within the lower Rapid Creek watershed directly west of Rapid City, South Dakota. Proposed actions include:
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by August 19, 2002. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available for public review by November 2002 and the final environmental impact statement is expected to be completed by March 2003.
Send written comments to Robert J. Thompson, District Ranger, Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District, 803 Soo San Drive, Rapid City, South Dakota 57702. Telephone Number: (605) 343-1567. e-mail:
Phill Grumstrup, Project coordinator, Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District, at above address, phone (605) 343-1567.
The actions proposed are in direct response to management direction provided by the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest
The purpose of and need for the actions proposed in the Prairie Project is to: Reduce the potential for large-scale intense wildfire, reduce fuel loads and assure access for fire protection; Protect big game winter range and provide habitat for a variety of plant and animal species; and provide for a variety of recreation opportunities including motorized and non-motorized uses while moving toward or meeting related Forest Plan Goals and Objectives, consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
Proposed actions include the following:
• Reduce the potential for large-scale, intense wildfire by developing and maintaining natural fuel breaks. This action includes thinning the forest, removing conifers from hardwood stands such as aspen, bur oak and birch and by expanding and/or creating meadows.
• Reduce the amount of fuel that currently exists and fuel created by vegetation treatment activities. Treatment could include lopping, chipping, crushing, piling and burning; construction of up to 30 miles of constructed fuel breaks adjacent to private property, particularly those properties with houses and subdivisions; and prescribed burning of up to 4,000 acres to reduce fuels and benefit wildlife habitat.
• Manage big game winter range by providing opening for forage and protecting game animals during the critical winter period over a large portion of the area by expanding area closures to off-road motorized use seasonally or year-round.
• Support the preceding actions by treating up to 8,000 acres of vegetation to reduce the density of pine trees. This may be done by using commercial timber harvest to thin out commercial size trees and using other methods to thin small, non-commercial size trees. Thinning trees will reduce the potential for spreading crown fires by providing fuel breaks, lessening the risk from insects and disease, improving stand growth and vigor, and providing wood-fiber products for the local economy.
• Provide a mix of motorized and non-motorized opportunities in the area by designating some areas for off-road ATV/4-wheeler use and other areas for non-motorized uses such as hiking, mountain biking and walk-in hunting.
John C. Twiss, Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest, Highway 385 North RR 2, Box 200, Custer, SD 57730.
The decision to be made is whether or not to implement the proposed action or alternatives at this time.
Comments and input regarding the proposal will be requested via direct mailing from the public, other groups and agencies during the 30-day (plus) public comment period in July and August 2002. Also, response to the draft EIS will be sought from the interested public in November-December 2002.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. It is our desire to involve interested parties and especially adjacent landowners in identifying the issues related to proposed activities. Comments will assist the planning team identify key issues and opportunities used to develop project alternatives and mitigation measures.
A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be for 45 days (beginning around November 1, 2002) from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a meeting.
The meeting will be held on July 29, 2002, and will begin at 1:30 p.m. until approximately 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Mendocino National Forest Supervisor's Office, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., 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: ggaddini@fs.fed.us.
Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Approve the Minutes from Last Meeting, (2) Proposed By-Laws- Action, (3) Draft Selection Criteria/Operating Guidelines-Action, (4) Title II Submission Form—Action, (5) Update on RAC Projects, (6) Scramblers Presentations, (7) Public Comment, and (8) 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.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Lake County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a meeting.
The meeting will be held on August 8, 2002, from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Lake County Board of Supervisor's Chambers at 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport.
Debbie McIntosh, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Upper Lake Ranger District, 10025 Elk Mountain Road, Upper Lake, CA 95485. (707) 275-2361; e-mail
Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Roll Call/Establish Quorum; (2) Review and Approval of the Minutes of the June 27, 2002 Meeting; (3) Discuss the Prioritization of 2002 Project Proposals; (4) Discussion of the Elk Mountain Road Grading Project; (5) Recommend and submit Projects; and (6) Public Comment period. 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.
National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice and Request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, this notice announces the National Agricultural Library's intent to request approval for a new information collection form related to the Animal Welfare Information Center's (AWIC) workshop,
Comments on this notice must be received by September 16, 2002, to be assured of consideration.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Barbara Buchanan Biological Sciences Librarian, USDA, ARS, NAL, Animal Welfare Information Center, 10301 Baltimore Avenue. 4th Floor, Beltsville, MD 20705-2351. Submit electronic comments to
Barbara Buchanan, Biological Sciences Librarian, Phone: 301-504-7048, or Fax: 301-504-7125
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology. Comments should be sent to the address in the preamble. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995), this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request reinstatement of a previously approved information collection, the Equine Survey.
Comments on this notice must be received by September 16, 2002 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be mailed to Ginny McBride, NASS OMB Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250 or sent electronically to
Rich Allen, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333.
Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, NASS OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-5778.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agriculture.
Notice of a finding of no significant impact.
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Swan Quarter Watershed Project, Hyde County, North Carolina.
Mary K. Combs, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609, telephone (919) 873-2101.
The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Mary K. Combs, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project.
The project purpose is to reduce flood damages. Proposed measures to address wind-tide flooding include 33,194 linear feet of earthen dike, 4,606 linear feet of PVC sheet piling, 10 pipes, and 28 tide gates. The project will benefit 125 homes and businesses and 2,400 acres of cropland.
The Notice of a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various federal, state, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Jacob Crandall, Assistant State Conservationist for Water Resources at 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609.
No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission will hold its 65th Meeting in Palisades, NY on July, 16-17, 2002. The Business Session open to the public will convene at 8:15
The focus of the Meeting will be reports and updates on programs and research projects affecting the U.S. Arctic. Presentations include a review of the research needs for civil infrastructure in Alaska.
The Business Session will begin at 8:15 a.m. Tuesday, July 16. An Executive Session will follow adjournment of the Business Session.
Any person planning to attend this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.
Dr. Garrett W. Brass, Executive Director, Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-0111 or TDD 703-306-0090.
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from Procurement List.
This action adds to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes from the Procurement List products previously furnished by such agencies.
August 11, 2002.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, (703) 603-7740.
On March 29, May 17, and May 24, 2002, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (67 FR 15175, 35096, and 36567) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action may not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
Accordingly, the following products are hereby deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete products previously furnished by such agencies.
August 11, 2002.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, (703) 603-7740.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
Service Type/Location: Food Service Attendant
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodities and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following products have been proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Friday, July 19, 2002 9 a.m.
OMNI Detroit River Place, Hotel, 1000 River Place, Detroit, MI 48207.
Les Jin, Press and Communications (202) 376-7700.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative review.
On March 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India (67 FR 10371). The review covers four manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.”
July 12, 2002.
David J. Goldberger, Katherine Johnson, or Margarita Panayi, Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import Administration-Room B099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136, (202) 482-4929, or (202) 482-0049, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the “Department's”) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).
The review covers four manufacturers/exporters: Agro Dutch Foods Ltd. (“Agro Dutch”)
On March 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India (67 FR 10371). We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of review. On March 20 and 26, 2002, we received requests for a public hearing from respondent Agro Dutch and the petitioners
The products covered by the order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under the order are the species
Excluded from the scope of the order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms'; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives.
The merchandise subject to the order is classifiable under subheadings 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000 of the
In its January 30, 2002, comments, the petitioners allege that because Agro Dutch and Weikfield are the importers of record for the preserved mushrooms they produce and export to the United States, and, therefore, pay all applicable antidumping cash deposits and duties on this merchandise, they are paying duties on behalf of their respective importers within the meaning of the Department's reimbursement regulation.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this antidumping duty administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated July 5, 2002, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations, including:
• The application of adverse facts available to certain Agro Dutch sales;
• The revision of Agro Dutch's imputed credit expense calculation to include commissions Agro Dutch deducted from the gross price in the calculation;
• The change in the payment date used for calculating imputed credit expenses on unpaid sales made by Agro Dutch and Weikfield from the preliminary results date to the final results date; and
• The revision of the assessment rate calculation for Agro Dutch's and Weikfield's export price sales from a percentage to a per-unit basis.
For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Decision Memo.
We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist:
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates. We will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting rates against the entered units or customs values of the subject merchandise on each importer's entries under the relevant order during the review period. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries of subject merchandise for which the importer-specific assessment rate is zero or
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of the administrative review for all shipments of certain preserved mushrooms from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Agro Dutch, Himalya, Saptarishi, and Weikfield will be the rates shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 11.30 percent. This rate is the “All Others” rate from the LTFV investigation.
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of third new shipper review and final results and partial rescission of second antidumping duty administrative review.
On March 6, 2002, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the third new shipper review and second antidumping duty administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China.
Based on the additional publicly available information used in these final results and the comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes in the margin calculations for the respondents in these reviews. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms in these reviews are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Reviews.”
July 12, 2002.
Brian Smith or Sophie Castro, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-0588, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).
Of the 26 companies
On March 6, 2002, the Department published in the
On June 21, 2002, we informed the parties to this proceeding that we considered the data contained in three attachments to the petitioners' case brief to be new factual information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii). However, we also informed the parties that we considered this information to be relevant to this proceeding and had decided to consider it in these final results. Therefore, because it was filed in an untimely manner in this proceeding, we provided the respondents until June 26, 2002, to submit comments on that new factual information and the petitioners' arguments in reliance on that information. On June 26, 2002, Gerber submitted comments on the use of that information in this proceeding.
The Department has conducted these reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000 of the
We have rescinded this review with respect to China Processed, Fujian Yu Xing, and Xiamen Jiahua pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), because the petitioners withdrew their request for review and no other interested party requested a review of these companies. We have also rescinded this review with
With respect to Green Fresh, we erred in the preliminary determination by deeming Green Fresh to be an uncooperative respondent based on shipment data furnished by the Customs Service. After further examination and clarification of the response from Green Fresh, we have concluded that the shipment data furnished by the Customs Service reflects a U.S. entry of the subject merchandise which the Department reviewed in a prior new shipper review.
All issues raised in the case briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“
Based on the use of additional publicly available information and the comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes in the margin calculation for each respondent. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the
For the final results, we calculated average surrogate percentages for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, and profit using the 2000-2001 financial reports of Agro Dutch Foods Ltd. (“Agro Dutch”) and Flex Foods Ltd. (“Flex Foods”), and the 1999-2000 financial report of Himalya International Ltd. (“Himalya”).
We have corrected an error which affected the amount of miscellaneous fixed assets to include in the factory overhead percentage derived from data contained in Himalya's 1999-2000 financial report of an Indian producer of the subject merchandise.
To value fresh mushrooms, we calculated a simple average price based on data contained in the 2000-2001 financial report of Premier Explosives Ltd. (“Premier”), the 1999-2000 financial report of Agro Dutch, and February 2000-January 2001 price data contained in the
For Shantou Hongda and Gerber, we used price data contained in the 1999-2000 financial report, rather than in the 2000-2001 financial report of Agro Dutch to calculate an average POR price for a 68 ounce can since the 1999-2000 financial report contained specific price data in that report. For Raoping Xingyu, we used its reported market-economy prices to value this input.
To value spawn and cattle manure, we used data from the 2000-2001 financial reports of Agro Dutch and Flex Foods.
To value straw, we calculated an average price based on the wheat straw value from Agro Dutch's 2000-2001 financial report and the general straw value from Flex Foods' 2000-2001 financial report.
To value grain and super phosphate, we used data from Flex Foods' 2000-2001 financial report.
To value super potassium, we used a POR value from the publication
Since the surrogate value for salt was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted this value for inflation using wholesale price indices published in the International Monetary Fund's
With respect to Gerber, we have corrected arithmetical errors which affected the calculation of electricity costs associated with its spawn production, the cost of the mushrooms it purchased for use in the brining stage of production, and the cost of cans it used in the processing stage of production.
We have removed language in the SAS program used for Raoping Xingyu which overwrote data for two control numbers and have assigned to each distinct product code the factors contained in Raoping Xingyu's May 9, 2002, supplemental response. In addition we have corrected the scrap value in Raoping Xingyu's margin program.
To account for different drained weight capacities of various sizes of cans used by one respondent (
We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001:
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
The following deposit rates shall be required for merchandise subject to the order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) and 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Gerber, Raoping Xingyu, Shantou Hongda, and Shenxian Dongxing will be the rates indicated above; (2) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters for whom the Department has rescinded the review or for whom a review was not requested for this POR (
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214.
1. Surrogate Value Selection for Fresh Mushrooms.
2. Surrogate Value Selection for Furnace Oil.
3. Surrogate Value Selection for Straw.
4. Surrogate Value Selection for Cans and Lids.
5. Whether to Use Data Contained in More Current Financial Reports Submitted for Two Indian Producers of the Subject Merchandise.
6. How to Treat Water Costs.
7. Whether to Use Domestic Rather than Import Surrogate Values.
8. Whether to Inflate Certain Surrogate Values Which Cover a Portion of the Period of Review.
9. Whether to Inflate U.S. Dollar-Denominated Surrogate Values to the POR.
10. Whether to Adjust Factors Reported by Raoping Xingyu for Certain Can Sizes.
11. Whether to Adjust Factors Reported by Shantou Hongda and Shenxian Dongxing.
12. The Use of Information Contained in the Petitioners' Case Brief.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final court decision and amended final results of administrative review.
The United States Court of International Trade has affirmed the Department of Commerce's final remand results affecting the final weighted-average margins for the 1995/1996 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the People's Republic of China. There was no appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, we are amending the final results of review and we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate entries subject to this review. The period of review is June 1, 1995, through May 31, 1996.
July 12, 2002.
George Callen or Richard Rimlinger, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0180 or (202) 482-4477, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).
On November 17, 1997, the Department published the final results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the People's Republic of China covering the period June 1, 1995, through May 31, 1996.
The Timken Company contested the Department's decision in the Final Results. In issuing its decision in this case, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) instructed the Department to make the following changes to its margin calculations for the Final Results: (1) Determine direct labor costs without relying on labor hours and, if necessary, open the record;
In its instructions, the CIT did not refer to companies by name. Accordingly, in implementing the court's instructions for determining direct labor costs without relying on labor hours, excluding the “purchases of traded goods” in calculating the cost of manufacturing, and adjusting United States price by recalculating marine insurance pursuant to a value-based methodology, we calculated the changes for all companies for which we had data and for which we had performed calculations to arrive at the weighted-average dumping margins in the Final Results. For one company, Guizhou Machinery Import and Export Corp. (Guizou), this resulted in a change in margin from 21.79 percent to 31.05. This new margin is also the highest overall margin calculated in any segment of this proceeding.
The Department issued final results of redetermination on remand on December 13, 1999. The CIT affirmed the Department's final remand results and dismissed the case.
Pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, we are now amending the final results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the People's Republic of China for the period of review June 1, 1995, through May 31, 1996. In the original Final Results, we established margins for Jilin Machinery Import & Export Corporation (Jilin) and the PRC-wide rate on the basis of total adverse facts available and selected the highest ovrall margin calculated in any segment of the proceeding. As noted above, that rate is now 31.05 percent, the rate calculated for Guizhou in the final results of redetermination on remand. Accordingly, we are amending the rate for Jilin and the PRC-wide rate consistent with those final results of redetermination on remand.
Accordingly, the Department will determine and the Customs Service will assess appropriate antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise exported by firms covered by this review.
We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a public meeting of the Mackerel Advisory Panel (AP).
The AP meeting is scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. on July 29, 2002 and will conclude by 3 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the New Orleans Airport Hilton Hotel, 901 Airline Highway, Kenner, LA; telephone: 504-469-5000.
Dr. Richard Leard, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: 813-228-2815.
The Mackerel AP will convene to review a report of the Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel (MSAP) that includes status of stock information on Gulf Group king mackerel and little tunny, as well as the range of acceptable biological catch (ABC). The Mackerel AP will also review the report of the Socioeconomic Panel (SEP) on these stocks and may make recommendations to the Council for additional management measures based on these reviews. The Mackerel AP will also receive reports on the status of the Dolphin/Wahoo Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that is being developed jointly with the South Atlantic and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and a regulatory amendment to establish definitions of maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), overfishing, and the overfished condition for mackerel and cobia stocks in the Gulf. the various shrimp stocks in the Gulf.
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the Mackerel AP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during the meeting. Actions of the Mackerel AP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
Copies of the agenda can be obtained by calling 813-228-2815.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Anne Alford at the Council (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s (Council) Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee, Scup Monitoring Committee, Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee, and Bluefish Monitoring Committee will hold public meetings.
The meetings will be held on Thursday, July 25, 2002, beginning at 9 a.m.
This meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn BWI, 890 Elkridge Landing Road, Linthicum, MD; telephone: 410-859-8400.
Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: 302-674-2331, ext. 19.
The purpose of these meetings is to recommend the 2003 commercial management measures, commercial quotas, and recreational harvest limits for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Bluefish Monitoring Committee will meet to recommend commercial management measures, recreational management measures, and a commercial quota and recreational harvest limit for bluefish for 2003.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council’s intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Joanna Davis at the Council Office (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will hold a working meeting which is open to the public.
The GMT working meeting will begin Monday, July 29, 2001 at 1 p.m. and may go into the evening until business for the day is completed. The meeting will reconvene from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesday, July 30 through Friday, August 2.
The meetings will be held at: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384, (503) 820-2280.
John DeVore, Groundfish Fishery Management Coordinator; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
The primary purpose of the GMT meeting is to prepare final recommendations regarding groundfish harvest levels and management for 2003. The GMT will also prepare reports, recommendations, and analyses in support of various Council decisions through the remainder of the year. The following specific items comprise the draft agenda: (1) prepare final acceptable biological catch (ABC) and optimum yield (OY) recommendations for 2003, (2) calculate limited entry, open access, and other allocations, (3) evaluate management options and the Environmental Assessment of Proposed Groundfish Management Measures and Specifications for 2003, (4) complete and/or review economic/social analysis of proposed harvest levels and management measures for 2003, (5) evaluate a restructured bycatch model, (6) complete and/or review rebuilding plans for overfished groundfish stocks,(7) resolve any outstanding recreational data issues and evaluate the need for inseason management adjustments, (8) consider recommending any Exempted Fishing Permits, (9) evaluate Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements, (10) recommend 2003 groundfish stock assessment priorities, (11) evaluate issues and consider recommendations for delegating nearshore management authority to the states, (12) consider recommendations for FMP Amendment 17 and multi-year management issues, (13) consider recommendations for marine reserve proposals for Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary, and (14) other miscellaneous Council groundfish issues.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the GMT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal GMT action during this meeting. GMT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the GMT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Dr. Stephen J. Morreale, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, has applied in due form for a permit to take loggerhead turtles (
Written or telefaxed comments must be received on or before August 12, 2002.
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and
Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9200; fax (978)281-9371.
Lillian Becker or Ruth Johnson, (301)713-2289.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The purpose of this research is to re-institute a long-term mark-recapture study in order to monitor the population levels and health status of sea turtles inhabiting the Long Island Sound and Peconic Bay Estuaries. The turtles will be captured in pound nets then flipper and PIT tagged, blood sampled, biopsied, and released near their capture site. The researcher requests to be able to take 126 loggerhead, 52 Kemp’s ridley, 45 green and 3 leatherback sea turtles.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate.
Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Please note that comments will not be accepted by e-mail or by other electronic media.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Receipt of applications.
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have applied in due form for a permit to take marine mammals for scientific research:
National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA, 98115; and
Dr. Robert A. Garrott, Ecology Department, Montana State University, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, MT 59717.
Written or telefaxed comments must be received on or before August 12, 2002.
The applications and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426 (File 782-1676 only); and
Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907)586-7221; fax (907)586-7249.
Carrie Hubard or Ruth Johnson, (301)713-2289.
The subject permits are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
For Permit No. 782-1676, the applicant proposes to take Alaska harbor seals and spotted seals to estimate population size and trend, current and net productivity rates, and current takes by commercial fisheries and subsistence hunters. One component of the research is to determine the relative proportion of seals at sea that are not counted during aerial census surveys.
For Permit No. 1032-1679, the applicant proposes to take Weddell seals (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Written comments or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on the particular request would be appropriate.
Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Please note that comments will not be accepted by e-mail or by other electronic media.
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium, 5400 North Pearl Street, Tacoma, WA 98407, has applied in due form for a permit to import one harbor seal (
Written or telefaxed comments must be received on or before August 12, 2002.
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and
Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426.
Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this request should be submitted to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular permit request would be appropriate.
Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Please note that comments will not be accepted by e-mail or other electronic media.
Jennifer Skidmore or Jill Lewandowski,(301)713-2289.
The subject application for Permit No. 112-1684-00 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests authorization to import one harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi), from the Island Wildlife Natural Care Centre, Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada, to Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium in Tacoma, WA. The applicant requests this import for the purpose of public display. The receiving facility, Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium, 5400 North Pearl Street, Tacoma, WA 98407 is: (1) open to the public on regularly scheduled basis with access that is not limited or restricted other than by charging an admission fee; (2) offers an educational program based on professionally accepted standards of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association and the Alliance for Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums; and (3) holds an Exhibitor's License, number 91-C-0003, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act.
In addition to determining whether the applicant meets the three public display criteria, NMFS must determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed activity is humane and does not represent any unnecessary risks to the health and welfare of marine mammals; that the proposed activity by itself or in combination with other activities, will not likely have a significant adverse impact on the species or stock; and that the applicant's expertise, facilities and resources are adequate to accomplish successfully the objectives and activities stated in the application.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection requirement for use through December 31, 2002. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for 3 additional years.
DoD will consider all comments received by September 10, 2002.
Respondents may submit comments directly on the World Wide Web at
Respondents that cannot submit comments using either of the above methods may submit comments to: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DP(DAR), IMD 3C132,
At the end of the comment period, interested parties may view public comments on the World Wide Web at
Ms. Amy Williams, (703) 602-0328. The information collection requirement addressed in this notice is available electronically on the World Wide Web at:
This information collection pertains to information, not separately covered by another OMB clearance, that an offeror must submit to DoD in response to a request for proposals or an invitation for bids. In particular, the information collection covers the following DFARS requirements:
• 217.70, Exchange of Personal Property. Section 217.7004, paragraph (a), of this subpart requires that solicitations that contemplate exchange (trade-in) of personal property, and application of the exchange allowance to the acquisition of similar property, must include a request for offerors to state prices for the new items being acquired both with and without any exchange allowance.
• 217.72, Bakery and Dairy Products. Section 217.7201, paragraph (b)(2), of this subpart requires a contractor's list of cabinet equipment in the Schedule of the contract, when the contractor is required to furnish its own cabinets for dispensing milk from bulk containers.
• 217.74, Undefinitized Contract Actions. Unless an exception in 217.7404-5 of this subpart applies, paragraph (b) of 217.7404-3 requires the contractor to submit a qualifying proposal in accordance with the definitization schedule of the undefinitized contract action. A “qualifying proposal” is defined in paragraph (c) of 217.7401 as a proposal containing sufficient information for DoD to do complete and meaningful analyses and audits of the information in the proposal and any other information that the contracting officer has determined that DoD needs to review in connection with the contract.
• 217.75, Acquisition of Replenishment Parts. Paragraph (d) of 217.7504 of this subpart permits contracting officers to include, in sole-source solicitations for replenishment parts, a provision requiring an offeror to supply, with its proposal, price and quantity data on any Government orders for the replenishment part issued within the most recent 12 months.
• 252.208-7000, Intent to Furnish Precious Metals as Government-Furnished Material. Paragraph (b) of this clause requires an offeror to cite the type and quantity of precious metals required in the performance of the contract. Paragraph (c) requires the offeror to submit two prices for each deliverable item that contains precious metals: one based on the Government furnishing the precious metals, and the other based on the contractor furnishing the precious metals.
• 252.209-7001, Disclosure of Ownership or Control by the Government of a Terrorist Country. Paragraph (c) of this provision requires an offeror to provide a disclosure with its offer if the government of a terrorist country has a significant interest in the offeror, in a subsidiary of the offeror, or in a parent company of which the offeror is a subsidiary.
• 252.211-7004, Alternate Preservation, Packaging, and Packing. Paragraph (b) of this provision requires an offeror to submit information sufficient to allow evaluation of any alternate preservation, packaging, or packing proposed by the offeror.
• 252.226-7000, Notice of Historically Black College or University and Minority Institution Set-Aside. Paragraph (c)(2) of this clause requires that, upon request of the contracting officer, the offeror will provide evidence prior to award that the Secretary of Education has determined the offeror to be a historically black college or university or minority institution.
• 252.237-7000, Notice of Special Standards of Responsibility. Paragraph (c) of this provision requires the apparently successful offeror, under a solicitation for audit services, to give the contracting officer evidence that it is licensed by the cognizant licensing authority in the State or other political jurisdiction where the offeror operates its professional practice.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0082).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning economic purchase quantities—supplies. A request for public comments was published in the
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR,
Submit comments on or before August 12, 2002.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Jeremy F. Olson, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 501-3221.
The provision at 52.207-4, Economic Purchase Quantities—Supplies, invites offerors to state an opinion on whether the quantity of supplies on which bids, proposals, or quotes are requested in solicitations is economically advantageous to the Government. Each offeror who believes that acquisitions in different quantities would be more advantageous is invited to (1) recommend an economic purchase quantity, showing a recommended unit and total price, and (2) identify the different quantity points where significant price breaks occur. This information is required by Public Law 98-577 and Public Law 98-525.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0080).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning integrity of unit prices. A request for public comments was published in the
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before August 12, 2002.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Jeremy F. Olson, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 501-3221.
FAR 15.408(f) and the clause at FAR 52.215-14, Integrity of Unit Prices, require offerors and contractors under Federal contracts that are to be awarded without adequate price competition to identify in their proposals those supplies which they will not manufacture or to which they will not contribute significant value. The policies included in the FAR are required by section 501 of Public Law 98-577 (for the civilian agencies) and section 927 of Public Law 99-500 (for DOD and NASA). The rule contains no reporting requirements on contracts with commercial items.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0144).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning payment by electronic fund transfer. A request for public comments was published in the
Submit comments on or before August 12, 2002.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden should be submitted to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat, 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Jeremy F. Olson, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 501-3221.
The FAR requires certain information to be provided by contractors which would enable the Government to make payments under the contract by electronic fund transfer (EFT). The information necessary to make the EFT transaction is specified in clause 52.232-33, Payment by Electronic Fund Transfer-Central Contractor Registration, which the contractor is required to provide prior to award, and clause 52.232-34, Payment by Electronic Fund Transfer-Other Than Central Contractor Registration, which requires EFT information to be provided as specified by the agency to enable payment by EFT.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of public meeting.
The Director of Defense Procurement is sponsoring a public meeting to discuss the treatment of proprietary data during all phases of DoD procurements. A background paper to be discussed at the public meeting is available on the Defense Procurement Internet home page at
The first meeting will be held on July 26, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m, with an hour break for lunch at 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held in Room C-43, Crystal Mall, Building 4, 1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Mr. William H. Anderson, Chair, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council Committee on Patents, Data, and Copyrights, by telephone at (703) 588-5090, by fax at (703) 588-8037, or by e-mail at
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 August 12, 2002.
Written comments 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 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: 10,518.
Burden Hours: 7,889.
Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at 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 August 12, 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 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the Internet address Lauren
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: 2,887,200.
Burden Hours: 2,165,400.
Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at (202) 708-9266 or via his Internet address
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 12, 2002 (67 FR 17992).
ERP No. D-AFS-J65360-CO Rating EC1, Lizard Head Road Easement, Application from Private Landowners Requesting a Permit to Cross Public Lands to Access Non-Federal Lands, San Juan National Forest, Dolores Ranger District, Dolores County, CO.
ERP No. D-BLM-K61155-CA Rating EC2, Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area, Revising and Updating the Recreation Area Management Plan and Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, Imperial County, CA.
ERP No. D-NPS-K61156-00 Rating EC2, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Long-Term Management of Lake Mead and Mohave and Associated Shoreline and Development Area, Lake Management Plan, Clark County, NV and Mohave County, AZ.
ERP No. F-AFS-L65333-OR Five Rivers Watershed Landscape Management Project, Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Special-Use-Permit Issuance, Siuslaw National Forest, Waldport Ranger District, Lincoln and Lane Counties, OR.
ERP No. F-AFS-L65398-ID Brush Boulder Project, Vegetation Management, Road Construction, Reconstruction and Decommissioning, North Fork Payette River, Boise National Forest, Cascade Ranger District, Valley County, ID.
ERP No. F-BLM-J67030-UT EPA expressed environmental concerns with the implementation of long-term treatment controls and mitigation associated with impacts to water quality.
ERP No. F-FHW-D40311-00 US Route 15 Improvement Project, PA-6015, Section G-20 and G-22 Tioga County, Pennsylvania, PIN 6008.22.123 Steuben County, New York and US Route 15 between PA Route 287 and Presho, New York, Funding and US Army COE Section 404 Permit Tioga County, PA and Steuben County, NY.
ERP No. F-FHW-F40391-MI M-24 Reconstruction Project, From One Mile North of the Oakland County Line to I-69, Funding, Lapeer County, MI.
ERP No. F-FHW-F40396-IL US 67 (FAP-310) Expressway from Jacksonville to Macomb Transportation Improvements, Funding, US Army COE Section 10 and 404 and NPDES Permits Issuance, Morgan, Cass, Schuyler and McDonough Counties, IL.
ERP No. F-FHW-G40164-TX President George Bush Turnpike (PGBT) Segment IV, Improvement from I-35E to I-635, Funding and US Army COE Section 404 Permit Issuance, Dallas Dallas County, TX.
ERP No. F-TPT-K61154-CA Presidio Trust Implementation Plan (PTIP), An Updated Plan for the Area B of the Presidio of San Francisco, Implementation, San Francisco Bay Area, Marin County, CA.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of document availability.
EPA is announcing availability of a memorandum entitled “Supplemental Allocation of Fiscal Year 2002 Operator Training Grants” issued on June 5, 2002. This memorandum provides National guidance for the allocation of funds used under section 104(g)(l) of the Clean Water Act.
Municipal Assistance Branch, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (4204-M), Washington, DC, 20460.
Curt Baranowski, (202) 564-0636 or
The subject memorandum may be viewed and downloaded from EPA's homepage,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of document availability.
EPA is announcing availability of a memorandum entitled “Allocation of Fiscal Year 2002 Youth and the Environment Training and Employment Program Funds” issued on May 28, 2002. This memorandum provides National guidance for the allocation of funds used under section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act.
Municipal Assistance Branch (4204-M), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Curt Baranowski, (202) 564-0636 or
The subject memorandum may be viewed and downloaded from Program's web page at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is required to report annually to Congress on the status of competition in markets for the delivery of video programming. This document solicits information from the public for use in preparing the competition report that is to be submitted to Congress in December 2002. The document will provide parties with an opportunity to submit comments and information to be used in conjunction with publicly available information and filings submitted in relevant Commission proceedings to assess the extent of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming.
Comments are due on or before July 29, 2002, and reply comments are due on or before August 30, 2002.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Anne Levine, Media Bureau at (202) 418-7027 or via internet at
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
1. Section 628(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, directs the Commission to annually report to Congress on the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming. This
2. The accuracy and the usefulness of the 2002 Report are directly related to the information we receive from commenters. To the extent feasible, we request data as of June 30, 2002, to facilitate our analysis of competitive trends over time. Comments submitted in this proceeding will be augmented with information from publicly available sources and other Commission proceedings.
3. Video distributors using both wired and wireless technologies serve the market for the delivery of video programming. Video programming distributors include cable systems, direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers, home satellite dish (“HSD”) providers, private cable or satellite master antenna television (“SMATV”) systems, open video systems (“OVS”), multichannel multipoint distribution services (“MMDS”), broadband service providers (“BSPs”), and over-the-air broadcast television stations.
4. We ask commenters to provide information on the most significant changes or developments in the past year. Specifically, we seek information regarding each of the video programming distributors, including the number of homes passed, the number of subscribers, the services offered, the cost for various service options, financial information on each industry, ownership information, and data on investments in plant and facility upgrades.
5. We seek information on industry and market structure and the effect of existing Commission regulations and other provisions of the law on competition in the video marketplace. To what extent do consumers have access to more than one video programming distributor? To what extent have customers switched from one provider or technology to another, and what factors are responsible for the switch? Where does head-to-head competition exist between cable and other video programming distributors, or among various types of video programming distributors? How has such competition affected prices, service offerings, and quality of service? We seek information on existing and planned overbuilding activity.
6. We request comment on any factors that are unique to competition in the multiple dwelling units (“MDUs”) submarket. We request information for new case studies and updates on previous case studies on the effects of actual and potential competition in local markets where consumers have a choice among video programming distributors. We also seek information on what barriers to entry exist in the market?
7. We ask commenters to provide data on national and local programming services, and their ownership. We seek information on the extent to which programmers are affiliated with video programming distributors and to what extent programming distributors, both broadcast and non-broadcast programming services, are involved in the production of the programming they provide, vertically integrated or not. Further, we request data on programming services including the scope of service, launch date, identification of ownership, and number of subscribers. To what extent are video programming distributors able to acquire or license unaffiliated programming? Are there certain programming services or types of services without which competitive video service providers may find themselves unable to compete effectively. We also seek information on how video programming distributors package their programming. In addition, we seek information on the ability of programmers to sell programming.
8. Further, we request comment regarding public, educational, and governmental (“PEG”) access and leased access channels and the number of channels being used for each of these purposes. We also seek information on the use of leased access channels, either on a part time or full time basis. We request comment on the effectiveness of our program access, program carriage, and channel occupancy rules. We seek
9. We also ask for information on advanced service offerings (e.g., high-speed Internet access services, telephony, video-on-demand, high definition television, interactive television) and new ways of offering service (e.g., personal video recorders, streaming video) that are being deployed by video programming distributors. Specifically, we request information regarding the amount and type of programming being offered in high-definition television (“HDTV”) format. We seek updated statistics such as the cost of such services, the subscribership to these services, and the number of homes to which each type of service is available. Further, we seek information on the impact that the availability of non-video services offered by video programming providers has on the nature of competition in the video marketplace. We request comment on the development and deployment of ITV services. We request information on the extent to which video programming distributors offer or plan to offer EPGs. To what extent are national distributors of EPGs affiliated with video programming distributors? To what extent are EPGs that are affiliated with a video programming distributor available to competitors? We seek comment on the availability and compatibility of customer premises equipment used to provide video programming and other services. How many households have one or more devices? We seek information on the retail availability of navigation devices to consumers.
10. We plan to report on the performance of the cable television industry, and request data and comments on the current state of competition in this segment of the market. We seek statistical information on the cable industry generally and specifically the financial performance of the industry, capital acquisition and disposition, rates, channel capacity, programming costs, homes passed, subscribership, viewership, new service offerings, and the investments that cable operators have made to upgrade their plant and equipment.
11. We request information on the deployment of various technical methods to increase capacity. For individual MSOs, we request data on the number of systems upgraded, the analog channel capacity resulting from upgrades, the digital channel capacity resulting from upgrades, the number of systems with digital tiers, the number of households where digital services are available, and the number of subscribers to digital services. What types of programming are available on digital tiers?
12. We seek information on cable system transactions, including the names of the buyer and seller, the date of the transaction, type of transaction (i.e., sale, swap, or trade), name and location of the system, homes passed and number of subscribers, and the price. We seek similar information for non-cable video programming providers. We also request comment on the practice of clustering, whereby operators concentrate their operations in specific geographic areas. We request data regarding the effect of clustering by cable operators on competition in the video programming distribution market.
13. We seek comment on whether cable operators are changing the way they package programming. We also are interested in information on whether, and if so how, cable operators are restructuring their programming packages and tiers of service as a result of actual or potential competition.
14. We further request information about the availability of advanced services such as digital video, high-speed Internet access services, telephony, video-on-demand, and the amount and type of programming being offered in HDTV format. To what extent are consumers now purchasing cable modem equipment certified by CableLabs under their Certified Cable Modem Project, rather than renting from video programming distributors? We also seek the most recent information regarding the development of specifications for interoperable set-top boxes on Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.'s OpenCable process. What percentage of existing equipment is compatible with the OpenCable standards? What developments have taken place in the last year relating to the POD-Host Interface, or PHI license, that affect the deployment of navigation devices or their availability at retail stores? Finally, we solicit updated information on PacketCable, a CableLabs project intended to develop interoperable interface specifications for delivering advanced, real-time multimedia services over two-way cable plant. What is the status of the testing and implementation of this standard?
15. We seek information on cable operators that currently provide or plan to provide server-based offerings. Under these systems, the programming services reside at a central location and are accessible on demand. What types of services are offered in this manner? What are the regulatory implications of server-based services? What effect does server-provided video have on a programmer's ability to launch a new service?
16. Section 612(g) of the Communications Act provides that at such time as cable systems with 36 or more activated channels are available to 70 percent of households within the United States and are subscribed to by 70 percent of those households, the Commission may promulgate any additional rules necessary to promote diversity of information sources. Previously, we reported that the benchmark had not been met. Have there been any developments in the last year that would suggest that the criteria specified under Section 612(g) have been met? Under sections 614 and 615 of the Communications Act, cable operators must set aside up to one third of their channel capacity for the carriage of commercial television stations and additional channels for noncommercial stations depending on the system's channel capacity. We seek information on the extent to which cable operators currently are using all their required set-aside channels for the carriage of local broadcast signals. Further, we seek information on the number of cable systems not subject to effective competition that lack addressable converters or have other technological limitations that prevent access to programming on a per channel or per program basis without subscription to tiers other than the basic tiers. Are there cable systems that will not meet the October 2002 deadline for the capability to allow “buy-through”?
17. We seek updated information about direct-to-home (“DTH”) satellite services, which includes direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) and home satellite dish (“HSD” or “C-Band”) services. We ask for information on subscribership on DBS and HSD services. Are there identifiable differences between consumers who choose to subscribe to DBS rather than cable or another video programming distributor? How many or what percentage of households cannot receive DBS service because they are not within the line-of-sight of the satellite signal? We seek comment on the geographic locations of DBS and HSD subscribers, by state and type of area (i.e., urban, suburban, rural). To what extent do DBS subscribers reside in areas not passed by cable systems?
18. We request information on the number of markets where local-into-
19. We request data that will allow us to compare DBS and cable rates for programming packages and equipment. What is the typical cost of DBS equipment and installation? We request information regarding DBS operator equipment leasing program options, including the monthly rates charged for leasing equipment. To what extent do satellite operators subsidize equipment costs in order to attract subscribers? Have DBS rates for some programming packages increased over the last year? What factors affect changes in DBS prices?
20. We seek information on the status of Internet access services offered by the DBS industry. We seek information regarding other advanced services offered or co-marketed by DBS operators. To what extent are DBS operators offering programming in HDTV format? What marketing arrangements have non-DBS video programming distributors entered into to provide DBS service to their customers?
21. We seek information on the role of broadcast television in the market for the delivery of video programming. We request information on the number and percentage of MVPD subscribers who rely on off-air reception for local broadcast service on one or more television sets, by type of MVPD service. In addition, what percentage of households have only over-the-air broadcast television reception on all television sets?
22. We request information regarding the amount and type of programming (e.g., network, local, syndicated) being broadcast on digital channels, including the extent to which DTV channels are being used for HDTV, the extent to which they are being used for multichannel program offerings (“multicasting”), and the extent to which they are being planned as ancillary and supplementary services such as subscription services. We also seek information on DTV carriage agreements between broadcasters and cable operators and the status of any such negotiations. In addition, we request information on the sales of DTV consumer equipment and the factors affecting consumer adoption of DTV equipment.
23. We seek information regarding the previously identified trend towards declining subscribership for MMDS-provided video. We request fact-based projections and forecasts on the future of video programming distribution via MMDS technology. What factors affect the health and viability of the MMDS industry? We seek information about the availability of advanced services such as digital video, high-speed Internet access services, and telephony. What is the current availability of two-way services such as high-speed Internet access and telephony by MMDS operators?
24. SMATV systems, also known as private cable operators or private communication operators, are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way. We request data for SMATV systems, including subscribership levels, service areas, and the identities of the largest operators. We also request information on the types of services offered by SMATV providers and the price charged for those services. How do the programming packages offered and the price of SMATV service compare to those of incumbent cable operators? Are there services that SMATV operators provide their subscribers that cable, DBS, and other technologies do not? Finally, what factors affect the health and viability of the SMATV industry?
25. We request information on the operation of open video systems, including the number of homes passed, the number of subscribers, and the types of services being offered by OVS operators. How are video services provided by OVS operators packaged and what is the typical cost for monthly service? To what extent are open video systems joint ventures between video service providers and other entities and what are the arrangements among the participants in such ventures? Are unaffiliated programmers seeking carriage on open video systems? How many programmers and what type of programming is being offered on this basis? To what extent are OVS operators offering voice and data services? How are such service offerings packaged and at what price to consumers? What effect has the
26. We seek information regarding LECs, long distance telephone companies, and utility companies that provide video services. We request information on franchised cable systems operated by LECs, both within their telephone service areas and outside those regions. To what extent are LEC video programming services being bundled with telephone, Internet, or other utility services?
27. We seek current information regarding the provision of video, voice, and data services by broadband service providers (“BSPs”). We request data on the geographic locations of such systems, whether they operate as franchised cable systems, the number of homes passed, and the number of subscribers they serve. We ask commenters to provide information regarding the video service packages that are offered and the rates charged for the various packages. Are video services offered in combination with advanced services? We further seek comment on the current and potential effect of BSPs on the status of video competition. What are the technical and economic obstacles to the successful operation of systems of this type? Are there issues involving pole attachments, access to programming, competitors' rates, broadcast signal retransmission consent, equipment availability, access to MDU inside wiring, or local municipal regulation that affect the viability of BSPs as competitors in the market for the delivery of video programming?
28. We seek information regarding the home video sales and rental market. We request data on the number or percentage of households with videocassette recorders, laser disc players, DVD players, and PVRs. We request information on the amount of programming available in VCR, DVD, and laser disc formats for sale and rental. How does the cost of renting a video or DVD movie compare to the cost of a pay-per-view, video-on-demand, or near video-on-demand movie from a
29. Finally, we seek information on the types of video services currently being offered over the Internet and fact-based projections of when Internet video will become a viable competitor in the market for the delivery of video programming. We also solicit information on the technological, legal, and competitive factors that may promote or impede the provision of video over the Internet.
30. There are no ex parte or disclosure requirements applicable to this proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1204(b)(1).
31. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before July 29, 2002, and reply comments on or before August 30, 2002. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
32. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to <
33. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The Media Bureau contact for this proceeding is Anne Levine at (202) 418-7027, or at
34. This Notice is issued pursuant to authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 403, and 628(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, 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 revised information collections. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), this notice seeks comments concerning the Elevation Certificate and the Floodproofing Certificate. The Elevation certificate is required by the NFIP to certify the elevations of the buildings so the policy can be properly rated. It also provides documentation to verify the community's enforcement of building ordinances, which is important to the NFIP mitigation and floodplain management activities.
Interested persons should submit written comments to Muriel B. Anderson, Chief, Records Management Section, Program Services and Systems Branch, Facilities Management and Services Division, Administration and Resource Planning Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Room 316, Washington, DC 20472.
Contact Jhun de la Cruz, Insurance Examiner, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, (202) 646-2650 for additional information. You may contact Ms. Anderson for copies of the proposed collection of information at telephone number (202) 646-2625 or facsimile number (202) 646-3347 or e-mail
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations require the elevation or floodproofing of newly constructed structures in designated special flood hazard areas. As part of the agreement for making flood insurance available in a community, the NFIP requires the community to adopt a floodplain management ordinance containing certain minimum requirements intended to reduce future flood losses. One such requirement is that the community require that residential buildings be elevated to above the base flood elevation and, to enforce this requirement, obtain the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new and substantially improved structures, and maintain a record of all such information. These data should be generated and retained as part of the community's permit issuance and building inspection processes. The Elevation Certificate is one convenient way for a community to comply with this requirement; however, it is not prescribed. The Floodproofing Certificate may similarly be used to establish the required record in those instances when floodproofing for non-residential structures is a permitted practice.
The Elevation Certificate/Floodproofing Certificate is an adjunct to the application for flood insurance and is required for proper rating of Post-FIRM structures, which are buildings constructed after publication of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), for flood insurance in Special Flood Hazard Areas (44 CFR 61.7,61.8). In addition, the Elevation Certificate is needed for Pre-FIRM structures being rated under Post-FIRM flood insurance rules. The standardized format of the Elevation
Certificate and Floodproofing Certificate for Non-Residential Structures (FEMA Forms 81-31 and 81-65) provide the community officials and others documents, which may be used to readily record needed information.
The certificates are supplied to insurance agents, community officials, surveyors, engineers, architects, and NFIP policyholders/applicants. The community officials or other professionals provided the elevation data required to document conformance with floodplain management regulations and for the applicants so that actuarial insurance rates can be charged for insuring property against the flood hazard.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Arizona (FEMA-1422-DR), dated June 25, 2002, and related determinations.
July 2, 2002.
Rich Robuck, Readiness, Response and Recovery and Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705 or
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Arizona is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 25, 2002:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas, (FEMA-1425-DR), dated July 4, 2002, and related determinations.
July 4, 2002.
Rich Robuck, Readiness, Response and Recovery and Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705 or
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include Public Assistance, limited to Category A (debris removal), and Category B (emergency protective measures), including direct Federal assistance for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 4, 2002:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-1425-DR), dated July 4, 2002, and related determinations.
July 4, 2002.
Rich Robuck, Readiness, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705 or
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 4, 2002, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Texas, resulting from severe storms and flooding beginning on June 29, 2002, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (Stafford Act). I, therefore, declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Texas
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes, such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and the Individual and Family Grant program will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Public Assistance is later warranted, Federal funds provided under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Sandra L. Coachman of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Texas to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Bexar, Blanco, Comal, Hays, Kerr and Medina Counties for Individual Assistance.
All counties within the State of Texas are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
In accordance with § 271.25 of its rules regarding availability of information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its meeting held on May 7, 2002.
The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee in the immediate future seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent with maintaining the federal funds rate at an average of around 1
By order of the Federal Open Market Committee, July 3, 2002.
Office of Management Services, GSA.
Notice.
The Department of State cancelled the following Optional Form: OF 230, Part 1, Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration.
This form is now a State Department form (DS Form 2083 Part I). You can request copies of the new form from: Department of State, A/RPS/DIR, SA-22, 18th and G Streets, NW; Suite 2400, Washington, DC 20522-2201, 202.312.9605.
Effective July 12, 2002.
Mr. Charles Cunningham, Department of State, 202.312.9605.
General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of intent.
The GSA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Assessment will be prepared for a proposed construction project in San Diego County, California.
Mr. Kevin Waldron (9PC), United States General Services Administration, Public buildings Service, 450 Golden Gate Avenue Third Floor, San Francisco, Ca 94102, Phone (415) 522-3275 Fax (415) 522-3316.
The GSA, in conjunction with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the environmental impacts of construction of a Border Patrol Station/Administration Building for the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Potential resources areas of concern within the project area include endangered species, cultural resources, and traffic.
The purpose of the project is to provide expanded office and vehicle maintenance facilities for the INS within reasonable distance of the International Port of Entry at Otay Mesa in western San Diego County, California.
The purchase of 20 acres of property in unincorporated western San Diego County will be the proposed action evaluated in the EA. The EA will examine the potential impacts to the environment that may result from three alternatives and a “no action” alternative. Implementation of either action alternative would result in the construction of a one or two story building of approximately 75,000 square feet, vehicle maintenance and storage facilities, and associated parking lots, landscaping, and infrastructure improvements. Major environmental issues that will be addressed in the EA include, but are not limited to, socioeconomic impacts, air and water quality, traffic and transportation, endangered species, cultural resources, and local infrastructure impacts. The draft EA is due to be published in September 2002. A public hearing and a 45-day review period will follow the publication and distribution of the Draft EA. Four alternatives are being considered for this project. These include construction on a 20-acre parcel known as the Swallow Parcel at Alta Road and Siempre Viva Road, construction on a 35-acre parcel at Alta Road and the yet-to-be constructed Lone Star Road, construction on a 20-acre parcel also off Alta Road north of Lone Star Road, or a no action alternative.
The appropriate federal, state and local agencies, private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal will be placed on a mailing list to receive project-related materials.
The purpose of this hearing is to receive written and verbal comments regarding the potential environmental impacts of the land purchase and construction of the Border Patrol facility. A brief presentation will precede the request for public comment. GSA and INS representative will be available at this meeting to receive comments from the public. Translation services will be made available upon request tot he GSA.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposal action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EA should be directed to GSA at the address provided above.
A notice announcing the availability of Fiscal Year 2002 funds for a cooperative agreement program for Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Centers (CISA) was published in the
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to The Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Announcement of continuing availability of funds and request for a second round of competitive applications under the Office of Community Services' Assets for Independence Demonstration Program.
Applications received pursuant to the ACF Program Announcement issued in the
Sheldon Shalit, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447; telephone: 202-401-4807; e-mail:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting nominations for voting members to serve on the Allergenic Products Advisory Committee, Blood Products Advisory Committee, Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee, and the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Nominations will be accepted for vacancies that will or may occur through December 31, 2003.
FDA has a special interest in ensuring that women, minority groups, and individuals with disabilities are adequately represented on advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of qualified candidates from these groups.
Because scheduled vacancies occur on various dates throughout each year, no cutoff date is established for the receipt of nominations. However, when possible, nominations should be received at least 6 months before the date of scheduled vacancies for each year, as indicated in this notice.
All nominations and curricula vitae should be sent to the appropriate contact person in the
FDA is requesting nominations of voting members with appropriate expertise for vacancies listed as follows:
1. Allergenic Products Advisory Committee: Three vacancies occurring August 31, 2003; immunology, pediatrics, internal medicine, biochemistry, statistics, consumer interest, and related scientific fields.
2. Blood Products Advisory Committee: One vacancy occurring in September 30, 2002, and six vacancies occurring on September 30, 2003; clinical and administrative medicine, hematology, immunology, blood banking, surgery, internal medicine, biochemistry, engineering, statistics, biological and physical sciences, and other related scientific fields.
3. Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee: Five vacancies occurring January 31, 2003; clinical administrative medicine, hematology, virology, neurology, infectious diseases, immunology, blood banking, surgery, internal medicine, biochemistry, biostatistics, epidemiology, biological and physical sciences, sociology/ethics, and other related professions.
4. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee: Five vacancies occurring in January 31, 2003; immunology, molecular biology, recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA), virology, bacteriology, epidemiology, biostatistics, allergy, preventive medicine, infectious diseases, pediatrics, microbiology, biochemistry, and consumer interest.
1.
Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and adequacy of labeling of marketed and investigational allergenic biological products or materials that are administered to humans for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of allergies and allergic diseases.
2.
Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of blood and products derived from blood and serum or biotechnology which are intended for use in the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of human diseases.
3.
Reviews and evaluates available scientific data concerning the safety of products which may be at risk for transmission of spongiform encephalopathies having an impact on the public health.
4.
Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of vaccines and related biological products which are intended for use in the prevention, treatment, or diagnosis of human diseases.
Persons nominated for membership on the committees shall have adequately diversified experience appropriate to the work of the committee in such fields as clinical and administrative medicine, engineering, biological and physical sciences, statistics, and other related professions. The nature of specialized training and experience necessary to qualify the nominee as an expert suitable for appointment may include experience in medical practice, teaching, and/or research relevant to the field of activity of the committee. The particular needs at this time for each committee are shown in section I of this document. The term of office is up to 4 years, depending on the appointment date.
Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership on one or more of the advisory committees. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations shall include the name of the committee, a complete curriculum vitae of each nominee, current business address and telephone number, and shall state that the nominee is aware of the nomination, is willing to serve as a member (name of committee(s) must be specified), and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. FDA will ask the potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of interest.
Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership on one or more of the advisory committees to represent consumer interests. Self-nominations are also accepted. To be eligible for selection, the applicant's experience and/or education will be evaluated against Federal civil service criteria for the position to which the person will be appointed.
Selection of members representing consumer interests is conducted through consumer organizations that have the responsibility for recommending candidates for the agency's selection. Candidates should possess appropriate qualifications to understand and contribute to the committee's work.
Nominations shall include a complete curriculum vita of each nominee, current address and telephone numbers, and shall state that the nominee is aware of the nomination, is willing to serve as a member, and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. FDA will ask the potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of interest. The nomination should state whether the nominee is interested only in a particular advisory committee or in any advisory committee. The term of office is up to 4 years, depending on the appointment date.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14 relating to advisory committees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in cosponsorship with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Women's Health is announcing the following public workshop entitled: “Evidence Based Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART).” The topics to be discussed include: (1) The FDA regulatory framework; (2) methods of supporting research in this area by NIH; and (3) scientific, social, ethical and policy issues concerning ART.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Melanie Whelan at least 7 days in advance.
This public workshop will provide a forum for discussion of scientific, social, ethical, and policy issues related to ART. The public workshop will be of primary interest to consumers, researchers, academia, ART practitioners, and sponsors of clinical trials evaluating novel ART. The goals of the public workshop are to: (1) Assess the usefulness of animal models in evaluating the safety and efficacy of human ART, and (2) identify social and ethical issues specific to ART. These issues are of interest to FDA, NIH, and DHHS to guide development of scientific initiatives, policy, and regulations in this area and to identify areas where research funding may be needed.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public workshop, cosponsored with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), regarding pediatric oncology drug development. The public workshop is intended to provide information for and perspective from advocacy groups, interested health care providers, academia, and industry organizations on various aspects of drug development in pediatric oncology, including prioritization of new and emerging therapeutic alternatives, clinical trial design, and access to new therapeutic agents. The input from this public workshop will be used in developing topics for discussion at future meetings of the Pediatric Subcommittee of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (the subcommittee).
FDA is announcing a public workshop, cosponsored with the AAP, regarding pediatric oncology drug development. On January 4, 2002, the President signed into law the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (Public Law 107-109). Section 15 of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (Section 15) relates to the subcommittee.
Section 15 directs the subcommittee, in carrying out “the mission of reviewing and evaluating the data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of pediatric cancers,” to:
• Evaluate and, to the extent practicable, prioritize new and emerging therapeutic alternatives available to treat pediatric cancer;
• Provide recommendations and guidance to help ensure that children with cancer have timely access to the most promising new cancer therapies; and
• Advise on ways to improve consistency in the availability of new therapeutic agents.
The agency is seeking public input to inform its future decisionmaking in regard to Section 15.
The agency encourages individuals, patient advocates, industry, consumer groups, health care professionals, researchers, and other interested persons to attend this public workshop.
Persons needing a sign language interpreter or other special accommodations should notify the contact person by July 17, 2002.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control number and should be sent to: Mildred M. Hamman, Reports Liaison Officer, Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4238, Washington, DC 20410-5000.
Mildred M. Hamman, (202) 708-3642, extension 4128, for copies of the proposed forms and other available documents. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
This Notice also lists the following information:
Section 3506 of the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
July 12, 2002.
Mark Johnston, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2564, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.
Department of the Interior.
Proposed addition of a new system of records.
The Department of the Interior is issuing public notice of its intent to add a new Privacy Act system of records to its inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). This action is necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act to publish in the
5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11) requires that the public be provided a 30-day period in which to comment on the intended use of the information in the system of records. Any persons interested in commenting on this proposed system of records may do so by submitting comments in writing to the Departmental Privacy Act Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Chief Information Officer, MS 5312 MIB, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Comments received within 30 days of publication in the
For information on the Electronic Email Archive System contact Regina Lawrence, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department of the Interior at 202-208-5413, or mail at MS-5312-MIB, 1849 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20240.
The Interior Electronic Email Archive System (EEAS) will contain data from certain Department of the Interior bureaus/offices with Indian Trust program responsibilities for the purpose of responding to discovery requests from plaintiffs and requests from the Court, the Special Master, and the Court Monitor in
Electronic Email Archive System (EEAS).
Sensitive, but unclassified.
The records of this system are located at a digital safe site at a location managed by the contractor for the Department of the Interior. Only information maintained at this site by the contractor is considered a Privacy Act system of records covered by this notice.
The system contains information on individuals who send and receive electronic messages using Internet email and interoffice email from and to those Departmental bureaus/offices involved with Indian Trust programs, and those individuals who are referred to in the electronic messages. These bureaus/offices are as follows: Office of the Solicitor, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Policy, Management, and Budget, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Office of Historical Trust Accounting, Office of the Secretary, and the Minerals Management Service.
Records include information from Internet email and interoffice email, including address of sender and receiver(s), subject, date sent or received, text of the message, name of attachment, attachment text, and certification status. The name and email address of the sender and receiver are captured along with the bcc, cc, subject line, and text of the message.
5 USC 301, 43 CFR 1455, and 40 CFR part 1441.
The system's main purpose is to respond to discovery requests from plaintiffs and requests from the Court, the Special Master, and the Court Monitor in the
Disclosures outside the Department of the Interior can be made to:
(a) Contractors who service and maintain the system for the Department, ensuring that all provisions of the Privacy Act, and all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies relating
(b) Another Federal agency to enable that agency to respond to an inquiry by the individual to whom the record pertains.
(c) The Department of Justice, or to a court, adjudicative or other administrative body, or to a party in litigation before a court or adjudicative or administrative body, when:
(1) One of the following is a party to the proceeding or has an interest in the proceeding:
(a) The Department or any component of the Department;
(b) Any Departmental employee acting in his or her official capacity;
(c) Any Departmental employee acting in his or her individual capacity where the Department or the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; and
(2) We deem the disclosure to be:
(a) Relevant and necessary to the proceeding; and
(b) Compatible with the purpose for which we compiled the information.
(d) The appropriate Federal agency that is responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing or implementing a statute, rule, regulation or order, when we become aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of the statute, rule, regulation, or order.
(e) A congressional office in response to an inquiry to that office by the individual to whom the record pertains.
Information in this system of records is maintained in electronic format on a system hard drive.
This specific system has the capability of performing searches through email archive information identified in the “Category of records” section above using any word or number criteria. This capability makes it unique from other email archive systems that are maintained by Interior bureaus/offices, and therefore, this system becomes subject to Privacy Act requirements.
The contractor maintaining this system must follow the requirements under 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(10) and 43 CFR 2.51 for security standards. A security plan was developed to prevent unauthorized access to the system. The plan addresses application security, administration/user security, and application agreements. Access to the system is limited to authorized personnel whose official duties require such access. The EEAS system will be maintained at the Government contractor's facility at a secured data center.
Records in this system will be retained indefinitely pending completion of
The Technology Services Division, Administrative Operations Directorate, National Business Center, Department of the Interior, MS-1540-MIB, 1849 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20240.
To determine whether your records are in this Privacy Act system of records, contact the Privacy Act Officer at the bureau/office from which your email message was sent or where it was received (see list of participating bureau/offices identified in the “Categories of individuals” section above). Interior bureaus/offices are listed at the Department of the Interior Web site at
(a) Proof of your identity;
(b) List of all the names by which you have been known, such as maiden name or alias;
(c) Your Social Security Number;
(d) Your mailing address;
(e) Time period(s) that records pertaining to you may have been created or maintained, to the extent known by you (
(f) Specific description or identification of the records you are requesting (including whether you are asking for a copy of all of your records or only a specific part of them), and the maximum amount of money that you are willing to pay for their copying (See 43 CFR 2.63(b)(4)).
To request access to records, follow procedures in the “Notification procedure” section above. The request must meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2.63. Provide with your request the same information identified in the “Notification procedures” sections.
To request an amendment of a record, send requests in writing to the contacts identified in the “Notification procedure” section above. The request must meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2.71.
Some information maintained in the system is collected from mag-tapes provided by Interior bureau/office email backup systems from those installations identified in the “Categories of individuals” section above. This information is downloaded onto a hard drive managed by the contractor and stored digitally. Information from Interior bureau/office e-mail servers will be captured in real time, transmitted electronically through secured networks, and captured and stored electronically into the EEAS.
None.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Alaska State Office, Interior.
Notice of meeting and field tour.
The Bureau of Land Management's Alaska Resource Advisory Council will conduct a brief meeting at Prince William Sound Community College in Glennallen.
The purpose of the meeting is to provide a briefing for the council in preparation for a tour of BLM public lands along the Denali Highway. The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public may present brief oral comments to the council about BLM's management of the Denali Highway corridor during the meeting as time allows. Written comments will also be accepted.
The meeting will be followed by a two-day tour of the east portion of the Denali Highway corridor. The council will visit recreation areas, mining claims, off-highway vehicle trails, and cultural sites in the Tangle Lakes Archaeological District.
The meeting is July 28, 2002, 7-9 p.m. The field tour is July 29-30, 2002.
Inquiries or comments should be sent to BLM External Affairs, 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7599.
Teresa McPherson, (907) 271-3322 or e-mail
The council provides advice and recommendations on resource and land management issues for 86 million acres of public lands administered by the BLM in Alaska. The council includes representatives from energy, tourism, and commercial recreation interests; conservation organizations; and elected officials, Alaska Native organizations, and the public at large.
The Alaska Resource Advisory Council meets in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of reconsidered final determination.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (Assistant Secretary) by 209 DM 8. Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(m) and 25 CFR 83.11(h)(3), notice is hereby given that the Assistant Secretary declines to acknowledge the Chinook Indian Tribe/Chinook Nation, c/o Mr. Gary Johnson, P.O. Box 228, Chinook, Washington 98614, as an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This notice is based on a determination that the group does not meet all seven criteria set forth in 25 CFR 83.7 in the 1978 regulations, or in 25 CFR 83.7 as modified by 25 CFR 83.8 in the 1994 regulations.
Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.11(h)(3), this reconsidered determination is final and effective upon publication.
R. Lee Fleming, Chief, Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, (202) 208-3592.
The Department published a proposed finding to decline to acknowledge the Chinook Indian Tribe, Inc., in the
The Chinook petitioner's members descend from the Lower Band of Chinook and also from the Wahkiakum, Kathlamet, and Willapa bands of Chinook, and the Clatsop tribe, also a Chinookan-speaking group, that lived historically along the lower Columbia River. The population of the Chinook bands was severely reduced by a series of epidemics in the 1780's, the 1830's, and the late 1850's. The United States negotiated treaties with these separate Chinook bands in 1851, but the Senate did not ratify them. Chinook representatives refused to sign a treaty negotiated in 1855. The Government created the Shoalwater Bay Reservation by executive order in 1866 for the “Indians on Shoalwater Bay,” who were intermixed Chinook and Chehalis Indians. The Government enlarged the Quinault Reservation by executive order in 1873 for the “fish-eating Indians on the Pacific coast,” a definition that has been interpreted as including the Chinook. By 1900, some Chinook descendants were listed on the censuses of these and other reservations. Other Chinook descendants lived off reservations among the non-Indian population and tended to cluster geographically in three separate settlements: at Bay Center on Shoalwater Bay, at Ilwaco at the mouth of the Columbia, and upriver along the shore of the Columbia around Dahlia. After the mid-1850's, the evidence of Chinook band or tribal organization becomes scarce. Chinook descendants participated in claims activities, seeking compensation for the loss of Chinook aboriginal territory, in the first decade of the 20th century, the decade after 1925, and the 1950's. These judicial proceedings also resulted, however, in a conclusion by the Court of Claims in 1906 that the Lower Band of Chinook had “long ceased to exist” as a band and a conclusion by a Federal district court in 1928 that the Chinook had lost their tribal organization. From the mid-1850's until 1951, when Chinook descendants organized to pursue historical Chinook claims, there is scant evidence to suggest that any Chinook community or organization existed as a distinct entity or that informal leaders had political influence over ancestors of the petitioner.
On the eight issues referred by the Secretary, this reconsidered final determination concludes that the previous Assistant Secretary had the authority to review the Chinook petition under the 1994 revised acknowledgment regulations, and that a reconsidered final determination should be made under both the 1978 and 1994 regulations to resolve the questions raised in this case about whether the result would be different under the revised 1994 regulations than under the original 1978 regulations. It also concludes that the previous Assistant Secretary had authority to retain an outside consultant to assist him in his consideration of the Chinook petition.
The final determination explicitly relied upon 1911, 1912, and 1925 statutes in deciding that the petitioner met criteria (a), (b) and (c). This reconsidered final determination concludes that those three statutes are not evidence that the Federal Government understood or identified the Chinook as still existing at the time the statutes were enacted. The 1925 claims statute, used in the final determination as evidence of previous Federal acknowledgment of the petitioner, was not “clearly premised” on the existence in 1925 of a Chinook political entity with a government-to-government relationship with the United States, which is the standard under the acknowledgment regulations for finding unambiguous previous Federal acknowledgment. This conclusion regarding these statutes is important for the reconsidered final determination because the final determination expressly found that “[w]ere it not for the acts of Congress in 1911, 1912, and most importantly, 1925, it would not have been possible to make a positive determination on the evidence presented.”
This reconsidered final determination also concludes that the final determination improperly relied on the petitioner's members or ancestors living in Bay Center, combined with the petitioner's claims and acknowledgment activities, to find that the petitioner as a whole met the requirement of community, criterion (b). With respect to Chinook claims organizations and their activities between 1920 and 1970, this reconsidered final determination concludes that the final determination incorrectly relied on them as sufficient evidence for satisfying criteria (b) and (c) under both the 1978 or 1994 regulations. This reconsidered final determination also clarifies and restates the Department's position that there is no presumption of continuous existence and that the evidentiary benefits afforded to previously acknowledged petitioners are already incorporated in the regulations. The evidence under criteria (a), (b), and (c) is evaluated below in the context of these conclusions on these referred issues.
The 1994 regulations require an evaluation of whether the petitioner was a previously acknowledged tribe within the meaning of the regulations. Because the United States engaged in treaty negotiations with a Chinook tribal entity in 1851 and 1855, it has been determined that the petitioner meets the definition of unambiguous Federal acknowledgment in section 83.1 and is eligible to be evaluated under modified requirements provided in section 83.8 of the 1994 regulations, with 1855 as the date of last Federal acknowledgment. Conclusions concerning previous acknowledgment are solely for the purposes of a determination of previous acknowledgment under 25 CFR part 83, and are not intended to reflect conclusions concerning successorship in interest to a particular treaty or other rights.
Criterion 83.7(a) requires a demonstration of external identification of the petitioner as an Indian entity, from first sustained contact with non-Indians under the 1978 regulations or from the date of last Federal acknowledgment under sections 83.8(d)(1) or 83.8(d)(5) of the 1994 regulations. The proposed finding concluded that the petitioner did not meet criterion 83.7(a) under the 1978 regulations. The final determination concluded that the petitioner met the criterion under both the 1978 and 1994 regulations. Given the conclusions of the proposed finding that a historical Chinook tribe had been identified until 1873 and that several Chinook organizations had been identified since 1951, the petitioner needed to demonstrate that it was identified as an Indian entity by external observers on a substantially continuous basis between 1873 and 1951.
The petitioner did not provide new evidence of identifications of a Chinook Indian entity between 1873 and 1924. The petitioner provided examples to show that some of its ancestors were identified in 1925 and 1927, and again in 1951 and the following years, as a group or groups bringing claims on behalf of a historical Chinook tribe against the United States, but that evidence does not show that a Chinook entity was identified on a substantially continuous basis between 1927 and 1951. A few identifications during a three-year period of the three-quarters of a century between 1873 and 1951 does not constitute “substantially continuous” identification. The evidence is insufficient to show that the petitioner meets the requirements of this criterion between 1873 and 1951. Because the evidence in the record does not show that the petitioning group has been identified as an Indian entity “from historical times until the present,” or from last acknowledgment in 1855 until the present, on a “substantially continuous” basis, this reconsidered final determination concludes that the petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(a) either under the 1978 regulations or as modified by sections 83.8(d)(1) or 83.8(d)(5) under the 1994 regulations.
Criterion 83.7(b) in the 1978 regulations requires the petitioner to demonstrate that “a substantial portion of the petitioning group inhabits a specific area or lives in a community viewed as American Indian and distinct from other populations in the area.” The 1994 regulations similarly require that a “predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct community.” As modified by section 83.8(d)(2), a petitioner that has been previously acknowledged is required only to meet this criterion “at present.” “Community” is defined in the 1994 regulations, section 83.1, as “any group of people which can demonstrate that consistent interactions and significant social relationships exist within its membership and that its members are differentiated from and identified as distinct from nonmembers.” The proposed finding concluded that the petitioner did not meet criterion 83.7(b) under the 1978 regulations. The final determination concluded that the petitioner met the criterion under both the 1978 and 1994 regulations.
The final determination found that evidence submitted by the petitioner in response to the proposed finding was sufficient to show continuous significant social interaction between the Indians living in Bay Center and the Chinook descendants concentrated in Dahlia or Ilwaco between 1880 and 1950. The social interaction in the 1930's and 1940's appears to be based on relations that were established during earlier periods and to rest primarily in the older generation. As people who had been closely connected as children and young adults died, the succeeding generations interacted less often and intensely until the community of Chinook descendants became indistinguishable from the rest of the population. For the post-1950 time period, there is insufficient evidence regarding actual social interaction among a predominant portion of the petitioner's membership. Because the petitioner has not demonstrated that “a substantial portion of the petitioning group” has formed a community “distinct from other populations in the area” since 1950, nor that a “predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct community” at present, this reconsidered final determination concludes that the petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(b) either under the 1978 regulations or as modified by section 83.8(d)(2) under the 1994 regulations.
Criterion 83.7(c), in both the 1978 and 1994 regulations, requires the petitioner to demonstrate that it has maintained “political influence” or authority over its members as an autonomous entity throughout history. The definition of “political influence or authority” in section 83.1 of the 1994 regulations is “a tribal council, leadership, internal process or other mechanism” which the group has used to influence or control the behavior of its members in significant respects, or make decisions for the group which substantially affect its members, or represent the group in dealing with outsiders in matters of consequence. As modified by 83.8(d)(3), a petitioner that has been previously acknowledged is required to demonstrate that it meets the requirements of the criterion “at present” and, for the period between last Federal acknowledgment and the present, the petitioner must demonstrate that “authoritative, knowledgeable external sources” identified leaders or a governing body who exercised political influence or authority over the petitioning group, and also demonstrate one form of evidence listed in section 83.7(c). This reconsidered final determination concludes that the petitioner did not provide such
The record for this case lacks examples of an internal political process, either formal or informal, among the petitioner's ancestors, or of formal or informal political leadership or influence over the petitioner's ancestors as a group between 1855 and 1925. There is evidence of some leadership by George Charley during the late 1920's on behalf of a federally recognized tribe and a portion of the petitioner's ancestors at Bay Center, but not on behalf of the petitioner's ancestors along the Columbia River. There is also very limited evidence that a claims organization existed in the late 1920's and early 1930's, but no evidence that it had any internal political process which resulted in group decisions. There is almost no evidence of political activities or leadership between the early 1930's and 1951. There is evidence for the years between 1951 and 1970 that two organizations were active to pursue a claims case, but insufficient evidence that either organization had an internal decision-making process that embodied a bilateral political relationship between leaders and members which existed broadly among the membership. During the most recent decades the petitioner has had a formal political organization. The proposed finding concluded that there was “very little information available about the internal political processes of the petitioner from 1970 to the present,” and a lack of evidence that the organization was broadly based. The petitioner's new evidence does not change this conclusion. Because the available evidence does not include identifications of leaders or a governing body by “authoritative, knowledgeable external sources,” this reconsidered final determination concludes that the petitioner does not meet criterion 83.7(c) as modified by section 83.8(d)(3) under the 1994 regulations. Because the available evidence does not demonstrate that the petitioning group has exercised political influence over its members from historical times until the present, or from last acknowledgment in 1855 until the present, this reconsidered final determination concludes that the petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(c) either under the 1978 regulations or as modified by section 83.8(d)(5) under the 1994 regulations.
The available evidence demonstrates that the petitioner does not meet all seven criteria required for Federal acknowledgment. Specifically, the petitioner does not meet criteria 83.7 (a), (b), or (c) under the 1978 regulations, nor those three criteria under the 1994 regulations as modified by sections 83.8(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), or (d)(5). The petitioner was found to meet criteria 83.7 (d), (e), (f), and (g) in the original final determination. Those criteria were not at issue in the referral by the Secretary. In accordance with the regulations set forth in 25 CFR 83.7 [1978] and 25 CFR 83.10(m) [1994], failure to meet any one of the seven criteria requires a determination that the group does not exist as an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law.
The final determination on whether or not the Chinook petitioner meets criteria (a), (b), and (c) is superceded by this reconsidered final determination. The
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to analyze the Proposed Millennium Project Plan of Operations for Glamis Marigold Mining Company (GMMC) and notice of public scoping and public meetings.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500-1508 Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, and 43 Code of Federal Regulations 3809, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Winnemucca Field Office will be directing the preparation of a third-party Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to analyze a proposed new mine expansion called the Millennium project. The project would disturb approximately 1,394 acres of public and private lands and is located in Humboldt County, Nevada.
This notice initiates the public scoping process. Comments can be submitted in writing to the BLM, Winnemucca Field Office at the address listed below. All public meetings will be announced through the local news media and newsletters at least 15 days prior to the meetings.
Written comments should be addressed to the Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca Office, Attention: Jeff Johnson, 5100 E. Winnemucca Blvd., Winnemucca, Nevada 89445.
Jeff Johnson, BLM Winnemucca at (775) 623-1500 or FAX # (775) 623-1503.
Since 1988 the Marigold Mine located approximately three miles south of Valmy, Nevada has been in commercial operation. The Marigold mine presently has mineral/development interests on approximately 19,000 acres of private
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Arizona Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held August 1, 2002 at the BLM National Training Center, 9828 North 31st Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona, beginning at 9 a.m. The public comment period will begin at approximately 11:30 a.m., and the meeting will adjourn at approximately 4 p.m.
Deborah Stevens, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, 222 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ, Telephone (602) 417-9215.
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Arizona. At this meeting, topics we plan to discuss include: The agenda items to be covered include: review of the March 1, 2002 meeting minutes; BLM State Director's Update on legislation, regulations and statewide issues; Updates on the Proposed Las Cienegas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Arizona Drought Strategy, and the Arizona In-Lieu Selection; Status of Arizona BLM Planning Starts and Discussion of establishing a RAC Planning Working Group; Update Proposed Field Office Rangeland Resource Teams; RAC Questions on Written Reports from BLM Field Office Managers; Reports by the Standards and Guidelines, Recreation and Public Relations, Wild Horse and Burro Working Groups; Reports from RAC members; and Discussion of future meetings.
All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Intent and Call for Coal Information.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field office in Jackson, Mississippi (Jackson Field Office) is initiating the preparation of a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the states of Alabama and Mississippi (AL-MS).
This action will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Planning will be conducted for lands (tracts) and minerals under the administration of the BLM. The RMP will establish land use management policy on approximately 2,080 acres of land in Alabama, 3,770 acres of land in Mississippi and 200,000 acres of BLM administered in Alabama and Mississippi fluid mineral rights (oil and gas).
This notice also solicits coal information (Call for Coal Information) for BLM-administered coal in Alabama and Mississippi. Coal companies, state and local governments, and the general public are encouraged to submit information to assist the BLM in determining coal development potential, and development conflicts with other resources. If it is determined that there is development potential, BLM staff will give further consideration to addressing coal leasing in the RMP. See
Submit comments and coal information on or before September 10, 2002.
Send written comments and coal information to BLM, Jackson Field Office; RMP AL-MS; 411 Briarwood Dr., Ste. 404; Jackson, MS 39206. Submit electronic comments and coal information to
Elizabeth Allison, (601) 977-5413.
Planning will be conducted for lands (tracts) and minerals under the administration of the BLM. The tracts are located in more than 32 counties in Alabama and 19 counties in Mississippi. There are approximately 200,000 acres of BLM administered fluid mineral rights (oil and gas) under patented (private) lands in Alabama and Mississippi. BLM administered coal in these States may be addressed, if there are expressions of interest for future leasing and development.
Preliminary issues represent the BLM's knowledge, to date, on existing issues and concerns. The anticipated issues to be addressed in the RMP include, but are not limited to: (1) Public lands that could be transferred from BLM administration; (2) public lands that would be designated and managed as special management areas, and (3) BLM-administered fluid minerals that would be closed to leasing or designated as open to oil and gas development under (a) standard terms and conditions, (b) timing limitation (seasonal) constraints, (c) controlled surface use constraints, or (d) no surface occupancy constraints.
These issues are not final and may be refined by public input (comments). Issues proposed by the public will be reviewed by BLM. Determinations will be made as to whether they (1) will be addressed in the RMP or (2) are outside the scope of the RMP.
Preliminary planning criteria developed to guide the preparation of this RMP are listed below. These criteria may be refined by public input (comment).
1. Land use planning and environmental analysis will be conducted in accordance with laws, regulations, executive orders and manuals. Planning will be conducted for lands (tracts) and minerals under the administration of the BLM.
2. Surface tracts will be mapped and identified by legal description. Land use policy will be established for BLM-administered lands identified after the RMP is completed.
3. A reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) will be prepared for the future leasing (and development) of fluid minerals under split-estate lands (i.e., non-BLM surface and BLM minerals). The RFDS will be developed on a regional (county) basis. Areas of high, moderate and low oil and gas potential will be identified (mapped) for each state.
4. Areas with the potential for non energy solid mineral leasing (i.e., phosphates, sodium, etc.) will be evaluated for inclusion in the RMP.
5. Resource data needed to evaluate the impacts of future (foreseeable) mineral development will be collected on a regional basis.
6. The planning team will work cooperatively with (1) federal, state, county and local governments and agencies; (b) tribal governments; (c) groups and organizations; and (d) individuals.
An interdisciplinary team approach will be used to address resource issues in this RMP. The preliminary list of resource programs that will be addressed includes archeology, lands and realty, geology and minerals, outdoor recreation, socioeconomic, soils, water, and wildlife. A RFDS will be developed for BLM-administered fluid minerals and used in the preparation of the RMP and EIS.
This notice initiates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public scoping process. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to national, regional and local needs and concerns. The public is invited to participate in this planning process, beginning with the identification of issues and planning criteria for the RMP. Comments relating to the preliminary issues and planning criteria (listed above) can be submitted in writing to the address listed above.
This planning process will emphasize localized one-to-one contacts, media coverage, direct mailings and continual coordination and collaboration. Meetings will be conducted to (1) determine the scope of the RMP, and (2) obtain input on issues and planning criteria. All public meetings will be announced through the local news media and BLM's Web site (
Individuals who submit comments may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations and businesses and individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public review in their entirety.
You may submit comments and coal information by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to
Submit comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. The BLM also accepts comments and data on disks in WordPerfect 7 (and higher) and Word 97 (and higher) file formats or the ASCII file format. Identify all comments and data in electronic form by the docket number [PP 4F4327/R2253].
Information is needed to determine (1) The potential for coal development and (2) the development conflicts with other resources. Industry and other interested parties are asked to provide information required in Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), subpart 3420.1-2 (43 CFR 3420.1-2). Information is needed for (1) the application of coal planning screens, and (2) possible activity planning (i.e., tract delineation, ranking and selection). Based on the information that's received, additional issues (coal leasing) could be addressed in the RMP.
Those issues would be based on:
1. Determining areas acceptable for further coal leasing consideration with standard stipulations.
2. Determining areas acceptable for further coal leasing consideration with special stipulations.
3. Determining areas unacceptable for further coal leasing consideration.
These determinations will be based on the data BLM receives. BLM staff will: (1) Assess coal development potential, (2) apply unsuitability criteria to proposed lease areas, (3) identify potential multiple use conflicts and (4) identify surface owner consultation needs.
The type of information needed includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Location:
a. Mining companies should include a narrative description and delineate areas on a map (scale of 1 inch to 2,000 feet) for areas they are interested in leasing.
b. Descriptions of both public and private industry coal users in the general region.
2. Quantity needs (tonnage, dates) for both public and private industry coal developers and users.
3. Quality needs (by type and grade) by end users of the coal.
4. Coal reserve drilling data which may pertain to the planning area.
5. Information pertaining to land and mineral ownership.
a. Surface owner consent previously granted, whether consent is transferrable, and surface owner leases with coal companies.
b. Non federal, or fee (private) coal ownership adjacent to federal tracts currently leased or mined.
6. Other resource values occurring within the planning area which may conflict with coal development:
a. Describe the resource value and locate it on a map (scale of 1 inch to 2,000 feet).
b. State the reasons the particular resource would be in conflict with coal development.
Any individual, business entity, or public body may participate in this process by providing coal or other resource information under this Call for Coal Information.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
Notice of an extension of a currently approved information collection (OMB Control Number 1010-0073).
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, we are submitting to OMB for review and approval an information collection request (ICR) titled “30 CFR Part 220, Accounting Procedures for Determining Net Profit Share Payment for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leases.” We are also soliciting comments from the public on this ICR.
Submit written comments on or before August 12, 2002.
Submit written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB Control Number 1010-0073), 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Also, submit copies of your written comments to Carol Shelby, Regulatory Specialist, Minerals Management Service, Minerals Revenue Management, P.O. Box 25165, MS 320B2, Denver, Colorado 80225. If you use an overnight courier service, MMS's courier address is Building 85, Room A-614, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225. You may also submit your comments at our email address
Carol Shelby, telephone (303) 231-3151, FAX (303) 231-3385, or email
The NPSL lessees are required to maintain an NPSL capital account and to provide either annual or monthly reports using data maintained in the capital account. In addition, NPSL lessees must file a report after each inventory of controllable material and following the cessation of production. Further, when nonoperators of an NPSL lease call for an audit, they must notify MMS, and when DOI calls for an audit, the lessee must notify all nonoperators on the lease. These requirements can be found in 30 CFR 220.010, 220.031, and 220.033.
The MMS is requesting an extension of OMB's approval to continue to collect this information. Submission of this information is required in order for MMS to determine when NPSL royalty payments are due and to determine the proper amount of payment. Proprietary information that is submitted is protected, and there are no questions of a sensitive nature included in this information collection.
To comply with the public consultation process, on February 19, 2002, we published a
If you wish to comment in response to this notice, please send your comments directly to the offices listed under the
Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the public record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
Notice of extension of a currently approved information collection (OMB Control Number 1010-0068).
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in the regulations under 30 CFR part 250, subpart M, Unitization, and related documents. This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the paperwork burden of these regulatory requirements.
Submit written comments by August 12, 2002.
You may submit comments directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (1010-0068), 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Mail or hand-carry a copy of your comments to the Department of the Interior; Minerals Management Service; Attention: Rules Processing Team; Mail Stop 4024; 381 Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. If you wish to e-mail comments to MMS, the e-mail address is:
Alexis London, Rules Processing Team, at (703) 787-1600. You may also contact Alexis London to obtain a copy at no cost of the regulations and model unitization agreements that require the subject collection of information.
This notice concerns the paperwork requirements of 30 CFR part 250, subpart M, Unitization, and related documents. Responses are mandatory or are required to obtain or retain a benefit. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. MMS will protect proprietary information according to 30 CFR 250.196 (Data and information to be made available to the public), 30 CFR part 252 (OCS Oil and Gas Information Program), and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2). MMS OCS Regions use the information to determine whether to approve a proposal to enter into an agreement to unitize operations under two or more leases or to approve modifications when circumstances change. The information is necessary to ensure that operations will result in preventing waste, conserving natural resources, and protecting correlative rights, including the Government's interests. We also use information submitted to determine competitiveness of a reservoir or to decide that compelling unitization will achieve these results.
Please note, 30 CFR 250.1303 states that “MMS will maintain and provide a model unit agreement for you to follow.” Upon a recent review of the two current models, it was noted that they specified submission of “four copies” of operator designations. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, we have determined that only “two copies” are necessary and have revised the models to reduce the copy requirements. Copies of the model unit agreements are posted at the MMS Web site:
To comply with the public consultation process, on March 28, 2002, we published a
If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.
Notice of meeting.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) and the Department of State (DOS) are engaged in formal negotiations with the Canadian government to enter into an agreement that would limit the access of asylum seekers, under appropriate circumstances, to the system of only one of the two countries (safe third-country agreement). The purpose of this notice
The meeting will be held on Thursday, August 1, 2002, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Immigration and Naturalization Service Headquarters, 425 I Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20536, Shaughnessy Conference Room, Sixth Floor.
Georgia Papas, Office of International Affairs, Asylum Division, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. 20536; telephone (202) 514-6029; fax (202) 305-0827; e-mail
The purpose of this meeting is to solicit the views of non-governmental organizations and other interested members of the public regarding the terms of a safe third-country agreement between the United States and Canada.
This agreement, when finalized, will limit asylum seekers' access, in certain circumstances, to the asylum system of the last of the two countries where they have been present.
The United States asylum laws contain provisions that make certain aliens ineligible to apply for asylum if they can be removed to a prescribed “safe third country.” Specifically, section 208(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) permits any alien who arrives in the United States to apply for asylum. However, section 208(a)(2)(A) provides that such an alien may not apply for asylum in the United States if the Attorney General determines that the person can be removed to a country pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement (other than the country of the alien's nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence) where he or she would not face persecution and would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.
On December 3, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft signed an accord with then Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Elinor Caplan, and the Solicitor General, Lawrence MacAuley, agreeing “to begin discussions on a safe third-country exception to the right to apply for asylum.” The accord provided, “Such an arrangement would limit the access of asylum seekers, under appropriate circumstances, to the system of only one of the two countries.” Additionally, the Office of Homeland Security's Action Plan for Creating a Secure and Smart Border includes the negotiation of a safe third-country agreement as 1 of 30 shared initiatives between the United States and Canada.
Beginning on July 15, 2002, the public will be able to obtain a copy of the proposed agreement on the Service's Internet Web site at:
There will be an overview of the terms of the draft agreement and an opportunity for public comment.
The meeting is open to the public, but advance notice of attendance is requested to ensure adequate seating and to arrange for appropriate clearance into the building. Persons planning to attend should notify the contact person at least 5 days prior to the meeting. Members of the public may submit written statements at any time before the meeting, or promptly afterward, to the contact person for consideration by the Service and the DOS.
Department of Justice, United States Parole Commission.
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 16, 2002.
5550 Friendship Blvd., Fourth Floor, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.
Open.
The following matters have been placed on the agenda for the open Parole Commission meeting:
Sam Robertson, Case Operations, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5962.
Department of Justice, United States Parole Commission.
11:00 a.m., Tuesday, July 16, 2002.
U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815.
Closed—Meeting.
The following matter will be considered during the closed portion of the Commission's Business Meeting: Appeals to the Commission involving approximately five cases decided by the National Commissioners pursuant to a reference under 28 CFR 2.27. These cases were originally heard by an examiner panel wherein inmates of Federal prisons have applied for parole and are contesting revocation of parole or mandatory release.
Sam Robertson, Case Operations, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5962.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed two-year extension of the Employment Service Complaint Referral Record, ETA 8429, and the Services to Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers Report, ETA 5148, from the current end date of September 30, 2002 to a new end date of September 30, 2004.
A copy of the previously approved information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Gay Gilbert, Office of Workforce Security, U.S. Employment Service/ALMIS, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-4510, Washington, DC 20210, (202-693-3428—not a toll free number) and Internet address:
As part of the settlement in the case of
In compliance with 20 CFR 653.109, DOL established record keeping requirements to allow for the efficient and effective monitoring of SWAs regulatory compliance.
The ETA Form 8429, Employment Service Complaint Referral Record, is used to collect and document all individual complaints filed under the Employment Service complaint system.
The ETA Form 5148, Services to Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers Report, is used to collect data which are primarily used to monitor and measure the extent and effectiveness of Employment Service (ES) services to migrant and seasonal farm workers as a high priority target group for ES services.
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.
This is a request for OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) to extend collection of the Employment Service Complaint Referral Record, ETA 8429 and the Services to Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers Report, ETA 5418, from a current end date of September 30, 2002 to a new end date of September 30, 2004.
Record, ETA 8429 and the Services to Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers Report, ETA 5418, from a current end date of September 30, 2002 to a new end date of September 30, 2004.
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are issued in accordance with applicable law and are based on the information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and in the localities specified therein.
The determinations in these decisions of prevailing rates and fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR part 1, by authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal statutes referred to in 29 CFR part 1, Appendix, as well as such additional statutes as may from time to time be enacted containing provisions for the payment of wages determined to be prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The prevailing rates and fringe benefits determined in these decisions shall, in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing statutes, constitute the minimum wages payable on Federal and federally assisted construction projects to laborers and mechanics of the specified classes engaged on contract work of the character and in the localities described therein.
Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the effective date as prescribed in that section, because the necessity to issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and in large volume causes procedures to be impractical and contrary to the public interest.
General wage determination decisions, and modifications and supersedes decisions thereto, contain no expiration dates and are effective from their date of notice in the
Any person, organization, or governmental agency having an interest in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate and fringe benefit information for consideration by the Department.
Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Division of Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-3014, Washington, DC 20210.
The number of the decisions listed to the Government Printing Office document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts” being modified are listed by Volume and State. Dates of publication in the
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon And Related Acts”. This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country.
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Act are available electronically at no cost on the Government Printing Office site at
Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800.
When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the six separate Volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates will be distributed to subscribers.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC), Space Science Advisory Committee (SScAC), Education and Public Outreach (E/PO) Task Force.
Wednesday, August 7, 2002, 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Thursday, August 8, 2002, 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Friday, August 9, 2002, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Marriott Metro Center Hotel, located at 775 12th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Dr. Jeffrey D. Rosendhal, Code S, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2470.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC), Space Science Advisory Committee (SScAC).
Monday, August 5, 2002, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, August 6, 2002, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Wednesday, August 7, 2002, 8:30 a.m. to Noon.
NASA Headquarters, located at 300 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546, room 5H46 on August 5 and 6, and room 9H40 on August 7.
Ms. Marian R. Norris, Code SB, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4452.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Any member of the public may file a written statement with the Committee; such statements should be provided to the contact above no later than five working days before the meeting. Visitors to the meeting will be requested to sign a visitor's register.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F23, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC World
Wide Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by August 12, 2002. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Bryon Allen, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0015), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the
The proposed action would exempt the licensee on a one-time-only basis from the two-year requirement of 10 CFR 55.59(c) for conducting a comprehensive licensed operator requalification written examination at Dresden.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for exemption dated July 2, 2002, as supplemented by letter dated July 8, 2002.
The proposed action would extend the date for the licensee to complete the licensed operator requalification comprehensive written examinations at Dresden. The proposed action would extend the date for completing the examinations to August 2, 2002, (extending the examination schedule to 30 months rather than the 24 months required by 10 CFR 55.59(c)). The need for this proposed action arose due to the licensee erroneously scheduling the written examinations at an interval greater than the required 24 months.
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes, as set forth below, that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the extension of the operator requalification examinations to August 2, 2002.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Dresden, dated November 1973.
On July 8, 2002, the staff consulted with the Illinois State official, Frank Niziolek of the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
On the basis of this environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated July 2, 2002, as supplemented by letter dated July 8, 2002. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Management and Budget.
Notice.
This notice provides a list of Designated Federal Entities and Federal Entities, as required by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (IG Act), as subsequently amended.
Tawana Webb at 202-395-7586, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget.
This notice provides a copy of the 2002 List of Designated Federal Entities and Federal Entities, which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to publish annually under the IG Act. This list is also posted on the OMB Web site at
The list is divided into two groups: Designated Federal Entities and Federal Entities. The Designated Federal Entities are required to establish and maintain Offices of Inspector General. The Designated Federal Entities are listed in the IG Act, except that those agencies which have ceased to exist or have changed status have been deleted from the list.
Federal Entities are required to report annually to each House of the Congress and OMB on audit and investigative activities in their organizations. Federal Entities are defined as “any Government corporation (within the meaning of section 103(1) of title 5, United States Code), any Government controlled
The 2002 List of Designated Federal Entities and Federal Entities was prepared in consultation with the U. S. General Accounting Office.
Herein follows the text of the 2002 List of Designated Federal Entities and Federal Entities:
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as subsequently amended, requires OMB to publish a list of “Designated Federal Entities” and “Federal Entities” and the heads of such entities. Designated Federal Entities were required to establish Offices of Inspector General. Federal Entities are required to report annually to each House of the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget on audit and investigative activities in their organizations.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a new information collection. RI 20-120, Request for Change to Unreduced Annuity, is a new form designed to collect information OPM needs to comply with the wishes of the retired Federal employee whose marriage has ended. We have always needed this information. In the past, we have considered the information originally provided in the correspondence from the retiree and have made further inquiries as needed. This new form will provide an organized way for the retiree to give us everything at one time.
Comments are particularly invited on:
We estimate we will process 5,000 requests annually from RI 20-120. This form takes an average of 30 minutes per response to complete. The annual burden is estimated to be 2,500 hours.
For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, FAX (202) 418-3251 or E-mail to
Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Send or deliver comments to Ronald W. Melton, Chief, Operations Support Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3349A, Washington, DC 20415-3540.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of July 15, 2002:
Closed Meetings will be held on Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 10 a.m., and Thursday, July 18, 2002, at 10 a.m., and an Open Meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 17, 2002, at 10 a.m., in Room 1C30, the William O. Douglas Room.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (9)(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meetings.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 16, 2002, will be:
Formal orders of investigation;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 18, 2002, will be:
Formal orders of investigation;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; and
Adjudicatory matter.
The subject matter of the Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July 17, 2002, will be:
1. The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments to rule 206(4)-2, the custody rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, to enhance the protections afforded to advisory clients' assets, harmonize the rule with current custodial practices, and clarify circumstances under which advisers have custody of client assets.
2. The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to rule 17a-8 under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The proposed amendments to rule 17a-8 would expand the types of business combinations permitted by the rule and make the rule available for mergers between registered investment companies and certain unregistered entities. The proposed amendments to rule 17a-8 are designed to reduce burdens on investment companies by permitting investment companies to enter into mergers that present little risk of overreaching without first obtaining an exemptive order from the Commission.
3. The Commission will consider whether to propose exemptions for most standardized options from provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and from the registration requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The proposals would ensure comparable regulatory treatment of standardized options and security futures products.
4. The Commission will consider whether to amend the Privacy Act System of Records for Enforcement Files (SEC-42) to clarify that disclosures may be made in connection with debt collection activities, including disclosures to credit reporting bureaus, to update statutory and regulatory references and addresses of system administrators, and to append a statement regarding previously published Privacy Act exemptions claimed for the system.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
Pursuant to authority granted to the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in Presidential Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002 (67 FR 10553), the USTR has found that particular products should be excluded from actions under section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2253) (Trade Act) with regard to certain steel products, and is modifying subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) as set forth in the annex to this notice to implement these exclusions. Pursuant to authority delegated to the USTR in Presidential Proclamation 6969 of January 27, 1997 (62 FR 4415), USTR is making technical corrections to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) as set forth in the annex to this notice. These modifications correct several inadvertent errors and omissions in the subheadings 9903.72.30 through 9903.74.24 of the HTS so that the intended tariff treatment is provided.
The modifications and corrections made in this notice are effective with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the dates set forth in each item in the annex to this notice.
Office of Industry, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street NW., Room 501, Washington DC, 20508. Telephone (202) 395-5656.
On March 5, 2002, pursuant to section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the “Trade Act”) (19 U.S.C. 2253), the President issued Proclamation 7529 (67 FR 10553), which imposed tariffs and a tariff-rate quota on (a) certain flat steel, consisting of: Slabs, plate, hot-rolled steel, cold-rolled steel, and coated steel; (b) hot-rolled bar; (c) cold-finished bar; (d) rebar; (e) certain tubular products; (f) carbon and alloy fittings; (g) stainless steel bar; (h) stainless steel rod; (i) tin mill products; and (j) stainless steel wire, as provided for in subheadings 9903.72.30 through 9903.74.24 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) (“safeguard measures”) for a period of three years plus 1 day. Effective with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m., EST, on March 20, 2002, Proclamation 7529 modified subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTS so as to provide for such increased duties and a tariff-rate quota.
Proclamation 7529 also delegated to the USTR the authority to consider requests for exclusion of a particular product submitted in accordance with the procedures set out in 66 FR 54321, 54322-54323 (October 26, 2001) and, upon publication in the
I have further considered exclusion requests for certain products designated as X-004, X-010, X-011, X-018, X-021, X-022, X-025, X-032, X-035, X-039, X-046, X-048, X-059, X-061, X-072, X-075, X-077, X-083, X-088, X-089, X-090, X-093, X-100, X-104, X-108, X-109, X-110, X-113, X-116, X-119, X-120, X-122, X-128, X-134, X-142, X-143, X-147, X-160, X-162, X-172, X-177, X-186, X-187, X-188, X-194, X-196, X-213, and X-219. I have also considered exclusion requests for certain products designated N-300, N-303, N-313, N-316, N-319, N-321, N-377, N-387, N-392, N-426, N-454, N-455, N-456, N-467, N-491, N-495, N-499. I find that the exclusion from the safeguard measures established in Proclamation 7529 of certain steel products within these designations, as described in sections 2 and 3 of the annex to this notice, would not undermine the goals of those safeguard measures. Therefore, I find that these products should be excluded from those safeguard measures. Accordingly, under authority vested in the USTR by Proclamation 7529, I modify the HTS provisions created by the annex to Proclamation 7529 as set forth in the annex to this notice. Such modifications shall be embodied in the HTS with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after March 20, 2002.
On March 19, 2002 and June 4, 2002, USTR published
Proclamation 6969 authorized the USTR to exercise the authority provided to the President under section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2483) to embody rectifications, technical or conforming changes, or similar modifications in the HTS. Under authority vested in the USTR by Proclamation 6969, the rectifications, technical and conforming changes, and similar modifications set forth in the annex to this notice shall be embodied in the HTS with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date set forth in each item in the annex to this notice.
The HTS is modified as set forth in this annex, with bracketed matter included to assist in the understanding of the modifications. The following provisions supersede matter now in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). The new subheading and superior text thereto being inserted by this notice are set forth in columnar format, and material in such columns is inserted in the columns of the HTS designated “Heading/Subheading”, “Article Description”, “Rates of Duty 1 General”, “Rates of Duty 1 Special”, and “Rates of Duty 2”, respectively. Individual subdivisions of U.S. note 11 to subchapter III
1. In order to make corrections in subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTS, the following modifications shall be made in U.S. note 11 to such subchapter:
A. Subdivision (b)(viii)(A) is modified by deleting “0.245” and by inserting in lieu thereof “0.254”.
B. Subdivision (b)(xv), as modified by paragraph 9(E) of the notice published on June 4, 2002, is modified by inserting a comma after “nickel of 0.40 percent maximum”.
C. In annex paragraph 9(N) of such notice, “subdivision (b)(xxxii)(B)” is modified to read “subdivision (b)(xxxii)(C)”; and in subdivision (b)(xxxii)(C) the language “(imported under subheading 7209.16.00, 7209.18.15, 7209.18.25 or 7209.17.00)” is deleted;
D. Subdivision (b)(xxxv)(A) is modified by deleting all of the text starting with “tin-nickel layer” and by inserting in lieu thereof the following: “tin-nickel layer of 1.0 micrometer or more; tin layer of 0.05 micrometer or more; nickel-graphite layer over 0.2 micrometer, and bottom side: nickel layer of 1.0 micrometer or more;”.
E. Subdivision (b)(xxxv)(B) is modified by deleting all of the text starting with “tin-nickel layer” and by inserting in lieu thereof the following: “tin-nickel layer of 1.0 micrometer or more; nickel-graphite layer of 0.5 micrometer or more; bottom side: nickel layer of 1.0 micrometer or more;”.
F. Subdivision (b)(xxxv)(C) is modified by deleting all of the text starting with “nickel-graphite layer” and by inserting in lieu thereof the following: “nickel-graphite layer of 1.0 micrometer or more; bottom side: nickel layer of 1.0 micrometer or more;”.
G. Subdivision (b)(xxxv)(D) is modified by deleting all of the text starting with “nickel layer” and by inserting in lieu thereof the following: “nickel layer of 1.0 micrometer or more; nickel-phosphorus layer of 0.1 micrometer or more; bottom side: nickel layer of 1.0 micrometer or more;”.
H. Subdivision (b)(xxxv)(E) is modified by deleting all of the text starting with “nickel-tin-nickel” and by inserting in lieu thereof “nickel-tin-nickel combination layer of 1.0 micrometer or more; tin layer only of 0.05 micrometer or more; bottom side: nickel layer of 1.0 micrometer or more;”.
I. Subdivision (b)(xlii) is modified by deleting all of the text starting with “nickel-tin layer” and by inserting in lieu thereof the following: “nickel-tin layer of 1.0 micrometer or more; tin layer of 0.05 micrometer or more; bottom side: nickel layer of 1.0 micrometer or more; the foregoing designated as X-109;”.
J. In subdivision (liii), delete “in coils,”.
K. Annex paragraph 9(U) of the notice of June 4, 2002, is modified to read as follows: “In subdivision (b)(xlviii), “457.2 mm” is deleted and “457.0 mm” is inserted in lieu thereof;”.
L. Subheading 9903.73.45 is modified by deleting “11(b)(xi)” and by inserting in lieu thereof “11(b)(xi)(A)'; and subheadings 9903.73.45 and 9903.73.46, as inserted by paragraph 10(D) of such notice, are redesignated as 9903.73.46 and 9903.73.47, respectively.
M. The superior text to subheadings 9903.73.42 through 9903.73.52 is modified by deleting “with a height of 80 mm or more” and by inserting “with any linear dimension of 80 mm or greater when measured through a solid portion of the cross section”.
2. In order to provide that additional categories of goods related to existing exclusions are excluded from the actions taken in Presidential Proclamation 7529 and that needed clarifications are made, U.S. note 11(b) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTS is further modified as follows:
A. Subdivision (b)(xi) is deleted and replaced by:
“(xi) Products designated as X-083, with the following characteristics:
(A) Products known as “Superplast SP 300,” the foregoing which are plates, pre-forged and rolled blocks or forged extra-heavy section blocks, with thickness of 152 and 1270 mm, inclusive, widths of 1990 mm, and lengths of 3048 to 3810 mm, inclusive; containing, by weight, carbon of between 0.235 and 0.265 percent, chromium of between 1.20 and 1.40 percent, manganese of between 1.20 and 1.40 percent, nickel of 0.30 percent maximum, molybdenum of between 0.35 and 0.45 percent, silicon of between 0.05 and 0.15 percent, boron of between 0.002 and 0.004 percent and sulphur of between 0.015 and 0.020 percent; with oxygen of 20 ppm (parts per million) and hydrogen of 2 ppm; if measuring between 152 and 203 mm displaying through hardness of 269 to 320 Brinnell, with a maximum dispersion of 15 bhn throughout; if measuring 203 and 1270 mm having through hardness of 290 to 320 Brinnell, with a maximum dispersion of 30 bhn throughout; all such products conforming to ultrasonic testing requirements of American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) A578-S9, with a 2 mm flat bottom hole, and homogenous product (free of hardspots) cleanliness guaranteed per ASTM E45 method A, worst field ratings A: 1.5 maximum, B: 1.5 maximum, C: 1.0 maximum and D: 1.5 maximum;
(B) Flat-rolled products imported in condition as specified in ASTM/ASME A353 (as rolled) or ASTM/ASME A553 (quenched and tempered), thickness of 4.75 mm or greater, minimum Charpy impact energies at −196° § C of 90 J (longitudinal) and 80 J (transverse), manufactured in compliance with the European material standard EN 10028-Part 4 and the required certification EN 10204 3.1.A; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.13 maximum, manganese 0.90 to 0.98, phosphorus 0.015 maximum, sulfur 0.01 maximum, silicon 0.13 to 0.45 and nickel 8.40 to 9.60; or
(C) Flat-rolled products having a width not over 600 mm, not further worked than hot rolled, of a thickness of 4.75 mm or greater, containing by weight 24 percent or more of nickel with or without other elements and composed according to specification ASTM F15;”
B. Subdivision (b)(xx) is deleted and replaced by:
“(xx) Flat-rolled, hot-rolled products designated as X-116, as described below:
(A) Products not further processed than hot-rolled, of the grade known as “ALFORM” or “ALFORM 890/900,” of a thickness of not over 4.75 mm, whether in coils or in cut-to-length form (provided for in subheading 7225.30.70 or 7225.40.70);
(B) Products of grade SAE 8667, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.61 to 0.72, chromium 0.20 to 0.35, manganese 0.30 to 0.50, molybdenum 0.08 to 0.15, nickel 0.20 to 0.35, phosphorus 0.025 maximum, sulfur 0.025 maximum and silicon 0.20 to 0.35; hot-rolled, pickled and oiled in coils; according to specification OCS-1; silicon-aluminum killed, without welds; fine austenitic grain; thickness: 2.26 mm or 3.18 mm or 4.36 mm, thickness tolerances ±0.090 mm; conicity measured at 40 mm from edge; thickness tolerances for remainder ±0.18 mm; and width of 1,028.7 mm to 1,033.55 mm;
(C) Grade SAE 8667, hot-rolled, pickled and oiled products in coils; silicon-aluminum killed, without welds, fine austenitic grain; thickness 2.29 mm, thickness tolerances ±0.090 mm; conicity measured at 40 mm from edge, 0.090 mm for 95 percent of coil length, thickness tolerances for remainder ±0.18 mm, width 1028.7 mm. −0.00 mm/+4.75 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.61 to 0.72, chromium 0.40 to 0.60, manganese 0.35 to 0.55, molybdenum 0.10 to 0.20, nickel 0.60 to 0.90, phosphorus 0.025 maximum, sulfur 0.025 and silicon 0.20 to 0.35; or
(D) Pickled and oiled products in coils, silicon-aluminum killed, grade 1050 mod. according to SAE J403-92; tolerances according to ASTM A568/91A, no welds, thickness tolerances ±0.13mm, thickness/width combinations: not over 1.98 mm/927.10 mm or not over 2.28 mm/1146 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): aluminum 0.02 to 0.07, carbon 0.51 to 0.55, chromium not over 0.05, manganese 0.78 to 0.90, phosphorus 0.012 maximum, sulfur 0.003 maximum and silicon 0.20 to 0.30; cleanliness: inclusions not to exceed 15,000 per Wallace Barnes (approximately 12 maximum Stringer Type per ASTM); free of primary and secondary pipe, lamination, seams, laps, rolled in scale, harmful segregation (
C. Subdivision (b)(xxiii) is deleted and replaced by:
“(xxiii) Hot-rolled flat-rolled products designated as X-142, meeting the following characteristics:
(A) Products known in industry usage as “SCM 415,” with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.13 to 0.18, silicon 0.15 to 0.35, manganese 0.60 to 0.85,
(B) Products having widths greater than 914 mm, certified by the importer to have had ladle chemical analysis (percent by weight): carbon 0.56 to 0.64, manganese 0.75 to 1.00, nickel 0.40 to 0.70 and molybdenum 0.15 to 0.25; or
(C) Products meeting ASTM A506 (Modified UNS G41180), with chemical composition (percent by weight): manganese 0.60 to 0.90, chromium 0.55 to 0.75, silicon 0.30 to 0.45, copper 0.20, molybdenum 0.10 to 0.15, carbon 0.13 to 0.18, sulfur not over 0.005, phosphorus not over 0.025, niobium (columbium) 0.02 to 0.04, nickel not over 0.10; thickness of 1.55 mm or more but not over 3.76 mm; calcium refinement; half gauge tolerance ±0.115 mm; with coil size of 900 to 1,200 kg per cm width with no more than 10 percent of the coils between 600 and 900 kg per cm width;' D.Subdivision (b)(xxv) is deleted and the following new provisions are inserted in lieu thereof:
“(xxv) Cold-rolled products designated as X-010, as described below:
(A) Blue finish band saw steel meeting the following characteristics: Thickness not over 1.31 mm; width not over 80 mm; chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 1.2 to 1.3, silicon 0.15 to 0.35, manganese 0.20 to 0.35, phosphorus not over 0.03, sulfur not over 0.007, chromium 0.30 to 0.5 and nickel not over 0.25; with the following other properties: carbides fully spheroidized, having greater than 80 percent of carbides, which are not over 0.003 mm and uniformly dispersed; surface finish is blue finish free from pits, scratches, rust, cracks, or seams; smooth edges; edge camber (in each 300 mm of length) of not over 7 mm arc height; and cross bow (per mm of width) of 0.015 mm maximum;
(B) Bright or blue finished band saw steel, if entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 250 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, and meeting the following characteristics: cold-rolled, heat treated with fine spheroidized structure, edge machined, corner radius 45 degrees, controlled dish to 0.375 mm per 25.4 mm maximum; straightness 6.35 mm in 3,048 mm, supplied in coils of matched length and in sets; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.70 to 0.80, silicon 0.10 to 0.30, manganese 0.60 to 0.85, chromium 0.20 to 0.30, sulfur 0.025 maximum and phosphorus 0.025 maximum; meeting ASTM E45 3.0/3.5 CT for cleanliness and with grain size 5 to 8 according to ASTM E112; thickness not over 1.25 mm and width not over 42 mm;
(C) Bandsaw steel, if entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 163 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing meeting the following characteristics: cold-rolled, with a fully spheroidized uniform pinpoint carbide structure in a ferrite matrix; cleanliness meeting ASTM E45 CT3.6 maximum; edges machined square and decornered; dish 0.025 mm maximum per 25.4 mm of width, straightness 6.35 mm in 3,048 mm, surface finish to be uniform through each coil, face to face and coil to coil, hardness 300-350 VPN; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.65 to 0.74, silicon 0.20 to 0.35, manganese 0.30 to 0.50, sulfur 0.025 maximum, phosphorus 0.025 maximum, chromium 0.40 to 0.60, nickel 0.60 to 0.90 and molybdenum 0.08 to 0.15; thickness not over 1.1 mm and width not over 35 mm;
(D) Flat-rolled steel with the following characteristics: commercially designated as “B82”, cold-rolled, hardened and tempered, leather polished (heavy grain), hardness HRC 38 to 54, finish to be consistent coil to coil and face to face; capable of passing tooth setting bend test without fracture; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.70 to 0.80, manganese 0.65 to 0.85, sulfur 0.008 maximum and phosphorus 0.018 maximum; dish 0.025 mm maximum per 25.4 mm of width; cleanliness meeting ASTM E45M 3.5CT, grain size 5 to 8 ASTM E112, tempered martensite microstructure free from segregation or banding, after polishing the product may be naturally colored blue, bronze or gold, thickness not over 2.30 mm and width not over 375 mm; or
(E) Cold-rolled, flat-rolled steel, if entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 340 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, and with the following characteristics: cleanliness meeting ASTM E45M 3.5CT; grain size 5 to 8 by ASTM E112; hardened and tempered within the range HRC 43 to 54; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.98 to 1.05, manganese 0.30 to 0.50 and sulfur 0.015 maximum; dish 0.025 mm maximum per 25.4 mm of width; scaleless, heavy gauge leather polished or blue, whether or not edge machined; width of 150 mm or less and thickness of not over 2.35 mm;'
E. Subdivision (b)(xxxi) is deleted and the following new provisions are inserted:
“(xxxi) Cold-rolled flat-rolled steel designated as X-083, with the following characteristics:
(A) Products not further worked than cold-rolled, less than 4.75 mm in thickness; containing, by weight, at least 14 percent nickel or 25 percent cobalt, with or without other elements; controlled expansion alloys are composed according to specifications ASTM F15, ASTM F30, ASTM B753 ASTM F1684; magnetic alloys composed according to specifications ASTM A753 or ASTM A801; or
(B) Products of grade C1095/SAE1095, if entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 12,000 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, and with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon of 0.90 to 1.04, manganese 0.30 to 0.50, phosphorus 0.025 maximum, sulfur 0.015 maximum and silicon 0.15 to 0.25; thickness 0.254 mm to 2.324 mm; width 914.4 mm to 1320.8 mm; spheroidized annealed; thickness tolerance of half the ASTM A568 standard or less; and HRB hardness HRB 90 maximum;'
F. In subdivision (b)(xxxii) is modified by striking “or” at the end of subdivision (b)(xxxii)(C)(XV), by inserting “or” at the end of subdivision (b)(xxxii)(D), and the following new subdivision is inserted thereafter:
“(E) Products with thickness 1.07 mm or more but not over 3.05 mm, width 130 mm or more but not over 413 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.67 to 0.80, silicon 0.20 to 0.35, manganese 0.30 to 0.50, nickel 1.90 to 2.20, chromium 0.10 to 0.20, phosphorus not over 0.03, sulfur not over 0.015 and copper not over 0.15; flatness tolerance of ±0.001 mm per millimeter of product width; straightness of product (camber): short camber ±0.2997 mm over 1,016 mm, long camber: ±0.7620 mm over 3,048 mm; edge finish: square smooth edges free of burrs; surface finish: smooth surface of Ra 0.4-0.8 micrometer on both sides; hardened and tempered, bright finished random length coils; microstructure: evenly tempered martensitic structure free of carbide network; and no decarburization;'
G. (i) In subdivision (xxxiv)(C), the language “width 12.6365 mm, polished surface, tensile strength 1,696 MPa—2,096 MPa” is deleted and “width 12.6365 mm plusmn;0.0508 mm, polished surface, tensile strength 1,560 MPa minimum” is substituted in lieu thereof;
(ii) In subdivision (xxxiv), delete the final word “or” from subdivision (E) and insert the following new subdivisions in alphabetical sequence:
“(G) Flat-rolled products, Eberle 18, Eberle 18C (SAE1095 modified steel), thickness not over 1.0 mm; width not over 152.4 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.90 to 1.05, silicon 0.15 to 0.35,manganese 0.30 to 0.50, phosphorus 0.03 maximum and sulfur 0.006 maximum; mechanical properties: ultimate tensile strength at least 1590 N/mm2, hardness greater than or equal to 475 Vickers hardness; physical properties: flatness less than 0.2 percent of the product width; microstructure: completely free from decarburization, carbides are spheroidal and fine within 1 percent to 4 percent (area percentage) in the uniform termpered martensite; non-metallic inclusions: sulfide inclusions with area percentage not over 0.04, and oxide inclusions with area percentage not over 0.05; and surface roughness Ra 0.13 micrometer, Rmax 1.5 micrometers;
(H) Flat-rolled products, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.98 to 1.05, silicon 0.15 to 0.30, manganese 0.4 to 0.6, sulfur 0.005 maximum, phosphorus 0.2 maximum, aluminum 0.01 maximum, chromium 0.15 to 0.4, copper 0.15 maximum and nickel 0.15 maximum; width 12.7 mm or more but not over 508 mm, thickness 0.1143 mm or more but not over 0.1422 mm, inclusive, thickness tolerance +/-0.005 mm, edges deburred; tensile strength 1000 to 1100 N/mm2; and hardened and tempered with hardness HV 580 to 650;
(I) Flat-rolled products, Eberle 18, Eberle 18C (SAE1095 modified steel), having a width not over 152.4 mm and thickness 0.254 mm to 0.889 mm; bright polished, unpolished or blue polished surface, surface roughness Rtmax 3.0 micrometer; ultimate tensile strength 1696 MPa +/-310 ksi; edges deburred or machined; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.90 to 1.05, silicon 0.15 to 0.35, manganese 0.30 to 0.50, phosphorus 0.03 maximum and sulfur 0.006 maximum;
(J) Ski edge profiles, grade SAE 1070 or German grade X35CrMo17, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight) for X35CrMo17 being carbon 0.33 to 0.45, silicon 1.0 maximum, manganese 1.50 maximum, phosphorus 0.04 maximum, sulfur 0.025 maximum, chromium 15.5 to 17.5, molybdenum 0.8 to 1.3 and nickel 1.0 maximum; hardened and tempered to 45 to 52 HRC; bright surface or primer coated and stamped according to drawing;
(K) Products described in industry usage as finally annealed electrical steel strip, the foregoing being flat-rolled silicon steel, coated with an insulating laquer modified according to customer's specification (C3/C5 type), low thickness deviation across the width (value for 0.50 mm thick material: maximum 0.02 mm, value for 0.65 mm thick material: maximum 0.03 mm); grade: finally annealed electrical steel product according to EN 10106 (specific grades: M530-50A, M530-65A with customer specified maximum core losses of 6.05 W/kg P 1.5 at 60 Hz and 5.80 W/kg P 1.5 at 60 Hz); finally annealed and coated; thickness 0.50 mm to 0.65 mm and width 1,250 mm maximum; or
(L) Products described in industry usage as doctor blade steel for the printing industry, with thickness 0.076 to 0.25 mm and width 70 mm maximum; straightness deviation 0.6 mm per 3000 mm; commercial grade UHB 20 C; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.95 to 1.05, silicon 0.20 to 0.35, manganese 0.20 to 0.50, phosphorus 0.015 maximum and sulfur 0.010 maximum; with the end product having tight straightness, flatness and a fine dispersed microstructure of high purity, heat-treated;
(M) Hardened and tempered cold-rolled products, meeting AISI 1075; with thickness of 0.2 mm to 3.0 mm to meet Swedish T5 thickness tolerance; width of 622 mm to 1,016 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.70 to 0.80, silicon 0.15 to 0.30, manganese 0.50 to 0.7, phosphorus not over 0.020, sulfur not over 0.010, aluminum not over 0.020 and chromium 0.31 to 0.50;
(N) Products meeting AISI 1075, with thickness of 0.2 mm to 3.0 mm to meet Swedish T5 thickness tolerance; width of 622 mm to 1,016 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.97 to 1.03, silicon 0.15 to 0.30, manganese 0.40 to 0.50, phosphorus not over 0.020, sulfur not over 0.005, aluminum not over 0.020 and chromium 0.31 to 0.50;
(O) Products having a thickness of 0.5 mm to 3.5 mm and width of 50 mm to 650 mm; roughness: Ra (RMS) maximum 0.2 micrometer; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.70 to 0.80, silicon 0.15 to 0.35, manganese 0.30 to 0.50, phosphorus not over 0.020, sulfur not over 0.010, aluminum not over 0.020, chromium 0.05 to 0.30 and nickel 1.90 to 2.20;”.
H. In subdivision (b)(xxxv), the word “or” is deleted at the end of (b)(xxxv)(D), “or” is inserted at the end of (b)(xxxv)(E), and the following new subdivision is inserted in alphabetical sequence:
“(F) Flat-rolled products, with unalloyed nickel plated coating measuring not over 5 microns per side with coating on one side at least 2 microns in thickness; with cold-rolled substrate known in industry usage as commercial grade battery grade sheet and having a thickness from 0.10 mm to 0.762 mm; the foregoing substrate with the following chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.08, manganese not over 0.45, phosphorus not over 0.02, sulfur not over 0.02, aluminum not over 0.15 and silicon not over 0.10; with such substrate having the following mechanical specifications: tensile strength not to exceed 448 MPa, yield strength from 220 to 379 MPa, minimum elongation of 18 percent, Vickers hardness of 85 to 150, equiaxed or pancake with grain type size (ASTM) from 7 to 12 with delta r value ±0.2 and a lankford value greater than or equal to 1.2;”.
“(C) Single-reduced, tin-coated steel, entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 36,000 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing of a width of 1,138.2375 or more but not over 1,141.4125 mm; with thickness range of 0.260 mm to 0.270 mm (95 pound base box) or 0.267 mm to 0.278 mm (97 pound base box); 1.7/1.7 g/m\2\ tin coating, Type L, T3.5 CA, low chromium; or
(D) Electrolytically tin plated steel, entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 40,000 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing meeting one of the following ASTM specifications: A623, A623M, A624 or A624M and having the following additional properties: width either 1,071 mm or more but not over 1,074 mm or 1,202 mm or more but not over 1,205 mm; T4 temper; thickness of one or more of the following gauges: 0.280 mm, 0.300 mm, 0.315 mm, 0.325 mm or 0.355 mm; continuously annealed; standard shot blasted surface finish; chemistry of type L, oiled with acetyltributyl citrate (ATBC), tin plate coating weight of 2.2 g/m
J. Subdivision (b)(l) is modified by deleting “200,000 metric tons,” and by inserting in lieu thereof “200,000 t during the 12-month period beginning on March 20, 2002 or March 20, 2003 or during the period from March 20, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, under subheading 9903.72.75,”; and by deleting “50,000 metric tons,” and by inserting in lieu thereof “50,000 t during the 12-month period beginning on March 20, 2002 or March 20, 2003 or during the period from March 20, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, under subheading 9903.72.76,”.
K. Effective with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after July 12, 2002 and through the close of the period specified in U.S. note 11(a) to subchapter III of chapter 99, the superior text to subheadings 9903.73.88 through 9903.73.95 is modified by deleting “, other than fittings not machined, not tooled and not otherwise processed after forging”.
3. In order to provide that additional groups of products shall be excluded from the import relief, U.S. note 11(c) is modified by inserting immediately after the last sentence the following additional sentence and the subordinate paragraphs set forth herein:
“For purposes of this paragraph, the following goods shall be excluded from the application of relief under the subheadings referred to in paragraph (a) of this note:
(i) Cold-rolled, flat-rolled steel, designated as X-110, meeting the following characteristics:
(A) Grade 20C products, entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 45,000 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing hardened and tempered, with thickness 0.102 mm or more but not over 1.20 mm and width not over 355.6 mm; tensile strength from 1600 N/mm\2\ to 2100 N/mm\2\ with a tolerance ±80 N/mm\2\; hardness 480 to 615 HV; thickness tolerance of T3 if thickness not over 0.381 mm, T2 if thickness over 0.381 mm but not over 0.508 mm, and T1 if over 0.508 mm but not over 1.194 mm; and flatness tolerance of 0.20 percent of product width;
(B) Grade 20C products, entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 5,700 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing hardened and tempered, with thickness 0.102 mm or more but not over 0.635 mm; width 12.7 mm or more but not over 355.6 mm; tensile strength ranging 1750 N/ mm\2\ to 2100 N/mm\2\ with tolerance ±80 N/mm\2\; hardness 520 to 615 HV, thickness tolerance of T3, width tolerance of B1, flatness tolerance of 0.30 percent of product width, straightness tolerance of R2, minimal surface defects with a maximum depth of 5 micrometers, and maximum scratch depth of 2.0 micrometers;
(C) Steel known in industry usage as flapper valve steel, entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 17,500 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing hardened and tempered, surface polished; thickness not over 1.0 m;, width not over 355.6 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.90 or more but not over 1.05, silicon 0.15 or more but not over 0.35, manganese 0.30 or more but not over 0.50, phosphorus 0.03 maximum, sulfur 0.006 maximum,
(D) Flat-rolled steel, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.70 or more but not over 0.80, silicon 0.20 or more but not over 0.35, manganese 0.30 or more but not over 0.45, chromium 0.05 or more but not over 0.17, nickel 1.85 or more but not over 2.15, phosphorus 0.018 maximum, sulfur 0.005 maximum; hardened and tempered, bright and polished; thickness 0.60 mm or more but not over 3.05 mm; width 16.0 mm or more but not over 412.8 mm; tensile strength 1290 N/mm\2\ minimum; hardness 40 HRC minimum; with square and smooth edges; free from surface defects; thickness tolerance of T1 according to Swedish Standard 21 21 11 as in effect on March 20, 2002 and certified by the importer to meet such standard; and maximum unflatness of 0.10 percent of the product width;
(ii) Cold-rolled flat-rolled deep drawing enameling steel, designated as X-119, with the characteristics specified for ASTM A-424 Type 3, interstitial-free; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.02 maximum, titanium 0.05 minimum, manganese 0.35 maximum, phosphorus 0.020 maximum, and sulfur 0.030 maximum; with surface roughness 2.29 to 3.07 micrometers; dry (no oil on surface); hardness 24-45 HRB;
(iii) Cold-rolled, flat-rolled steel, designated as X-122, meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Dual phase steel products with dispersed martensitic islands in mainly ferrite matrix, thickness 0.60 mm to 1.75 mm; width 800 mm to 1600 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.06 to 0.14, silicon 0.20 maximum, manganese 1.0 to 2.0, phosphorus 0.04 maximum and sulfur 0.015 maximum; yield strength 340 to 410 MPa, tensile strength over 600 MPa and elongation over 20 percent; or
(B) Products with up to 50 percent martensite in ferrite matrix, thickness 0.80 mm to 1.60 mm; width 1,000 mm to 1,400 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.10 to 0.18, silicon 0.80 maximum, manganese 1.5 to 2.0, phosphorus 0.05 maximum, sulfur 0.03 maximum, aluminum 0.02 to 0.05, chromium 0.60 maximum, titanium 0.08 to 0.15; yield strength 600 to 760 MPa, tensile strength 800 MPa or more and elongation greater than 10 percent;
(iv) Alloy bar, not further worked than hot-rolled, designated as X-147, meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) ASTM grade 8620Te products, entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 2,100 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing certified by the importer as meeting the following characteristics: tellurium content to achieve a sulfide mean aspect ratio of 5:1 maximum; reduction ratio of 16:1 minimum, achieved through continuous bloom casting at 560 x 400 mm; fully surface inspected and certified by the producer to be free from defects deeper than 0.75 percent of bar diameter; certified as free from mixes, achieved by 100 percent spectrometer testing; or
(B) ASTM grade 5150Te products, certified to meet the following characteristics: tellurium content to achieve a sulfide mean aspect ratio of 5:1 maximum; reduction ratio of 16:1 minimum, achieved through continuous bloom casting at 560 x 400 mm; fully surface inspected and certified by the producer to be free from defects deeper than 0.75 percent of bar diameter; certified as free from mixes, achieved by 100 percent spectrometer testing;
(v) Hot-rolled flat-rolled steel, designated as X-025, in coils, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.10 to 0.14, manganese 0.90 maximum, phosphorus 0.025 maximum, sulfur 0.002 maximum, silicon 0.30 to 0.50, chromium 0.50 to 0.70, copper 0.20 to 0.40 and nickel 0.20 maximum; width not over 1,138 mm, thickness 1.60 to 5.03 mm; minimum yield strength 344 N/mm
(vi) Hot-rolled flat-rolled steel designated as X-072, with characteristics described below:
(A) Products in coils, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.90 to 1.30, manganese 0.425 to 0.575, phosphorus 0.020 maximum, sulfur 0.020 maximum, silicon 0.020 maximum, aluminum 0.025 to 0.060, nitrogen 0.0030 to 0.0050, copper 0.040 maximum, tin 0.010 maximum, chromium 0.040 maximum, nickel 0.040 maximum, molybdenum 0.010 maximum, niobium (columbium) 0.005 maximum, vanadium 0.005 maximum, boron 0.0005 maximum and titanium 0.005 maximum; minimum yield strength 248 MPa, minimum tensile strength 345 MPa, minimum elongation 30 percent in 50.8 mm; if pickled and oiled, in dimensions of: thickness of 2.79 mm (minus 0, plus 0.40 mm) and width over 1,879.6 mm; thickness of 3.81 (minus 0, plus 0.40 mm) and width 1,930.4 mm or more, thickness of 2.31 mm (minus 0, plus 0.40 mm) and width 1,936.75 mm or more; or if not pickled and oiled, in dimensions of: thickness of 2.79 mm (minus 0, plus 0.40 mm) and width over 1,879.6 mm, thickness of 3.81 (minus 0, plus 0.40 mm) and width over 1,943.1mm; thickness of 2.31 mm (minus 0, plus 0.40 mm) and width 1,936.75 mm or more;
(B) Products in coils, whether or not pickled & oiled, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.015 to 0.030, manganese 0.140 to 0.200, phosphorus 0.017 maximum, sulfur 0.010 maximum, silicon 0.024 maximum, aluminum 0.040 to 0.080, nitrogen 0.0040 maximum, copper 0.040 maximum, tin 0.010 maximum, chromium 0.040 maximum, nickel 0.040 maximum, molybdenum 0.010 maximum, niobium (columbium) 0.005 maximum, vanadium 0.005 maximum, boron 0.0005 maximum and titanium 0.005 maximum; yield strength 170 to 210 MPa, tensile strength 300 to 325 MPa, minimum elongation 40 percent in 50.8 mm; thickness 2.79 mm (minus 0, plus 0.40 mm) and width over 1,943.1 mm; or
(C) Products in coils, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.045 to 0.094, manganese 0.445 to 0.554, phosphorus 0.020 maximum, sulfur 0.005 maximum, silicon 0.030 maximum, aluminum 0.015 to 0.055, nitrogen 0.0050 maximum, copper 0.040 maximum, tin 0.010 maximum, chromium 0.040 maximum, nickel 0.040 maximum, molybdenum 0.010 maximum, niobium (columbium) 0.020 to 0.030, vanadium 0.005 maximum, boron 0.0005 maximum and titanium 0.005 maximum; minimum yield strength 345 MPa, minimum tensile strength 414 MPa, minimum elongation 26 percent in 50.8 mm; if pickled and oiled, in dimensions of thickness of 3.50 mm (minus 0, plus 0.40 mm) and width 1,936.75 mm or more; or if not pickled and oiled, in dimensions of thickness of 3.50 mm (minus 0, plus 0.40 mm) and width of over 1,943.1 mm;
(vii) Hot-rolled flat-rolled steel, designated as X-119, with thickness 4 mm or more but not over 13 mm, width 400 mm or more but not over 470 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.12, silicon not over 0.6, manganese not over 2.1, phosphorus not over 0.025, sulfur not over 0.015, aluminum greater than or equal to 0.02, with a maximum of the following microalloying elements: niobium (columbium) 0.09, vanadium 0.20, titanium 0.22, molybdenum 0.50 and boron 0.005; minimum yield strength of 758 MPa in both longitudinal and transverse rolling directions, minimum tensile strength of 814 MPa, Charpy impact values greater than or equal to 17J at −40° C; elongation greater than or equal to 15 percent; bendability 1.125 times thickness (minimum);
(viii) Hot-rolled flat-rolled steel, not clad or plated or coated, not further worked than hot-rolled, with thickness of 1.9 mm or more but not over 3.1 mm and width over 254 mm but not over 343 mm; the foregoing designated as X-172 and meeting the following characteristics:
(A) Products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.78 to 0.83, manganese 0.40 to 0.50, phosphorus 0.020 maximum, sulfur 0.008 percent maximum, silicon 0.15 to 0.25, chromium 0.05 to 0.15, copper 0.11 maximum, tin 0.020 maximum and aluminum 0.020 to 0.060; with the following other properties: non-metallic
(B) Products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.90 to 1.05, manganese 0.30 to 0.50, phosphorus 0.025 maximum, sulfur 0.008 maximum, silicon 0.15 to 0.30, chromium 0.10 to 0.25, aluminum 0.02 maximum, molybdenum 0.02 to 0.05, copper 0.05 to 0.20 and nickel 0.05 to 0.20; with the following other properties: non-metallic inclusion rating; ASTM E45 Method—A, plate—1 (thin series only, no heavy series allowed), A—2 maximum, B-2 maximum, C-2 maximum, D-2 maximum; microstructure: banding—none; complete decarburization 0.012 mm maximum, total decarburization 0.025 mm maximum; carbide size—#5 maximum (minimum 95 percent spheroidization is required); grain size minimum #7; pickled, ingot cast; hardness HRB 95 maximum;
(C) Products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.90 to 1.05, manganese 1.00 to 1.20, phosphorus 0.020 maximum, sulfur 0.007 maximum, silicon 0.15 to 0.35, chromium 0.50 to 0.70, vanadium 0.05 to 0.15, aluminum 0.060 maximum; with the following other properties: non-metallic inclusion rating; ASTM E45 Method—A, plate—1, Thin Series: A-2.5 maximum, B-2.0 maximum, C-2.0 maximum, D-2.0 maximum, Thick Series: A-0.0 maximum, B-0.5 maximum, C-0.5 maximum, D-0.0 maximum; microstructure: banding—none, complete decarburization (free ferrite) 0.012 mm maximum, total (complete + partial) 0.05 mm maximum, carbide size #6 maximum, grain size ASTM #7 or finer; pickled, ingot cast, annealed, hardness HRB 100 maximum;
(D) Products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.68 to 0.80, manganese 0.55 to 0.75, phosphorus 0.020 maximum, sulfur 0.015 maximum, silicon 1.30 to 1.50, chromium 0.30 to 0.50, copper 0.20 maximum; with the following other properties: non-metallic inclusion rating: ASTM E45—Method A, Plate—1, A-2 maximum, B-2 maximum, C-2 maximum, D-2 maximum; microstructure: banding—#1 maximum, complete decarburization 0.012 mm maximum, total decarburization 0.05 mm maximum, uniformly spheroidized with pin point carbides, carbide size #3 maximum, grain size minimum #7; pickled, ingot cast; hardness HRB 94 maximum;
(E) Products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.30 to 0.35, manganese 0.65 to 0.80, phosphorus 0.015 maximum, sulfur 0.010 maximum, silicon 0.30 to 0.45, copper 0.20 maximum, nickel 0.30 to 0.90, chromium 3.00 to 3.20, molybdenum 2.00 to 2.20, vanadium 0.30 to 0.40, aluminum 0.04 to 0.08, hydrogen 0.001 maximum, nitrogen 0.03 maximum and oxygen .015 maximum; with the following other properties: non-metallic inclusion rating of ASTM E45 Method—A, Plate—1, A-2 maximum, B-2 maximum, C-2 maximum, D-2 maximum; microstructure: banding—#3 maximum, complete decarburization 0.012 mm maximum, total decarburization 0.05 mm maximum, carbide size #5 maximum, grain size minimum #8; pickled, ingot cast; hardness HRB 95 maximum;
(F) Products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.45 to 0.50, manganese 0.60 to 0.90 percent, phosphorus 0.015 maximum, sulfur 0.007 maximum, silicon 0.10 to 0.25, chromium 0.90 to 1.10, molybdenum 0.90 to 1.10, calcium 0.001 maximum; copper 0.20 maximum, vanadium 0.08 to 0.15, nickel 0.50 to 0.70, aluminum 0.040 to 0.080, tin 0.020 maximum, antimony 0.020 maximum, hydrogen 0.001 maximum, nitrogen 0.015 maximum and oxygen 0.01 maximum; with the following other properties: non-metallic inclusion rating; ASTM E45 Method;—A plate—-1, (thin series only, no heavy series allowed) A-2 maximum, B-2 maximum, C-2 maximum, D-2 maximum; microstructure: banding—#3 maximum, complete decarburization 0.012 mm maximum, total decarburization 0.05 mm maximum, carbide size #5 maximum, grain size minimum #8; pickled, ingot cast; hardness HRB 95 maximum; or
(G) Products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.31 to 0.35, manganese 0.60 to 0.80 percent, phosphorus 0.015 maximum, sulfur 0.005 maximum, silicon 0.25 to 0.45, chromium 0.90 to 1.10, molybdenum 1.85 to 2.15, calcium 0.001 maximum, niobium (columbium) 0.08 to 0.12, vanadium 0.40 to 0.50, nickel 0.90 to 1.10, aluminum 0.03 to 0.07, tin 0.020 maximum and antimony 0.010 maximum, with hydrogen 10 ppm maximum, nitrogen 150 ppm maximum and oxygen 100 ppm maximum; with the following other properties: non-metallic inclusion rating of ASTM E45 Method—A, Plate—1-r: Thin Series: A-2.0 maximum, B-2.0 maximum, C 2.0 maximum, D-2.0 maximum; Thick Series: A-0.0 B-0.5, C-0.5, D-0.0; microstructure: banding—#3 maximum, partial decarburization 1.5 percent of hot roll thickness maximum per side—no free ferrite is allowed, grain size minimum #7; pickled; ingot cast; hardness HRB 96 maximum;
(ix) Hot-rolled, flat-rolled steel, designated as X-213, if entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 4,800 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing with improved formability through inclusion shape control; yield strength 551 MPa minimum; tensile strength 621 MPa minimum; elongation in 50.8 mm of 18 percent minimum; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.045 to 0.094, manganese 1.45 to 1.65, phosphorus 0.02 maximum, sulfur 0.01 maximum, silicon 0.15 to 0.25, aluminum 0.015 to 0.055, nitrogen 0.005 to 0.011, copper 0.04 maximum, nickel 0.04 maximum, chromium 0.04 maximum, tin 0.01 maximum, niobium (columbium) 0.057 to 0.073, vanadium 0.07 to 0.09, boron 0.0008 maximum and titanium 0.005 maximum; inclusion shape control through a calcium treatment, thickness 6.07 (minus 0, plus 0.406 mm) and width 1384.3 mm (minus 0, plus 25.4 mm);
(x) Three-layer clad plates with two hard outside layers and one soft center layer; with chemical composition (in percent by weight): (i) cladding/hard layer, grade known as ALTRIX 2003: carbon 0.70 to 0.80, silicon not over 0.40, manganese 0.60 to 0.80, phosphorus not over 0.03, sulfur not over 0.03 percent, chromium 0.20 to 0.35; and (ii) soft center layer: carbon not over 0.12, manganese 0.75 to 0.95, phosphorus not over 0.03, sulfur not over 0.03; total thickness of all three layers 6 to 9 mm; the foregoing designated as X-021;
(xi) Stainless steel products, if entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 63 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing cold finished, round, flat, square, hexagon and sections in straight lengths, containing by weight at least 17 percent chromium, 7 percent nickel and 2.3 percent molybdenum and conforming to specifications ASTM A276 and ASTM A479, the foregoing designated as X-004;
(xii) Stainless steel products, either round section bars with diameters from 12.7 to 508 mm or products with rectangular sections with thickness 11 or more but not over 356 mm and width 45 or more but not over 762 mm; modified AISI 420 with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.36 to 0.40, silicon 0.60 to 1.30, manganese 0.20 to 0.70, phosphorus not over 0.025, sulfur not over 0.0050, chromium 13.2 to 14.0, nickel not over 0.50, molybdenum not over 0.25, vanadium 0.15 to 0.40, titanium not over 0.012, niobium (columbium) and nitrogen not over 0.03, copper not over 0.15, aluminum 0.070 to 0.100, hydrogen not over 0.0003 and oxygen not over 0.0015; minimum cleanliness according to ASTM E45/87, Method A plate III Slag type A: T less than 1, H less than 0.5; Slag type B: T less than 1, H less than 0.5; Slag type C: T less than 1.5, H less than 1.0; or Slag type D: T less than 1; all the foregoing designated as X-196;
(xiii) AISI/SAE 201 stainless steel products, cold rolled, annealed, and tempered, in 250 kg spools, thickness 0.25 mm or more but not over 0.8 mm, width 2 mm or more but not over 5 mm; surface and edges to be clean, smooth, and free from cracks and any form of surface imperfections, all the foregoing designated as X-194;
(xiv) Stainless steel rods in cross-sectional diameters measuring less than 5.5 mm, designated as X-090 and meeting the following characteristics:
(A) AISI grade ER 307 Si products, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.06 to 0.10, silicon 0.6 to 0.95, manganese 6.5 to 7.5, sulfur not over 0.015, phosphorus not over 0.020, nickel 8 to 9, chromium 18.5 to 19.5 and molybdenum not over 0.5;
(B) AISI grade ER 308 L products, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.02, silicon 0.30 to 0.60, manganese 1.5 to 2.0, sulfur not over 0.015, phosphorus not over 0.020, nickel 9.5 to 10.5, chromium 19.5 to 20.5, molybdenum not over 0.2 and cobalt not over 0.15;
(C) AISI grade ER 308 L Si products, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.02, silicon 0.65 to 0.95, manganese 1.5 to 2.0, sulfur not over 0.015, phosphorus not over 0.020, nickel 9.5 to 10.5, chromium 19.5 to 20.5, molybdenum not over 0.2 and cobalt not over 0.15;
(D) AISI grade ER 309 products, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.06 to 0.10, silicon 0.30 to 0.60, manganese 1.5 to 2.0, sulfur not over 0.015, phosphorus not over 0.025, nickel 13 to 14, chromium 23.5 to 24.5, molybdenum not over 0.4 and cobalt not over 0.15;
(E) AISI grade ER 309 L products, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.02, silicon 0.30 to 0.60, manganese 1.5 to 2.0, sulfur not over 0.015, phosphorus not over 0.025, nickel 13 to 14, chromium 23.0 to 24.5, molybdenum not over 0.4 and cobalt not over 0.15;
(F) AISI grade ER 309 L Mo products, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.02, silicon 0.30 to 0.60, manganese 1.3 to 1.8, sulfur not over 0.015, phosphorus not over 0.025, nickel 14.5 to 15.5, chromium 21 to 22 and molybdenum 2.5 to 3.0;
(G) AISI grade ER 310 products, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.10 to 0.15, silicon 0.30 to 0.60, manganese 1.5 to 2.0, sulfur not over 0.015, phosphorus not over 0.025, nickel 20.5 to 21.5 and chromium 25.5 to 26.5; or
(H) AISI grade ER 312 products, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.09 to 0.12, silicon 0.20 to 0.50, manganese 1.5 to 2.0, sulfur not over 0.015, phosphorus not over 0.025, nickel 9 to 10, chromium 30 to 31 and molybdenum not over 0.2;
(xv) Flat-rolled products known in industry usage as electrolytic chromium-coated steel (also known as tin free steel), composed according to the following ASTM specifications: A623, A623M, A657 or A657M; with the following properties: actual width of 900.1 mm (minus 0 mm, plus 3.175 mm); plated or coated with chromium oxides or with chromium and chromium oxides; temper of modified DR 550; thickness of 0.215 mm, with gauge tolerance of minus 8 percent, plus 5 percent; continuously annealed; type L chemistry, oiled with dioctyl sebacate (DOS); the foregoing designated as X-160;
(xvi) Welded drawn-over-mandrel tubes, meeting the characteristics described below, imported for the production of specific automotive or agricultural vehicle and machinery components, the foregoing designated as X-162:
(A) Products measuring 20.00 to 35.00 mm outside diameter with an outside diameter tolerance of not over 0.10 mm; wall thickness of 3.00 mm or more but not over 5.00 mm with an allowable wall thickness variation of the greater of 3.0 percent of the thickness or 0.10 mm; with partial decarburization of not over 0.10 mm in depth; produced according to DIN 2393 C under St −34-3 , St 37-3, St 44-3 or St 52-3 with narrowed chemical analysis (aluminum killed only) of composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.24, manganese not over 1.60, silicon not over 0.55 and aluminum at least 0.02; the foregoing imported pursuant to a purchase order from an automotive assembled camshaft manufacturer in the United States;
(B) Products produced according to DIN 2393 C under St −34-3 , St 37-3, St 44-3 or St 52-3, with narrowed chemical analysis (aluminum killed only) of composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.24, manganese not over 1.60, silicon not over 0.55 and aluminum at least 0.02; and (i) for steering cylinders: measuring 35.00 mm or more but not over 60.00 mm in outside diameter, not over 3.50 mm in wall thickness, an inside diameter tolerance of not over 0.10 mm, and a wall thickness tolerance of 3.0 percent or 0.10 mm, whichever is greater, having partial decarburization of not over 0.10 mm in depth, an inner surface roughness (Rz) of not over 0.004 mm; or (ii) for steering columns: measuring 18.00 mm or more but not over 40.00 mm in outside diameter, 1.00 mm or more but not over 4.00 mm in wall thickness, with an outside diameter tolerance of not over 0.10 mm and a wall thickness tolerance of 3.0 percent or 0.10 mm, whichever is greater, having partial decarburization of not over 0.10 mm in depth; all the foregoing imported pursuant to a purchase order from an automotive steering system manufacturer in the United States;
(C) Products measuring 26.00 mm or more but not over 65.00 mm in outside diameter and 3.00 mm or more but not over 8.00 mm in wall thickness; having an outside diameter tolerance of not over 0.20 mm and having a wall thickness variation of not over 3.0 percent but at least 0.10 mm; having a partial decarburization of not over 0.05 mm in depth; produced according to microalloyed steels for cold upsetting: 19Mn5 mod., 26Mn5 mod., 34Mn5 mod. or 40Mn5 mod.; the foregoing imported pursuant to a purchase order from an automotive half shaft manufacturer in the United States for high quality tubes;
(D) Profiled tubes measuring 30.00 mm or more but not over 100.00 mm outside diameter and 2.40 mm or more but not over 6.00 mm wall thickness and having dimensional tolerances such that a tube pair is telescopic over 2 meters of length, having a partial decarburization not over 0.10 mm in depth, produced according to DIN 2393 C under St −34-3 , St 37-3, St 44-3 or St 52-3 with narrowed chemical analysis (aluminum killed only) of composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.24, manganese not over 1.60, silicon not over 0.55 and aluminum at least 0.02; the foregoing imported pursuant to a purchase order from a power takeoff shaft manufacturer in the United States; or
(E) Measuring 17.00 mm or more but not over 40.00 mm in outside diameter with a tolerance of 0.20 mm, wall thickness of 2.30 mm or more but not over 6.00 mm with a wall thickness tolerance of 3.0 percent or 0.10 mm, whichever is greater; partial decarburization not over 0.05 mm in depth, produced as microalloyed steels for cold upsetting: 19Mn5 mod., 26Mn5 mod., 34Mn5 mod. or 40Mn5 mod.; imported pursuant to a purchase order from an automotive stabilizer bar manufacturer in the United States; or
(xvii) Welded drawn-over-mandrel profiled tubes, designated as X-162, the foregoing measuring 6 to 7 m in length, 34.50 mm or more but not over 64.50 mm in outside diameter and 2.50 mm or more but not over 5.50 mm in wall thickness; having dimensional tolerances so that a tube pair is telescopic over 2 m length; produced according to DIN 2393 C under St 52-3 with narrowed chemical analysis (aluminum killed only) of composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.24, manganese not over 1.60, silicon not over 0.55 and aluminum of 0.02 or more; the foregoing imported pursuant to a purchase order from a power takeoff shaft manufacturer in the United States.
(xviii) Hot-rolled flat-rolled products, designated as X-021 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 1,953 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.05 to 0.10, silicon 0.20 to 0.50, manganese 1.60 to 2.00, phosphorus not over 0.020, sulphur not over 0.008, aluminum 0.020 to 0.080, nickel 0.30 to 0.65, molybdenum 0.20 to 0.50, copper 0.20 to 0.40, vanadium 0.040 to 0.100, niobium (columbium) 0.020 to 0.060 and titanium 0.010 to 0.050; carbon equivalent value (CEV) (C + MN/6 (Cr + Mo + V)/5 + (Ni+ Cu)/15) of 0.48 to 0.56, carbon equivalent tekken (CET) (C + (Mn + Mo)/10 + (Cr + Cu)/20 + Ni/40) of 0.29 to 0.035; thickness of 8 mm to 25 mm; width of 1,828.8 mm to 2,500 mm for thickness range 8 mm to 15 mm or of 1,828.8 mm to 3,000 mm for thickness range from 15 to 25 mm; minimum yield strength (ReH) 700 N/mm
(B) Products entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 1,000 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.10 to 0.15, silicon 0.20 to 0.50, manganese 0.80 to 1.60, phosphorus not over 0.020, sulphur not over 0.008, aluminum 0.020 to 0.080, nickel 1.00 to 2.00, molybdenum 0.20 to 0.50, copper 0.30 to 0.50, vanadium 0.030 to 0.100, niobium (columbium) not over 0.050 and titanium 0.010 to 0.050; carbon equivalent value (CEV) (C + MN/6 (Cr + Mo + V)/5 + (Ni + Cu)/15) of 0.62 to 0.69, carbon equivalent tekken (CET) (C + (Mn + Mo)/10 + (Cr + Cu)/20 + Ni/40) of 0.34 to 0.38; thickness 8 mm to 25 mm; width 1,828.8 mm to 2,500 mm; minimum yield strength (ReH) 900 N/mm
(C) Products entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 1,000 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.10 to 0.15, silicon 0.20 to 0.50, manganese 0.80 to 1.60, phosphorus not over 0.020, sulphur not over 0.008, aluminum 0.020 to 0.080, nickel 1.00 to 2.00, molybdenum 0.20 to 0.50, copper 0.30 to 0.50, vanadium 0.030 to 0.100, niobium (columbium) not over 0.050 and titanium 0.010 to 0.050; carbon equivalent value (CEV) (C + MN/6 (Cr + Mo + V)/5 + (Ni+ Cu)/15) of 0.62 to 0.69, carbon equivalent tekken (CET) (C + (Mn + Mo)/10 + (Cr + Cu)/20 + Ni/40) of 0.34 to 0.38; thickness 8 mm to 25mm; width 1,828.8 mm to 2,500 mm; minimum yield strength (ReH) 960 N/mm
(xix) Hot-rolled flat-rolled products, designated as X-032 or X-083 and entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 3,850 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing known in industry usage as “13 percent manganese austenitic” plate; with the following characteristics: non-magnetic; flatness certified to meet ASTM-A6 specification; thickness 4.76 mm to 120.65 mm; width not exceeding 3,048 mm; length not exceeding 8,636 mm; hardness of 180 to 260 BHN; fully austenitic microstructure; in the as-rolled or quench-annealed condition; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.80 to 1.20, manganese 12.00 to 14.00, sulfur not over 0.040, phosphorus not over 0.035 and silicon not over 0.50, with or without other elements;
(xx) Hot-rolled flat-rolled designated as X-142, with the following characteristics:
(A) Products known in industry usage as “abrasion resistant steel'; thickness 6.0 mm to 65.0 mm; minimum hardness 401 BHN; with chemical composition (percent by weight): titanium 0.35 to 0.45, carbon 0.29 to 0.31, silicon 0.30 to 0.40, manganese 0.65 to 0.75, phosphorus none to not over 0.010, sulfur not over 0.010, chromium 0.80 to 0.90, molybdenum 0.22 to 0.27; boron 0.0008 to 0.0014, soluble aluminum 0.03 to 0.06 and nitrogen 0.002 to 0.006; descaled; flatness tolerance half of that shown in ASTM A6;
(B) Thermo-mechanically controlled-rolled products having the following characteristics: TMCP (thermo mechanical control process) with a thickness of 4.5 mm to 76.2 mm; yield strength 552 to 690 MPa; minimum tensile strength 621 MPa; Welded Crack Tip Opening Test (CTOD) value at −10 °C: minimum 0.25 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.12, silicon not over 0.40, manganese not over 2.00, phosphorus not over 0.015, sulfur not over 0.006, niobium (columbium) not over 0.030 and titanium not over 0.020; Pcm no more than 0.23 (Pcm = C + Mn/20 + Si/30 + Cu/20 + Ni/60 + Cr/20 + Mo/15 + V/5 + 5B);
(C) Products entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 439 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing having a width greater than 915 mm, meeting SAE 4135 specification with the following ladle analysis (percent by weight): carbon 0.33 to 0.38, manganese 0.60 to 0.90, silicon 0.15 to 0.30, phosphorus not over 0.030, sulfur not over 0.030, chromium 0.90 to 1.25 and molybdenum 0.15 to 0.25;
(D) Products entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 432 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing having a width greater than 915 mm, meeting the following specification (modified SAE 8670) for chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.67 to 0.75, manganese 0.40 to 0.60, silicon 0.20 to 0.35, phosphorus not over 0.035, sulfur not over 0.035, chromium 0.20 to 0.50, nickel 0.70 to 1.00 and molybdenum 0.11 to 0.15; or
(E) Products entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 6500 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing known in industry usage as “thermo-mechanically controlled-rolled plate”; having the following characteristics: TMCP (thermo mechanical control process): high strength tensile alloy plate; with thickness of 6.0 mm to 40.0 mm; minimum yield strength 685 N/mm
(xxi) Cold drawn steel bars, designated as N-319, the foregoing if in standard metric sizes and of round or hexagonal cross section then having a diameter of 5 mm to 70 mm, if of square cross section then measuring 25 mm to 100 mm, or if of rectangular cross section having the smaller side measuring 16 mm to 100 mm and the larger side measuring 25 mm to 250 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.18 maximum, manganese 0.90 maximum; phosphorus 0.50 maximum, sulfur 0.050 maximum and remainder iron;
(xxii) Bars of hexagonal cross section, not further worked than cold drawn, measuring 57.15 mm or more but not over 101.6 mm in cross section according to ASTM A29/A108 in freecutting, medium carbon grades; the foregoing designated as N-321;
(xxiii) Bars of nonalloy steel, of round cross section, not further worked than cold formed or cold finished, the foregoing designated as N-377 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products plated with an inner layer of nickel and an outer layer of hard chrome; having a nickel-layer thickness exceeding 40 micrometers and a chromium layer thickness exceeding 20 micrometers; polished; with the following properties: diameter tolerance of ISO h8 or better, straightness 0.1 mm per meter or better, surface roughness (ra) 0.2 micrometers or better and certified as capable of exposure for 1000 hours in ASTM B117 salt-spray test without corrosive attack; or
(B) Either noninduction hardened or induction hardened products; hard-chrome plated with a chrome layer thickness exceeding 25 micrometers; polished; with the following properties: diameter tolerance ISO h8 or better, straightness 0.1 mm per meter or better, surface roughness (ra) 0.2 micrometers or better and capability of exposure for 96 hours in ASTM B117 salt-spray test without corrosion;
(xxiv) Bars not further worked than cold formed or cold finished, designated as N-454 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Forged and fully heat treated die steel, known in industry usage as “Hydie” with a chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.45 maximum, silicon 0.50 maximum, manganese 0.80 maximum, chromium 3.50 maximum, molybdenum 1.20 maximum and vanadium 0.30 maximum with or without other minor alloying element; thickness not over 500 mm; in round or rectangular cross-section; supplied heat treated to a maximum hardness of 477 brinell;
(B) Spheroidised annealed or spheroidised annealed and fully heat treated forged die steel, known in industry usage as “VMC” the foregoing suitable for use in die inserts, extrusion tools, plastic molds, die casting inserts and cores; with a chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.45 maximum, silicon 1.20 maximum, manganese 0.40, chromium 5.40, molybdenum 1.70 and vanadium 1.10 maximum, with or without other minor alloying elements; with thickness not over 500 mm, in round or rectangular cross-section; supplied heat treated to a maximum hardness of 514 brinell;
(C) Forged and fully heat treated die steel, known in industry usage as “Somdie” with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.60 maximum, silicon 0.40 maximum, manganese 1.00 maximum, nickel 1.90 percent maximum, chromium 1.30 maximum, molybdenum 0.65, with or without other minor alloying elements; thickness not over 900 mm; in round or rectangular cross-section; supplied heat treated to a maximum hardness of 477 brinell;
(D) Forged and fully heat treated die steel, known in industry usage as “Bestem” with chemical composition (percent by weight):
(E) Forged and fully heat treated die steel, known in industry usage as “Thermodie” with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.60 maximum, silicon 0.70 maximum, manganese 0.70 maximum, nickel 2.40 maximum, chromium 1.10 maximum and molybdenum 0.80, with or without other minor alloying elements; thickness not over 750 mm, in round or rectangular cross-section; supplied heat treated to a maximum hardness of 477 brinell; or
(F) Forged and fully heat treated die steel, known in industry usage as “No. 5 Electem“ with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.60 maximum, silicon 0.35 maximum, manganese 1.00 maximum, nickel 1.50 maximum, chromium 1.10 maximum and molybdenum 0.40; with or without other minor alloying elements; thickness not over 900 mm; in round or rectangular cross-section; supplied heat treated to a maximum hardness of 429 brinell;
(xxv) Cold-finished carbon steel bars, known in industry usage as “JIS S48CL”, the foregoing with diameter of 24.3 mm (with tolerance of ± 0.05 mm); cut-to-length; with minimum tensile strength of 735N/mm
(xxvi) Bright or blue finish band saw steel, designated as N-313, cold-rolled, meeting the following characteristics: thickness not over 1.31 mm, width not over 80 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 1.2 to 1.3, silicon 0.15 to 0.35, manganese 0.20 to 0.40, phosphorus not over 0.03, sulphur not over 0.015, chromium 0.15 to 0.25 and nickel not over 0.25; with the following other properties: carbides fully spheroidized, having greater than 80 percent of carbides, which are not over 0.003 mm and uniformly dispersed; surface finish blue or bright free from pits, scratches, rust, cracks, or seams; smooth edges; edge camber (in each 300 mm of length) of not over 7 mm arc height; and cross bow of 0.025 mm maximum per 25.4 mm of width;
(xxvii) Cold-rolled flat-rolled wood bandsaw steel in grade UHB 15 N 20; the foregoing with thickness greater than 1.1 mm; width range 6.3 to 412.8 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.70 to 0.80, silicon 0.20 to 0.35, manganese 0.30 to 0.45, phosphorus 0.020, sulfur 0.016, nickel 1.90 to 2.10; microstructure fine needled, tempered martensite with a uniform distribution of few (maximum 1 percent by volume) undissolved carbides; inclusions: to DIN 50602: K1 oxide less than 10; maximum OG: 8.2; decarburization: free ferrite not allowed; maximum partial decarburization 4 percent of product thickness; tensile strength/hardness 1450 + 80 N/mm
(xxviii) Cold-rolled flat-rolled semi-processed silicon electrical steel, designated as X-077 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 6,395 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing meeting ASTM A726 specifications and having the following characteristics: thickness of 0.47 mm ±0.002 mm and width of 1057.28 mm +10 mm/−0; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.003, silicon 0.57, manganese 0.43, phosphorus 0.03, sulfur 0.005 and aluminum 0.35; density 7.80 (g/cm3); mechanical properties: hardness of Hv 71; yield strength of 397 MPa or more (longitudinal); tensile strength of 450 MPa or more (longitudinal); elongation of 18 percent (longitudinal); lamination factor of 96.0 percent; coating: dull finish anti-stick coating similar to C4A, supplier's proprietary D coating; magnetic properties: core loss (1.5T/60 Hz) of 4.01 watts/kg typical, 4.41 maximum; permeability (1.5T/60 Hz) of 3630 typical, 2000 minimum; and annealed at 788 °C for one hour in a decarburizing atmosphere;
(B) Products entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 1,599 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing meeting ASTM A726 specifications and having the following characteristics: thickness of 0.47 mm ± 0.002 mm and width of 1057.28 mm +10 mm/−0; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.002, silicon 0.55, manganese 0.85, phosphorus 0.05, sulfur 0.005 and aluminum 0.25; density 7.80 (g/cm3); mechanical properties: hardness of Hv 130; yield strength of 421 MPa or more (longitudinal); tensile strength of 460 MPa or more (longitudinal); elongation of 21 percent (longitudinal); lamination factor of 97.0 percent; coating: dull finish anti-stick coating similar to C4A, supplier's proprietary D coating; magnetic properties: core loss (1.5T/60 Hz) of 3.64 watts/kg typical, 4.08 maximum; permeability (1.5T/60 Hz) of 3000 typical, 2000 minimum; and annealed at 788°C for one hour in a dry N
(C) Flat-rolled, cold-rolled, silicon bearing, non-oriented electrical steel, entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 1,550 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive; the foregoing with thickness of 0.50 mm; maximum core loss of 3.70 watts per kg at 60 Hz and 1.5 tesla, when tested on a 25-cm Epstein frame according to the method of IEC 60404-2, where half of the sample products are taken in the longitudinal direction and half in the transverse direction; with carbon not over 0.005 percent by weight; with an inorganic surface insulation (known in industry usage as “Suralac 7000”) with a smooth finish that provides a minimum of 12.9 ohms-cm
(xxix) Cold-rolled flat-rolled steel, designated as X-083 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 850 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing single reduced, 90 base box weight, T-1 BA, Type MR, 5C matte finish; with thickness of 0.231 mm to 0264 mm and width from 1079.50 mm to 1089.03 mm; produced to ASTM A623-00 and A624-98; certified that such products will each be slit into two coils of equal widths, each coil having a minimum width of 533.4 mm, for use in manufacturing radiator fins; or
(B) Products entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 250 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing single reduced, 112 base weight, T-2 BA, Type MR, 5C matte finish; with thickness of 0.290 mm to 0.328 mm and width of 1066.80 mm; produced to ASTM A623-00 and A624-98; certified that it will be slit into two coils of equal widths, each coil having a minimum width of 520.7 mm and for use in manufacturing engine gaskets;
(xxx) Cold-rolled flat-rolled steel products, designated as X-142 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 5,534 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing in coils, meeting SAE 1050, spheroidized annealed, light matte finish; with thickness of 0.254 mm to 2.324 mm and width of 914 mm to 1,321 mm; slit edge, no weld; Coil I/D 508 mm; Coil O/D 1,524 mm maximum; thickness tolerance (at center of product): ±0.006 mm for thickness from 0.254 mm to 0.381 mm; ±0.007 mm for thickness from 0.381 mm to 0.635 mm; ±0.010 mm for thickness from 0.635 mm to 2.324 mm; rating 1.0 maximum by ASTM E45, method-A; and restricted carbon range of 0.02 points;
(B) Products entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 100 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing in coils, SAE 1074, spheroidized annealed, light matte finish; thickness of 0.254 mm to 2.324 mm and width of 914 mm to 1,321 mm, slit edge, no weld; Coil I/D: 508 mm; Coil O/D: 1,524 mm maximum; thickness tolerance (center of sheets): ±0.006 mm for thickness from 0.254 mm to 0.381 mm; ±0.007 mm for thickness 0.381 mm or more but not over 0.635 mm; ±0.010 mm for thickness 0.635 mm or more but not over 2.324 mm; rating 1.0 Max by ASTM E45, method-A; and restricted carbon range of 0.02 points;
(C) Products with thickness from 0.8 mm to 1.0 mm; tensile strength 980 to 1080 N/mm
(D) Products with thickness from 1.0 mm to 1.2 mm; tensile strength 980 to1080 N/mm
(E) Products with thickness from 1.2 mm to 1.6 mm; tensile strength 980 to1,080 N/mm
(F) Products with thickness from 1.6 mm to 2.3 mm; tensile strength 980 to 1,080 N/mm
(G) Products with thickness from 0.8 mm to 1.0 mm; tensile strength 980 to 1,060 N/mm
(H) Products with thickness 1.0 mm to 1.2 mm; tensile strength 980 to1060 N/mm
(I) Products with thickness 1.2 mm or more but not over 1.6 mm; tensile strength 980 to1060 N yield strength 580 to 730 N elongation 14 to 22 percent; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon maximum 0.19, silicon maximum 1.60, manganese maximum 2.20, phosphorus maximum 0.020 and sulfur maximum 0.010; or
(J) Products with thickness 1.6 mm to 2.3 mm; tensile strength 980 to1060 N yield strength 580 to 730 N minimum elongation 14 percent; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon maximum 0.19, silicon maximum 1.60, manganese maximum 2.20, phosphorus maximum 0.020 and sulfur maximum 0.010;
(xxxi) Cold-rolled flat-rolled products, designated as X-143 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Single-reduced black plate, entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 2,467.6 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, and meeting the specification ASTM-A625, having either a minimum thickness of 0.34 mm and a coil width of 125.73 cm, or a thickness of 0.29 mm or more but not over 0.36 mm and a coil width of 67.31 cm to 101.60 cm; the foregoing satisfying the following characteristics: a maximum hardness on the Rockwell B scale of R B-47, with no lap welds and a dry surface roughness of Ra 1.25 to 2.25 microns; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.045 maximum, chromium 0.05 maximum and aluminum 0.07 maximum; and certified for use for the manufacture of cookware; or
(B) Cold-rolled drawing quality steel, entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 1,161.2 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, and meeting the specification ASTM-A619, with a thickness of 0.360 mm or more; the foregoing satisfying the following characteristics: a maximum weight of 5,625 kg per coil (except as provided below), a maximum hardness on the Rockwell B scale of R B-47, with no lap welds and a dry surface roughness of Ra 1.25 to 2.25 microns; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.045 maximum, chromium 0.05 maximum and aluminum 0.07 maximum; in the following thickness and coil width combinations respectively: 0.40 mm × 102.24 cm, 0.44 mm × 116.21 cm, 0.45 mm × 120.97 cm; 0.36 mm × 101.92 cm, 0.36 mm × 104.46 cm, 0.36 mm × 90.49 cm, 0.40 mm × 77.79 cm, 0.44 mm × 63.50 cm, 0.44 m × 82.87 cm, 0.39 mm × 93.03 cm, 0.45 mm × 104.46 cm, 0.38 mm × 91.76 (the latter having a maximum weight of 3,600 kg per coil) or 0.42 mm × 91.76 cm (the latter having a maximum weight 3,600 kg per coil); and certified for use in the manufacture of cookware;
(xxxii) Aluminized coated hardenable manganese-boron steel, designated as N-316 and known in industry usage as “USIBOR”; having the following properties: in coils 624 mm to 1600 mm wide; 0.6 mm to 3.0 mm in thickness; having ASTM 463-A coating; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.25, manganese not over 1.35, sulfur not over 0.008, aluminum not over 0.06, silicon not over 0.35, chromium not over 0.30, nitrogen not over 0.009, boron not over 0.004 and titanium not over 0.05; yield strength of 360 to 480 MPa; tensile strength of 540 to 660 MPa; and elongation of 21 percent;
(xxxiii) Corrosion resistant continuously annealed flat-rolled products, designated as N-426, continuous cast, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.06 percent by weight, manganese 0.20 or more but not over 0.40, phosphorus not over 0.02, sulfur not over 0.023, silicon not over 0.03, aluminum 0.03 or more but not over 0.08, arsenic not over 0.02, copper not over 0.08 and nitrogen 0.003 or more but not over 0.008; and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products with one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a two-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer and a surface coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel, with total coating thickness for both layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with scanning electron microscope (SEM) not revealing oxides greater than 1;
(B) Products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a four-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer, with an inner middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel, an outer middle surface coating layer of hard nickel and a topmost nickel-phosphorus-plated layer; with combined coating thickness for the four layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters not exceeding 5;
(C) Products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, luster-agent-added nickel which is not heat-treated; with combined coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters exceeding 5 microns in length; or
(D) Products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, pure nickel which is not heat-treated; with combined coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length;
(xxxiv) Electrogalvanized flat-rolled products, designated as N-455 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.010,
(B) Products, whether or not with a chromate-free coating, with a zinc-nickel alloy electroplating, coating weights of zinc-nickel 17 g/m
(C) Products, whether or not with chromate or a chromate-free coating, whether or not with heat-resistant coating, with the following specifications: tensile strength 40 to 65 kgf/mm
(xxxv) High strength electrolytic zinc-coated silicon steel flat-rolled products, designated as N-456 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products whether or not with a chromate or chromate-free coating, with the following specifications: thickness 1.0 to 1.6 mm, thickness tolerance ±5 percent; width tolerance minus 0, plus 7 mm; tensile strength 41 to 45 kgf/mm
(B) Products whether or not with a chromate or chromate-free coating, with the following specifications: thickness 1.0 to 1.6 mm, thickness tolerance ±5 percent; width tolerance minus 0, plus 7 mm; tensile strength 45 to 49 kgf/mm
(xxxvi) Copper-coated or nickel-coated cold-rolled slit-to-width steel, in coils, designated as N-491 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products having a thickness of 0.508 mm to 0.889 mm and width of 34.671 mm to 51.82 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.05 to 0.08, manganese 0.27 to 0.45, phosphorus 0.015 maximum and sulphur 0.035 maximum; with the following other properties: cold-rolled from low carbon rimmed, capped, aluminum-killed or continuous cast steel; uniformly coated with smooth and clean copper, free from pits, blisters, or roughness; deposited electrolytically on the two flat surfaces of the product in a quantity not less than 54.93 g per m
(B) Products having a thickness of 0.508 mm to 0.889 mm and width of 34.671 mm to 51.82 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.030 to 0.050, manganese 0.11 to 0.20, phosphorus 0.025 maximum, sulphur 0.020 maximum, silicon 0.025 maximum, aluminum 0.025 to 0.07 and nitrogen 0.007 maximum; with copper plus nickel plus chromium 0.150 maximum; with the following other properties: low carbon aluminum killed steel made by continuous casting process; uniformly coated with nickel free from pits or blisters deposited electrolytically on one surface (plated side) of the product in a minimum thickness of 0.00381 mm and the bare side of the product with a maximum of 0.000762 mm of nickel thickness; the plated product is then annealed, and wound in coils with a maximum inside diameter of 508 mm and a maximum outside diameter of 1,727.2 mm;
(xxxvii) Hot-rolled carbon steel bar products, in coils, designated as N-303 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products known in industry usage as JIS SCM420HVC, having a diameter of 34.0 mm (with tolerances of ±1 mm); with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.17 to 0.23, silicon 0.15 to 0.35, manganese 0.55 to 0.90, phosphorus 0.030 maximum, sulfur 0.010 to 0.030, copper 0.30 maximum, nickel 0.25 maximum, chromium 0.85 to 1.25, molybdenum 0.10 to 0.25 and niobium (columbium) 0.030 to 0.060;
(B) Products known in industry usage as JIS SCR420HVC, having a diameter of 39.1 mm and 41.5 mm (with tolerances of ±1 mm); with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.17 to 0.23, silicon 0.15 to 0.35, manganese 0.55 to 0.90, phosphorus 0.030 maximum, sulfur 0.010 to 0.030, copper 0.30 maximum, nickel 0.25 maximum, chromium 0.85 to 1.25 and oxygen 0.0015 maximum; or
(C) Products known in industry usage as JIS SCM435HVC; having a diameter of 33.5 mm (with tolerances of ±0.05 mm); with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.32 to 0.39, silicon 0.15 to 0.35, manganese 0.55 to 0.90, phosphorus 0.030 maximum, sulfur 0.010 to 0.015, copper 0.30 maximum, nickel 0.25 maximum, chromium 0.85 to 1.25 and molybdenum 0.10 to 0.25;
(xxxviii) Austenitic manganese steel round and flat bars (Bohler K700), with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 1 to 1.3, silicon 0.10 to 0.45, manganese 12.00 to 14.00, phosphorus 0.035 maximum, sulfur 0.040 maximum, chromium 0.50 maximum, molybdenum 0.150 maximum and nickel 0.40 maximum; the foregoing designated as N-387;
(xxxix) Standard rephosphorized and resulfurized carbon steel bars and rods (AISI 1200 Series), designated as N-392 and entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 30,000 t, the foregoing in coils or straight lengths, not further worked than hot-rolled, of a type known in industry usage as XLCUT; with chemical composition (percent by weight): 0.04 or more phosphorus, 0.24 or more but not over 0.35 sulfur and 0.23 or more but not over 0.35 lead; manganese-to-sulfur ratios of greater than 3:1; reduction ratio for coiled bar and rod of a minimum of 150:1 and for straight bar and rod of a minimum of 35:1; fully surface inspected and certified by the importer to be free from defects deeper than 2 percent of bar and rod diameter or section; certified as free from mixes; achieved by 100 percent spectrometer testing;
(xl) Galvanized, cold formed steel channels, designated as N-495, with surface finish of smooth in-line galvanized zinc coating with controlled mass of 100 g/m
(xli) Hot-rolled carbon steel bar products designated as X-011 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products known in industry usage as JIS S35CL, having a diameter of 42 mm (with tolerances of plus or minus 1 mm); cut-to-length; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.32 to 0.38, silicon 0.15 to 0.35, manganese 0.60 to 0.90, phosphorus 0.030 maximum, sulfur 0.015 maximum, copper 0.30 maximum, nickel 0.20 maximum, chromium 0.20 maximum, nickel plus chromium 0.35 maximum and lead 0.13 to 0.23; or
(B) Products known in industry usage as JIS S40CKM-1; having a diameter of 95 mm or 120 mm (with tolerances of ± 1 mm); cut-to-length; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.36 to 0.44, silicon 0.15 to 0.35, manganese 0.40 to 0.70, phosphorus 0.03 maximum, sulfur 0.03 to 0.08, copper 0.10 maximum, nickel 0.10 maximum, nitrogen 0.010 to 0.020 and lead 0.10 to 0.20;
(xlii) Thermal refined, water quenched, and drawn hot-rolled bars, designated as X-075, with hardness 318 HV minimum, 83 kg/mm minimum tensile strength; 8 percent minimum elongation; microstructure consisting of tempered martensite for 5 mm to 8 mm followed by 1 mm of tempered martensite and transition products; general bar structure consisting of pearlite and ferrite; decarburization 0.85 maximum of bar diameter;
(xliii) Hot-rolled bars, designated as X-134 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products known in industry usage as “NAK 55,” the foregoing which are double-melted hot-rolled or forged plastic mold steel products, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.15, manganese 1.50, sulfur 0.10, copper 1.00, silicon 0.30, molybdenum 0.30, nickel 3.00 and aluminum 1.00; displaying the following minimum mechanical properties: hardness of HRC 40, yield strength (0.2 percent offset, 41 HRC) of 1010 MPa, tensile strength of 1255 MPa; reduction of 39.8 percent; elongation in 50 mm of 15.6 percent; with Charpy-notch impact strength longitudinal 9.8 J and transverse of 7.6 J; displaying the following physical properties: coefficient of thermal expansion from 20 °C to 100 °C of 11.3 × 10
(B) Products known in industry usage as “NAK 80,” the foregoing being a plastic mold steel used for applications such as clear lens molds and extremely critical diamond finish applications, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.15, manganese 1.50, molybdenum 0.30, copper 1.00, silicon 0.30 , nickel 3.00 and aluminum 1.00; minimum mechanical properties: HRC 40; tensile strength 1264 MPa; reduction 41.9 percent; yield strength (0.2 percent offset, 41 HRC) 1018 MPa; elongation in 50 mm (longitudinal) 16.1 percent; Charpy V-Notch impact strength (toughness): longitudinal 11.0 J.; transverse 11.5 J.; physical properties: coefficient of thermal expansion (10
(C) Products known in industry usage as “Super NAK” (“NAK HH”), the foregoing being a plastic mold steel providing a unique combination of high hardness and ability to machine-work the steel; with the following chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.11, manganese 1.4, copper 1.0, chromium 1.6, aluminum 1.0, silicon 0.30, sulfur 0.35, nickel 3.0 and molybdenum 0.3; physical properties: HRC 45; tensile strength 1385 MPa longitudinal, 1359 MPa transverse; yield strength 1031 MPa longitudinal, 1,009 transverse, elongation 11 percent longitudinal, 4 percent transverse, reduction of area 22 percent longitudinal, 6 percent transverse; density of 7.78 mg/m
(D) Products known in industry usage as “PX5,” the foregoing being a plastic mold steel used in all types of plastic molding and design, and is superior to AISI grade P20-type steels in terms of machining, stability, and welding; with the following chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.20, manganese 1.90, sulfur 0.035, molybdenum 0.45, copper 0.10, silicon 0.10 percent, phosphorus 0.010, nickel 0.20, aluminum 0.030 and chromium 2.10; minimum mechanical properties: HRC 30 to 33; tensile strength 1,034 MPa; reduction 48 percent; yield strength 917 MPa; elongation in 50 mm (longitudinal) 20 percent; physical properties: coefficient of thermal expansion (10
(E) Products known in industry usage as “CX1,” the foregoing being a proprietary cold work die steel that is supplied heat treated to hardness of HRC 50, and can also be machined at this hardness, with the following chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.80, manganese 1.30 chromium 1.00 and molybdenum 0.80; mechanical properties (as supplied): HRC 50; tensile strength 1786 MPa; yield strength 1641 MPa; elongation 8 percent; and reduction in area 19 percent; physical properties: coefficient of linear thermal expansion (10
(xliv) Ball bearing quality hot-rolled bar or wire rod steel, SAE/AISI grade 52100 or JIS SUJ2 specifications, the foregoing designated as X-188;
(xlv) Hot-rolled sheet, in coils, designated as N-300, the foregoing produced to specification API 5L Grade X-52; with chemical composition (percent by weight): Carbon 0.03 to 0.07, manganese 0.95 to 1.20, phosphorus not over 0.010, sulfur not over 0.002, silicon 0.170 to 0.250, copper not over 0.15, nickel not over 0.10, chromium not over 0.07, molybdenum not over 0.03, nitrogen not over 0.009, aluminum 0.020 to 0.050, tin not over 0.020, vanadium not over 0.008, niobium (colombium) 0.016 to 0.026, titanium not over 0.008 and calcium 0.0004 to 0.0050; having the following physical properties: yield ratio of less than 0.900; factor formula of C + Mn/5 + 2(Cb); factor range of 28 to 35; thickness range of 6.35 mm or more but not over 12.70 mm; width range of 1,032.027 mm or more but not over 1,735.38 mm; thickness tolerance: aim
(xlvi) Hot-rolled flat-rolled steel, designated as N-316 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) High strength low alloy grade 100 light gauge steel, with the following characteristics: thickness of 2.3 mm to 3.0 mm; width from 1016 mm to 1524 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight):
(B) High strength low alloy grade 100 light gauge steel, with the following characteristics: thickness 4.5 mm or more but not over 12.7 mm; width 1.524 m or more but not over 1.829 m; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.1, manganese not over 2.0, phosphorus not over 0.025, sulfur not over 0.01, silicon not over 0.4, aluminum 0.02 to 0.06, titanium not over 0.02, molybdenum not over 0.5, niobium (columbium) not over 0.09 and vanadium not over 0.2; yield strength of 700 to 800 MPa; tensile strength of 750 to 910 MPa; elongation not less than 13 percent; guaranteed bending radius of 1.6 times a thickness less than 6 mm and 1.8 times a thickness greater than 6 mm; or
(C) Temper passed grade A1001CSB/1008 CQ products, with thickness 3.1 mm or more but not over 3.6 mm and width 2032 mm or more; yield strength of 179 to 340 MPa; tensile strength of 440 MPa maximum; minimum elongation of 28 percent; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.1, manganese not over 0.5, phosphorus not over 0.03, sulfur not over 0.03, silicon not over 0.03, copper not over 0.04, nickel not over 0.04, chromium not over 0.04 and aluminum over 0.01;
(xlvii) Hot-rolled flat-rolled products, in coils, the foregoing designated as X-025 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.10 to 0.16, manganese 0.70 to 0.90, phosphorus not over 0.025, sulfur not over 0.002, silicon 0.30 to 0.50, chromium 0.50 to 0.70, copper not over 0.25, nickel not over 0.20 and molybdenum not over 0.21; with the following other properties: width not over 1,138 mm; thickness not over 8.89 mm; yield strength greater than or equal to 551 N/mm
(B) Products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.10 to 0.14, manganese 1.30 to 1.80, phosphorus not over 0.025, sulfur not over 0.001, silicon 0.30 to 0.50, chromium 0.50 to 0.70, copper 0.20 to 0.40, nickel not over 0.20, vanadium not over 0.10 and niobium (columbium) not over 0.08; with the following other properties: width not over 1,138 mm; thickness not over 8.89 mm; yield strength greater than or equal to 551 N/mm
(C) Products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.15, manganese not over 1.40, phosphorus not over 0.025, sulfur not over 0.010, silicon not over 0.50, chromium not over 1.00, copper not over 0.50, nickel not over 0.20, niobium (columbium) 0.005 or more and aluminum 0.01 to 0.07; calcium treated; with the following other properties: width not over 1,000 mm; thickness not over 4.6 mm; yield strength 482 N/mm
(D) Products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.10 to 0.15, manganese 1.30 to 1.80, phosphorus not over 0.025, sulfur not over 0.001, silicon 0.30 to 0.50, chromium 0.30 to 0.70, copper 0.20 to 0.40, nickel not over 0.20, molybdenum not over 0.40, niobium (columbium) not over 0.08 and vanadium not over 0.10; with the following other properties: width not over 1,138 mm; thickness not over 8.89 mm; yield strength 482 N/mm
(E) Products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.10 to 0.16, manganese 0.70 to 0.90, phosphorus not over 0.020, sulfur not over 0.002, silicon 0.30 to 0.50, chromium 0.50 to 0.70, copper not over 0.25, nickel not over 0.20 and molybdenum not over 0.21; with the following other properties: width not over 1,138 mm; thickness not over to 8.89 mm; yield strength of 355 N/mm
(xlviii) Alloy and nonalloy flat-rolled products, designated as X-083 and entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 20,000 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing not further worked than hot-rolled, with the following features: sulfur content 0.005 percent by weight maximum; elongation: 18 percent minimum/31 percent maximum for 1.6 mm to 2.0 mm, 20 percent minimum/32 percent maximum for 2.0 mm to 3.2 mm, 21 percent minimum/33 percent maximum for 3.2 mm to 6.3 mm, 22 percent minimum for 6.3 mm to 12.00 mm; total thickness tolerance: 0.20 mm maximum for 1.6 mm to 4.0 mm, 0.25 mm maximum for 4.0 mm to 6.0 mm, 0.30 mm maximum for 6.0 mm to 8.0 mm, 0.35 mm maximum for 8.0 mm to 12.0 mm; with in-line temper-passed and tension-leveled hot-rolled pickled and oiled flat-rolled products of nonalloy steel in grade 50 meeting the following chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.03 to 0.08, manganese 0.1 to 1.3, silicon not over 0.03, aluminum 0.02 to 0.04, phosphorus not over 0.02, sulfur not over 0.008, copper not over 0.05, nickel not over 0.1, chromium not over 0.1, niobium (columbium) 0.01 to 0.04, titanium not over 0.03, vanadium not over 0.008 and nitrogen not over 0.009; with the combined silicon and phosphorus content not over 0.09; the combined niobium (columbium), titanium, and vanadium content not over 0.22; and carbon equivalent not over 0.36; yield strength of 345 to 448 MPa; tensile strength of 448 to 586 MPa; elongation of 21 percent minimum; thickness 2.4 mm to 7.5 mm; width 1200 mm to 1652 mm; with a typical whiteness value of 70 on scale L*, certified to flatness guarantee of 4 international units before and after laser cutting and to guarantee of no visible defect after painting for both sides of flat panel; and with visible defects including blemishes due to roll marks, pits, tolling scale and scratches;
(xlix) Hot-rolled flat-rolled products, in coils, having width of 1943.1 mm, tolerances of plus 6.35 mm, minus 0.000; composed according to specification SAE C-1006 DQSK, the foregoing designated as X-104;
(l) Hot-rolled flat-rolled steel products, designated as X-108 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products with thickness of 2 mm or more but not over 11.1 mm; width of 875 or more but not over 1625 mm; minimum yield strength of 689.48 MPa, minimum tensile strength of 158.4 MPa, minimum elongation of 15 percent, bendability of 1.6 to 1.8 times thickness, impact toughness of 27.1 J at -17.8 °C; with chemical composition (percent by weight): maximum carbon 0.12, maximum silicon 0.60, maximum manganese 2.0, maximum phosphorus 0.025, maximum sulfur 0.01, maximum titanium 0.20 and minimum aluminum 0.015 percent; or
(B) Weather resistant steel products, with a thickness of 2.3 mm or more but not over 6.5 mm and width of 875 mm or more but not over 1600 mm; minimum yield strength of 689.48 MPa, minimum tensile strength of 724 MPa, minimum elongation of 18 percent, bendability of 1 times thickness, impact toughness of 27.1 J at −17.8 °C; with chemical composition (percent by weight): maximum carbon 0.10, maximum silicon 0.45, maximum manganese 0.8 and maximum phosphorus 0.012 percent, with microalloying elements added;
(li) Hot-rolled flat-rolled steel products, designated as X-142 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) High-carbon alloy steel, with widths greater than 914 mm and made to the following specification: SAE 8660 (modified) (unit: percent by weight, ladle analysis): carbon 0.61 to 0.72, manganese 0.30 to 0.50, nickel 0.60 to 0.90 and molybdenum 0.10 to 0.15;
(B) High-carbon alloy steel, with widths greater than 914 mm and made to the
(C) Steel products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.20 maximum, silicon 1.20 maximum, manganese 2.00 maximum, phosphorus 0.05 to 0.10, sulfur 0.02 maximum, copper 0.15 to 0.40, nickel 0.40 maximum, aluminum 0.10 maximum, niobium (columbium) 0.10 maximum, titanium 0.10 maximum, vanadium 0.10 maximum, boron 0.10 maximum, molybdenum 0.30 maximum; thickness 1.6 to 2.0 mm; tensile strength 590 MPa minimum; yield strength 450 to 600 MPa; and elongation 19 to 35 percent;
(D) Steel products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.20 maximum, silicon 1.20 maximum, manganese 2.00 maximum, phosphorus 0.05 to 0.10, sulfur 0.02 maximum, copper 0.15 to 0.40, nickel 0.40 maximum, aluminum 0.10 maximum, niobium (columbium) 0.10 maximum, titanium 0.10 maximum, vanadium 0.10 maximum, boron 0.10 maximum and molybdenum 0.30 maximum; thickness 2.0 to 3.0 mm; tensile strength 590 MPa minimum; yield strength 440 to 590 MPa; and elongation 20 to 36 percent; or
(E) Steel products with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.20 maximum, silicon 1.20 maximum, manganese 2.00 maximum, phosphorus 0.05 to 0.10, sulfur 0.02 maximum, copper 0.15 to 0.40, nickel 0.40 maximum, aluminum 0.10 maximum, niobium (columbium) 0.10 maximum, titanium 0.10 maximum, vanadium 0.10 maximum, boron 0.10 maximum and molybdenum 0.30 maximum; thickness 3.0 to 6.0 mm; tensile strength 590 MPa minimum; yield strength 430 to 580 MPa; and elongation 21 to 37 percent;
(lii) Alloy steel plate, designated as N-316, the foregoing known in industry usage as “SP 300” and in the form of pre-forged and rolled blocks or forged extra-heavy section blocks; with the following characteristics: thickness 152 mm or more; hardness of 269 to 304 BHN or 290 to 320 BHN; through hardness dispersion not exceeding 15 BHN for thicknesses not over 203 mm and 30 BHN for thicknesses of 203 or more but not over 1,270 mm; conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements; 2mm flat bottom hole; guaranteed cleanliness per ASTM E45 Method A (worst field ratings: A—not exceeding 1.5, B—not exceeding 1.5, C—not exceeding 1.0, D—not exceeding 1.5); with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.235 to 0.275, chromium 1.2 to 1.5, manganese 1.2 to 1.5, molybdenum 0.35 to 0.55, silicon 0.05 to 0.15 and sulfur 0.015 to 0.02; oxygen content not exceeding 20 ppm and hydrogen content not exceeding 2 ppm;
(liii) Hot-rolled weldable, soft magnetic special structural alloy steel plate, with increased electrical resistivity of the grade magnetic soft hot rolled (MSH), with thickness 4.75 mm or more but not over 50 mm and width 1016 mm or more but not over 3302 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.10 or more, silicon 1.00 to 2.00, manganese 0.15 to 0.60, phosphorus 0.02 or more, sulfur 0.01 or more, chromium 0.65 to 1.00, copper 0.55 or more, aluminum not over 0.02 and titanium 0.02 or more; yield strength of 275 MPa minimum; tensile strength of 430 to 550 MPa and elongation of 24 percent minimum; the foregoing designated as N-467;
(liv) Products designated as X-083 and meeting AISI 4142, the foregoing with dimensions of 1,651 mm by 3,683 mm; thickness of 6 mm to 230 mm; cross rolled in thickness up to 203 mm and forged and hot rolled in thickness greater than 203 mm; through-hard throughout the entire plate with a maximum dispersion of 30 BHN; conforms to ultrasonic testing requirements per ASTM A578-S9 with a 2 mm flat bottom hole used for calibration; microcleanliness ratings per ASTM E-45 method D where the sum of the ratings does not exceed 25 and the maximum worst field ratings are A: 1.0 maximum (thin) and 0.5 maximum (heavy), B: 1.0 maximum thin) and 0.5 maximum (heavy), C: 0.5 maximum (thin and heavy), D: 0.5 maximum. (thin and heavy); flatness that does not exceed 3 mm per meter, with a maximum of 5 mm over the entire length of 3683 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.36 to 0.42, manganese 1.10 to 1.30, silicon 0.35 to 0.45, sulfur 0.012 to 0.020, phosphorus not over 0.03, nickel 0.25 to 0.50, chromium 1.00 to 1.20, molybdenum 0.15 to 0.35 and copper not over 0.30; with O
(lv) Flat-rolled hot-rolled plate, designated as X-100 and entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 75,000 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive; the foregoing not in coils; of a thickness greater than 4.74 mm; certified for use in the production of large diameter line pipe (greater than 406 mm in diameter); yield strength greater than or equal to 483 MPa;
(lvi) Stainless steel bars, designated as N-387 and known in industry usage as “RAMAX S”, the foregoing being a modified AISI 400 stainless sulfurized plastic mold steel; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.31 to 0.36, silicon 0.20 to 0.50, manganese 1.20 to 1.50, phosphorus not over 0.035, sulfur 0.08 to 0.15, chromium 16.2 to 17.0, nickel 0.40 to 0.70, molybdenum not over 0.60; vanadium not over 0.40, nitrogen 0.10 to 0.14, copper not over 0.30, aluminum not over 0.030 and hydrogen less than 7.0 ppm; if round sections then diameter from 28 mm to 500 mm; if flat sections then thickness 43 mm to 305 mm and width 300 mm to 1,016 mm; vacuum degassed; minimum criterion on cleanliness according to ASTM E45/87, Method A plate I.; Slag type A; T-, H-; Slag type B; T 2.0, H 2.0; Slag type C; T 1.0, H 1.0; Slag type D; T .0, H less than 1.0;
(lvii) Stainless steel bar, designated as N-387 and known in industry usage as “STAVAX Supreme,” the foregoing which is a premium modified AISI 420 stainless plastic mold steel; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.21 to 0.26, silicon 0.20 to 0.50, manganese 0.40 to 0.70, phosphorus 0.025, sulfur not over 0.0050, chromium 13.0 to 13.60, nickel 1.25 to 1.45, molybdenum 0.30 to 0.40, vanadium 0.30 to 0.40, titanium and niobium (columbium) each not over 0.0050, nitrogen 0.10 to 0.14, copper not over 0.15 and aluminum 0.010 to 0.025; hydrogen less than 3 ppm and oxygen less than 15 ppm; dimensions round from 12.7 mm to 762 mm and flat thickness 11 mm to 610 mm, width 45 mm to 915 mm; vacuum degassed and pressure-electro-slag-remelting; cleanliness according to ASTM E45/87, Method A plate III; Slag type A; T less than 1, H less than 0.5; Slag type B; T less than 1, H less than 0.5; Slag type C; T less than1.5, H less than 1.0; Slag type D; T less than 1.0, H less than 0.5;
(lviii) Stainless steel bars, of round cross-section, designated as X-093, the foregoing in diameters of 6.35 mm to 101.6 mm, lengths of 3,048 mm to 4.572 mm; finished as follows: for X15TN finished via centerless grinding, or for X15TNW finished via rough-turning; with chemical composition nickel free and including (percent by weight): carbon 0.35 to 0.45, chromium 15.00 to 16.50, molybdenum 1.50 to 2.00, vanadium 0.15 to 0.35, nitrogen 0.15 to 0.25 and sulfur 0.0005 maximum;
(lix) Hot-rolled stainless steel bars, designated as X-219, finished black, in diameters up to 30 mm; lengths of 3,048 mm to 4,572 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.80 to 0.90, chromium 17.00 to 18.50, nickel not over 0.50, manganese not over 1.30, molybdenum 2.00 to 2.50, vanadium 0.35 to 0.55, silicon not over 1.00 and sulfur 0.0005 maximum;
(lx) Stainless steel wire, designated as X-018 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products known in industry usage as SF20T, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.05 maximum; manganese 2.00 maximum, phosphorus 0.05 maximum, sulfur 0.15 maximum, silicon l.00 maximum, chromium 19.00 to 21.00, molybdenum 1.50 to 2.50, lead added 0.10 to 0.30, tellurium added 0.03 minimum; or
(B) Products known in industry usage as DSR16FA, with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.15 maximum, manganese 1.25 maximum, phosphorus 0.06 maximum, sulfur 0.10 to 0.18, silicon 1.00 maximum, chromium 10.50 to 14.00, molybdenum 0.10 to 0.40, lead added 0.07 to 0.30 and selenium added 0.10 minimum;
(lxi) Stainless steel wire, designated as X-177 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) ASL 813 rectangular or shaped wire, certified for use in the production of piston rings, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.60 to 0.70, silicon 0.25 to 0.50, manganese 0.20 to 0.50, phosphorus maximum 0.03, sulfur maximum 0.03, chromium 13.00 to 14.00, molybdenum 0.20 to 0.40 and remainder iron; decarburization less than 0.01 mm; and edge camber maximum of 10 mm per 1,000 mm length;
(B) ASL 874 rectangular or shaped wire, certified for use in the production of piston rings, the foregoing with chemical
(C) ASL 857 rectangular or shaped wire, certified for use in the production of piston rings, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.60 to 0.75, silicon 0.30 to 0.45, manganese 0.25 to 0.40, phosphorus maximum 0.04, sulfur maximum 0.03, chromium 14.0 to 16.0, molybdenum 0.90 to 1.15, vanadium 0.20 to 0.30, cobalt 6.0 to 8.0 and remainder iron; edge camber maximum of 10 mm per 1,000 mm length; and decarburization less than 0.01 mm;
(D) ASL 817 rectangular or shaped wire, certified for use in the production of piston rings, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.80 to 0.95, silicon 0.35 to 0.50, manganese 0.25 to 0.40, phosphorus maximum of 0.04, sulfur maximum 0.04, chromium 17.0 to 18.0, molybdenum 1.0 to 1.25, vanadium 0.08 to 0.15 and remainder iron; edge camber maximum of 10 mm per 1,000 mm length; and decarburization less than 0.01 mm;
(E) ASL 801 flat or shaped wire, certified for use in the production of spacer-expander (piston oil) rings, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon maximum 0.12, silicon maximum 1.00, manganese 5.50 to 7.50, phosphorus maximum 0.60 percent, sulfur maximum 0.030, nickel 3.50 to 5.50, chromium 16.00 to 18.00 and nitrogen not over 0.25 percent; heat treatment condition: if
(F) ASL 804 flat or shaped wire certified for use in the production of spacer-expanders, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon maximum 0.08, silicon maximum 1.00, manganese maximum 2.00, phosphorus maximum 0.040, sulfur maximum 0.030, nickel 8.00 to 10.50 and chromium 18.00 to 20.00; edge camber 8 mm maximum per 1,000 mm length; microstructure uniformly solution treated or cold worked;
(lxii) Flat-rolled tin mill products, designated as N-316 and known in industry usage as USIBOR uncoated hardenable manganese-boron steel, in coils measuring 624 mm to 1,600 mm in width; 0.6 mm to 3.0 mm in thickness; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.25, manganese not over 1.35, sulfur not over 0.008, aluminum not over 0.06, silicon not over 0.35, chromium not over 0.30, nitrogen not over 0.009, boron not over 0.004 and titanium not over 0.05; yield strength of 280 to 360 MPa; tensile strength of 390 to 510 MPa; elongation of 21 percent;
(lxiii) Flat-rolled products, designated as N-426, annealed, at least 0.2 mm in thickness but not more than 2.5 mm in thickness; at least 600 mm in width but not more than 1300 mm in width; plated with tin and zinc by a hot-dipped coating process, with the zinc content of the plating not less than 7 percent but not more than 9 percent by weight; with the tin content of the plating not less than 85 percent by weight; with a coating weight of at least 20 g/m
(lxiv) Flat-rolled heavy gauge tinplate, with a gauge of 0.52 mm or more, flow-melted for electrical components, T 2, batch annealed, chemical composition according to ASTM A 623, roughness according to ASTM 7B and 7C bright; surface free from visible defects; the foregoing designated as N-499;
(lxv) Flat-rolled electrolytically tin coated steel, designated as X-039 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products having differential coating with 11.2 g/m
(B) Products having differential coating with 11.2 g/m
(C) Products having differential coating with 11.2 g/m
(D) Products having differential coating with 11.2 g/m
(E) Products having differential coating with 11.2 g/m
(F) Products having differential coating with 11.2 g/m
(lxvi) Flat-rolled tin free steel, designated as X-061, laminated on one or both sides of the surface with a polyester film, consisting of two layers (an amorphous layer and an outer crystal layer) containing not more than the indicated amounts of the following environmental hormones: 1 mg/kg BADGE (Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether), 1 mg/kg BFDGE (Bisphenol F diglycidyl ether), and 3 mg/kg BPA (Bisphenol A);
(lxvii) Flat-rolled products designated as X-083 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Electrolytic tin plate, designated as X-083 and entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 4,006 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive, the foregoing single reduced, 0.180 mm to 0.350 mm in thickness (70 to 135 base box weight), in temper designations of T-1BA, T-2BA, T-3BA or T-4CA; Type MR; No. 10 to No. 25 coating; with a 5C unmelted (matte) or 7C melted (stone) finish; width 1022.35 mm to 1174.75 mm; produced to ASTM 623-00 and A624-98; certified to be slit into two coils of equal widths, each coil having a widths of 508 mm or more but not over 609.6 mm, for use in manufacturing of engine gaskets, filters or pail bodies; or
(B) Flat-rolled products, double-reduced, electrolytically plated with tin and/or chromium; thickness not over 0.137 mm ± 5 percent; certified by the importer as manufactured to ASTM A623 type MR specifications; tensile strength of 552 to 572 MPa; manufactured through reduction on a DR temper mill following cold-rolling; and DR8-quality mechanical properties;
(lxviii) Welded pipes and tubes of iron or nonalloy steel, designated as N-319, the foregoing if in standard metric sizes and of square section then measuring 25 mm to 180 mm in diameter, with a wall thickness of 3 mm or more but not over 10 mm, or if of rectangular section with the smallest side measuring at least 25 mm and the largest side measures not over 200 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.22 maximum, manganese 1.6 maximum, silicon 0.55 maximum, phosphorus 0.04 maximum, sulfur 0.05 maximum and remainder iron;
(lxix) Welded structural pipes and tubes of alloy or nonalloy steel, designated as X-186, elliptically shaped, meeting ASTM A501, Chapter 10, points 10.4 and 10.5.
(lxx) Cold-rolled flat-rolled products designated as X-046, and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Products known in industry usage as “Docol 800 DP” or as “Docol 115”; dual phase; in coils; minimum yield strength 496 MPa; minimum tensile strength 793 MPa; 9 percent minimum elongation; width 787 mm or more but not over 1,387 mm; thickness at least 0.5 mm but not more than 2.0 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.13, silicon 0.20, manganese 1.5, phosphorus 0.015 max, sulfur 0.002 max, niobium (columbium) 0.015 and aluminum 0.04;
(B) Product known in industry usage as “Docol 140 DP'; dual phase; thickness at least 0.5 mm but not more than 2 mm; width 889 mm or more but not over 1,400 mm; minimum yield strength 552 MPa, minimum tensile strength 966 MPa; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.13, silicon 0.20, manganese 1.5, phosphorus 0.020 maximum, sulfur 0.004 maximum, niobium (columbium) 0.015 and aluminum 0.04; and bendability of 1 times thickness inside radius for 90 degrees bend;
(C) Products known in industry usage as “Docol 1000 DP” or as “Docol 145 DP'; dual phase; thickness at least 0.5 mm but not over 2 mm; width at least 787 mm but not over 1,400 mm; minimum yield strength 689 MPa; minimum tensile strength 1,000 MPa ; minimum elongation 5 percent; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.15, silicon 0.20, manganese 1.5, phosphorus not over 0.015, sulfur 0.002 maximum, niobium (columbium) 0.015 and aluminum 0.04;
(D) Products known in industry usage as “Docol 600 DL” or as “Docol 85”; dual phase; thickness 0.5 mm or more but not over 2 mm; width 780 mm or more but not over 1,400 mm; minimum yield strength of 345 MPa; minimum tensile strength of 586 MPa; bendability of 0 times thickness for 180 degree bend; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.11, silicon 0.020, manganese 0.70, phosphorus not over 0.05, sulfur not over 0.01 and aluminum 0.04;
(E) Products known in industry usage as “Docol 800 DL” or as “Docol 115”; dual phase; in coils; minimum yield strength 386 MPa; minimum tensile strength 793 MPa; minimum elongation 14 percent; width 787 mm or more but not over 1,400 mm; thickness 0.5 mm or more but not over 2 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.14, silicon 0.20, manganese 1.7, phosphorus not over 0.015, sulfur not over 0.02, niobium (columbium) 0.015 and aluminum 0.04; or
(F) Products known in industry usage as “Docol 600 DP” or as “Docol 85 DP”; dual phase; thickness 0.5 mm or more but not over 2 mm; width 780 mm or more but not over 1,400 mm; minimum yield strength of 345 MPa; minimum tensile strength of 586 MPa; minimum elongation of 17 percent; bendability of 0 times thickness for 180 degree bend; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.11, silicon 0.020, manganese 0.70, phosphorus not over 0.05, sulfur not more than 0.01 and aluminum 0.04;
(lxxi) Hot-rolled, flat-rolled products, designated as X-083 or X-089, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.10 to 0.20, manganese 0.50 to 1.00, phosphorus not more than 0.02, sulphur not more than 0.005, silicon 0.20 to 0.50, chromium 0.40 to 0.70, copper 0.05 to 0.40, nickel 0.05 to 0.30, molybdenum 0.05 to 0.50, vanadium not over 0.02, niobium (columbium) not over 0.05, titanium not more than 0.03, with total combined vanadium, niobium (columbium) and titanium content of 0.01 to 0.07, aluminum 0.01 to 0.05 and containing iron; minimum tensile strength 745 MPa; minimum yield strength 606 MPa; and elongation of at least 18 percent;
(lxxii)Flat-rolled steel products, of a thickness of 0.5 mm or more but not over 2 mm, designated as X-120 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Cold-rolled dual phase products, with a width of 780 mm or more but not over 1,600 mm; minimum yield strength 345 MPa; minimum tensile strength 586 MPa; minimum elongation 17 percent; bendability of zero times thickness for 180 degree bend; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.11, silicon 0.20, manganese 0.70, phosphorus not over 0.05, sulfur not over 0.01 and aluminum 0.04;
(B) Cold-rolled dual phase products, with a width of 780 mm but not over 1,600 mm; minimum yield strength 276 MPa; minimum tensile strength 586 MPa; minimum elongation 21 percent; bendability of zero times thickness for 180 degree bend; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.10, silicon 0.40, manganese 1.50, phosphorus not over 0.01, sulfur not over 0.01 and aluminum 0.04;
(C) Cold-rolled dual phase products, with a width of 780 mm or more but not over 1,600 mm; minimum yield strength 496 MPa; minimum tensile strength 793 MPa; minimum elongation 9 percent; bendability of 1 times thickness for 180 degree bend; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.13, silicon 0.20, manganese 1.50, phosphorus not over 0.02, sulfur not over 0.002, niobium (columbium) 0.015 and aluminum 0.04;
(D) Cold-rolled dual phase products, with a width of 780 mm or more but not over 1,600 mm; minimum yield strength 689 MPa; minimum tensile strength 1,000 MPa; minimum elongation 6 percent; bendability of 3 times thickness for 180 degree bend; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.15, silicon 0.20, manganese 1.50, phosphorus not over 0.015, sulfur not over 0.002, niobium (columbium) 0.015 and aluminum 0.04;
(E) Cold-rolled dual phase products, with a width of 875 mm or more but not over 1,275 mm; minimum yield strength 945 MPa; minimum tensile strength 1,207 MPa; minimum elongation 4 percent; bendability of 4 times thickness for 180 degree bend; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.11, silicon 0.20, manganese 1.60, phosphorus not over 0.015, sulfur not over 0.002 and aluminum 0.04;
(F) Cold-rolled dual phase products, with a width of 875 mm or more but not over 1,275 mm; minimum yield strength 1,151; minimum tensile strength 1,314 MPa; minimum elongation 4 percent; bendability of 3 times thickness for 180 degree bend; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.17, silicon 0.50, manganese 1.60 percent, phosphorus not over 0.015, sulfur not over 0.002, niobium (columbium) 0.015 and aluminum 0.04; or
(G) Corrosion resistant flat-rolled products, with a width of 780 mm or more but not over 1,600 mm; minimum yield strength 689 MPa; minimum tensile strength 896 MPa; minimum elongation 5 percent; bendability
(H) Cold-rolled dual phase products, with minimum Brinell hardness rating 450 Hb; width 875 mm or more but not over 1,275 mm; minimum yield strength 1138 MPa; minimum tensile strength 1,413 MPa; minimum elongation 3 percent; bendability of 4 times thickness for 180 degree bend; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon 0.17, silicon 0.50, manganese 1.60, phosphorus not over 0.01, sulfur not over 0.01, niobium (columbium) 0.015 and aluminum 0.04;
(lxxiii) Flat-rolled products, coated with zinc-aluminum alloy consisting of 95 percent zinc and 5 percent aluminum by weight, known in industry usage as “RAGALR® GALFAN”; thickness not over 0.75 mm; width 1,220 mm or more; the foregoing designated as X-048;
(lxxiv) Products referred to as “Type 2 Z-bars”, the foregoing used in the manufacture of end sills for railway tank cars; containing vanadium; conforming to ASTM Standard A-572-50; in the approximate form of the letter “Z,” with one leg measuring approximately 180 mm and the opposite leg measuring approximately 102 mm; the foregoing designated as X-113;
(lxxv) Flat-rolled products, designated as X-022 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Thermomechanically (TMCP) rolled products, entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 2,000 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive; the foregoing meeting the following specifications: (a) As prequalified by crack tip opening test (CTOD) and/or Charpy v-notch (CVN) testing in the weld heat affected zone for improved weldability under API RP2Z; and either (b)(i) BS 7191, EN 10225 or equivalent specification, or (ii) that are ordered with weldability qualifications by CTOD testing at temperatures below −15 °C; with goods entered under clauses (a) and (b)(ii) of this subdivision to be certified by the importer as complying therewith; or
(B) Thermomechanically (TMCP) rolled products, entered in an aggregate annual quantity not to exceed 1,000 t during the 12-month period beginning on July 12, 2002 or July 12, 2003 or during the period July 12, 2004 through March 20, 2005, inclusive; meeting the following specifications: (a) With prequalification by welded crack tip opening test (CTOD) or Charpy v-notch (CVN) testing in the weld head affected zone for improved weldability under API RP2Z; either (b)(i) BS 7191, EN 10225 or equivalent specification, or (ii) that are ordered with weldability qualifications by welded CTOD testing at temperatures below −15 °C; and (c) having a minimum yield strength of 413 MPa; with goods entered under clauses (a) and (b)(ii) of the foregoing to be certified by the importer as complying therewith;
(lxxvi) Flat-rolled products, quenched and tempered, with minimum Brinell hardness of 600 HB; thickness 3 mm or more but not over 51 mm; width not over 3,350 mm; grain refined; surface treated with a low zinc silicate primer; formatted with a square edge; free of scale; certified by the importer as guaranteed to a thickness tolerance of 1/3 of ASTM standards and guaranteed to a flatness tolerance of 4 mm/m or better; the foregoing designated as X-088;
(lxxvii) Martensitic products of stainless steel, quenched and tempered, known in industry usage as AF.913 QT; of round cross section with diameter not over 305 mm; with chemical composition (percent by weight): Carbon not over 0.02, chromium 12.0 to 15.0, nickel 4.0 to 7.0, molybdenum 1.5 to 2.0 and nitrogen 0.06 to 0.12; certified by the importer as produced to ASTM A276, ASTM A473, ASTM A479, ASTM A565, API6A, or NACE MR0175; the foregoing designated as X-035;
(lxxix) Stainless steel wire designated as X-059 and meeting the characteristics described below:
(A) Flat wire, work hardened (3/4 hard) or annealed; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.15, manganese 5.5 to 7.5, chromium 16.0 to 18.0 and nickel 3.5 to 5.5; tensile strength, work hardened (3/4 hard) condition: 1,172 to 1,345 N/mm
(B) Hardenable, surgical needle wire, Grade 4C27A; with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.30, silicon not over 1.00, manganese not over 1.75, phosphorus not over 0.030, sulfur not over 0.25, chromium 12.0 to 14.0, nickel not over 0.80 percent and molybdenum not over 1.20 percent;”
4. In order to administer the exclusions set forth in U.S. note 11(b), as modified by this Annex, subheading 9903.73.00 is redesignated as 9903.73.01 and the following new subheadings are inserted in numerical sequence, with conforming changes set forth following the last such new subheading:
5. In order to provide for the new exclusions added in item 6 of this Annex, the following conforming changes are made in existing HTS subheadings:
A. The article description of subheading 9903.72.57 is modified by inserting at the end thereof ”, as described in subheadings 9903.74.38 through 9903.74.45”.
B. The article description of subheading 9903.72.78 is modified by inserting at the end thereof ”, as described in subheadings 9903.74.61 through 9903.74.81”.
C. The article description of subheading 9903.73.01 (as redesignated by this notice) is modified by inserting at the end thereof ”, as described in subheadings 9903.75.15 through 9903.75.32”.
D. The article description of subheading 9903.73.18 is modified by inserting at the end thereof ”, as described in subheadings 9903.76.00 through 9903.76.08”.
E. The article description of subheading 9903.73.35 is modified by inserting at the end thereof ”, as described in subheadings 9903.76.26 through 9903.76.29”.
F. The article description of subheading 9903.73.48 is modified by inserting at the end thereof ”, as described in subheadings 9903.76.51 through 9903.76.61”.
G. The article description of subheading 9903.73.55 is modified by inserting at the end thereof ”, as described in subheadings 9903.76.86 through 9903.76.90”.
H. The article description of subheading 9903.73.82 is modified by inserting at the end thereof ”, as described in subheadings 9903.77.30 through 9903.77.33”.
I. The article description of subheading 9903.74.01 is modified by inserting at the end thereof ”, as described in subheadings 9903.77.61 through 9903.77.67”.
J. The article description of subheading 9903.74.12 is modified by inserting at the end thereof ”, as described in subheading 9903.77.85”.
K. The article description of subheading 9903.74.18 is modified by inserting at the end thereof ”, as described in subheadings 9903.78.10 through 9903.78.13”.
6. In order to administer the new exclusions added to U.S. note 11(c) to this subchapter, the following new subheadings are inserted in subchapter III of chapter 99 in numerical sequence:
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Reinstatement of treatment on government procurement of products from Honduras.
Under the authority delegated to me by the President in section 1-201 of Executive Order 12260 of December 31, 1980, I hereby direct that products of Honduras shall be treated as eligible products for purposes of section 1-101 of the Executive Order. Such treatment shall not apply to products originating in Honduras that are excluded from duty free treatment under 19 U.S.C. 2703(b). Decisions on the continued application of this treatment will be based on ongoing evaluation of Honduras' efforts to improve domestic procurement practices, its support for relevant international initiatives, such as those in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Working Group on Transparency in Government Procurement and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) Negotiating Group on Government Procurement. Performance with respect to the foregoing factors will be analyzed annually in September, although changes in the application of this treatment may be made at any time. Notice of any changes in this treatment with respect to any beneficiary will be published in the
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of meeting.
The Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee (GLPAC) will meet to discuss various issues relating to pilotage on the Great Lakes. The meeting will be open to the public.
GLPAC will meet on Monday, July 29, 2002, from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. and on Tuesday, July 30, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The meeting may close early if all business is finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before July 22, 2002. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee should reach the Coast Guard on or before June 22, 2002.
GLPAC will meet in Deck Room B of the Maritime Institute of Technology, 5700 Hammonds Ferry Road, Linthicum Heights, Maryland. Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Margie Hegy, Commandant (G-MW), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. This notice is available on the Internet at
Margie Hegy, Executive Director of GLPAC, telephone 202-267-0415, fax 202-267-4700.
Notice of the meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
The agenda includes the following:
(1) Automatic Identification System (AIS) Technology and Training Requirements.
(2) Update on the Great Lakes Pilotage Office Relocation Study.
(3) Update on Bridge Hour Study.
The meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting. If you would like to make an oral presentation at the meeting, please notify the Executive Director no later than July 25, 2002. Written material for distribution at the meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than July 25, 2002. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee in advance of the meeting, please submit 10 copies to Margie Hegy at the address in the
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Executive Director as soon as possible.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on land release request.
Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c), notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the city of Starkville to waive the requirement that a 4.5 acre parcel of surplus property, located at the George M. Bryan Field Airport, be used for aeronautical purposes.
Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2002.
Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Jackson Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-2307.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to The Honorable Mack D. Rutledge, Mayor of Starkville, Mississippi at the following address: City Hall, 101 Lampkin Street, Starkville, MS 38902-0310.
David Shumate, Program Manager, Jackson Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-2307, (601) 664-9882. The land release request may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA is reviewing a request by city of Starkville, MS to release 4.5 acres of surplus property at the George M. Bryan Field Airport. The property will be sold in part or in whole commercial or industrial users for fair market value. The property is located on the West side of the airport.
Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of availability and requests for public comments.
This notice announces the availability of and request comments on a proposed Technical Standard Order (TSO) C39c, Aircraft Seats and Berths. The proposed TSO-C39c, Aircraft Seats and Berths, prescribes the minimum performance standard (MPS) that a aircraft seat and berth must meet in order to bear the TSO number on its identification plate. Proposed TSO-C39c provides standards for seating systems in transport, rotorcraft, normal and utility airplanes, and acrobatic.
Comments must be received on or before September 15, 2002.
Send all comments on the proposed technical standard order to: Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Technical Programs and Continued Airworthiness Branch, AIR-120, ATTN: Bobbie J. Smith, Room 815, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Or, deliver comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Room 815, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Ms. Bobbie J. Smith, AIR-120, Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone 202-267-9546.
Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed TSO listed in this notice by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they desire to the above specified address. Comments received on the proposed TSO may be examined, before and after the comment closing date, in Room 815, FAA Headquarters Building (FOB-10A), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, weekdays except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments specified above will be considered by the Director of the Aircraft Certification Service before issuing the final TSO.
This TSO is proposed to provide minimum performance standards for aircraft seats and berths.
TSO-C39 was originally developed to provide a standard that would serve as a basis for FAA approval to meet the emergency landing loads specified in the airworthiness requirements. Specifically TSO-C39 replaced TSO-C25 as the seat standards when the certification basis for aircraft changed from including a forward crash load of 6g's to 9g's.
TSO-C39 incorporated NAS 809 to provide the criteria that cold be used to demonstrate the strength of aircraft seats to the 9g-standard. In 1988, a new requirement for seat strength and performance, commonly called the 16g rule, was promulgated in the Federal Aviation Regulation. The 16g rule was fundamentally different from previous emergency landing conditions as it
The SAE SEAT Committee was tasked with developing a standard that would provide a basis for meeting the 16g rule. SAE published AS 8049, that was incorporated into TSO-C127 in 1992. TSO-C127a was issued in 1998 after AS 8049A was published to further refine the dynamic seat standard. AS 8049 and AS 8049A contained the criteria for dynamic seats and still included criteria for static strength and design requirements.
Although seats were still being produced to the static 9g-standard in TSO-C39, the seat industry began to increase its production of TSO-C127 and TSO-C127a seats. So there were then, and currently still are, two standards—NAS 809 and AS8049—that addressed static 9g requirements.
In 2000, the FAA and industry formed a team to investigate and implement ways to streamline seat certification. This group recognized that two different standards addressing static strength and design considerations for seats was making the certification process more complicated than it needed to be. Therefore it was proposed that a new revision to TSO-C39 be issued to standardize the state criteria portion of the two standards.
It was decided that this could be successfully accomplished by referencing the static portion of AS 8049A for the proposed revision to TSO-C39. This will bring TSO-C39 in alignment with TSO-C127 and reflect the way industry currently uses the two standards. Most seat manufacturers are already using the static portion of AS 8049A as a basis for meeting airworthiness requirements not covered by the criteria in TSO-C39. Including the assessment under the TSO program will improve certification schedules. Additionally, AS 8049A continues to be reviewed and updated, and changes to AS 8049 will cover TSO-C127 seats as well as TSO-C39 seats.
A copy of the proposed TSO may be obtained via the information contained in section titled
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent (Cancellation).
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement a9EIS) as it relates to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for the proposed U.S. 20 Capacity Improvement Study in Dubuque County, Iowa is canceled. The NOI was originally published in the
Manu M. Chacko, Transportation Engineer, FHWA, 105 6th Street, Ames, IA 50010-6337, (515) 233-7307. James P. Rost, Director, Office of Location and Environment, Iowa Department of Transportation, 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50010, (515) 239-1798.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Federal Register's home page at:
The NOI was originally published in the
Comments or questions concerning this proposed action should be directed to the Iowa Department of Transportation or FHWA at the address provided in the caption
Federal Highway Administration.
Notice of intent and public scoping meeting.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepared for proposed transportation improvements to U.S. 285 from Foxton Road to Bailey in Jefferson and Park Counties, Colorado.
Mr. Scott Sands, FHWA Colorado Division, 555 Zang Street, Room 250, Denver, CO 80228, Telephone (303) 969-6730, extension 362.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for transportation improvements on U.S. 285 from Foxton Road in Conifer to just south of Bailey, Colorado. The EIS will evaluate the No-Action and Build alternative(s) and determine the estimated costs and potential impacts of each. CDOT will be the local lead agency for the EIS. The project is approximately 15 miles in length. Alternatives that may be evaluated include the No-Action Alternative and various 2, 3 and 4 lane alternatives. A public scoping meeting has been scheduled for July 30, 2002 at the Elk Creek Fire Protection District at 11993 Blackfoot Road in Conifer, CO. Scoping meetings are also planned with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife and various local agencies. This effort will build on the results of the U.S. 285 Feasibility Study which was completed in March of 2002.
Written comments on project scope should be sent to: Mr. Kim Patel, Project Manager, CDOT Region One, 18500 East Colfax Avenue, Aurora, CO 80111, Telephone: (303) 365-7373.
FHWA, CDOT and other local agencies invite interested individuals, organizations, and federal, state and
All significant social, economic and environmental impacts of the alternatives carried forward for complete EIS analysis will be evaluated. Depending on the alternatives under study, environmental and social impacts to be evaluated will include safety and mobility impacts, impacts on cultural resources, noise impacts, natural resources, air quality, threatened and endangered species, wildlife resources, habitat connectivity, and parks and recreation resources.
In accordance with FHWA policy, the Draft EIS will be prepared with required engineering design studies necessary to complete the document. After its publication, the Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comments and a public hearing will be held. A Final EIS will hen be prepared, followed by a Record of Decision which will officially select a preferred alternative. Prior to the official selection of a preferred alternative in the Record of Decision, notification of the preference will be made in either the Draft or Final EIS.
The No-Action Alternative is expected to include minor safety improvements, (e.g., intersection improvements, shoulder widening, or climbing lanes) resurfacing, bridge repair, maintenance, stream or other environmental improvements, and the construction of a grade separated intersection at Wandcrest Drive. Through the course of the EIS, other independent utility projects may be identified if they are found to not conflict with the outcome of the EIS.
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
The Gadsden Switching Service, Inc. of Scottsboro, Alabama has petitioned on behalf of the Everett Railroad Company for a waiver of compliance for two locomotives from the requirements of the Railroad Safety Glazing Standards, 49 CFR part 223. The two locomotives are operated by remote control and work primarily within the confines of the former Gulf States Steel facility on approximately three miles of track at Gadsden, Alabama. The Gadsden Switching Service, Inc. operation has no public grade crossings.
The two locomotives are presently equipped with ordinary commercial safety glass. On occasion, locomotives EV 913 and EV 921 move over yard tracks owned by CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern for pick up and delivery of railcars.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
The Gulf and Ohio Railways, parent company to the Knoxville and Holston River Railroad (KXHR), has petitioned for a permanent waiver of compliance from the requirements of the 49 CFR Federal Track Safety Standards Part 213.233, Track Inspections. This requirement prescribes a Gregorian calendar-based frequency for inspecting track to detect deviations from the standards. Railroads operating passenger trains are required to schedule a twice weekly track inspection with at least a one-day interval between inspections.
KXHR began revenue passenger service in early November of 1999. KXHR schedules passenger operations to begin the last week in March and end about mid-November of each year. A passenger train operates twice a day, on Saturdays and Sundays, between milepost 5.8 and milepost 10.8 over the River Front Extension (RFE) track. Freight trains operate daily, Monday through Friday, throughout the RFE's 11.6-miles. In 2001, a substantial number of passengers (more than 12,000) rode the excursion train. In the same year, the traffic density was estimated at 0.072 million gross tons. On the RFE district, KXHR Timetable Number 1 authorizes a maximum speed
KXHR claims the passenger train operation is on consecutive days, requiring them to make two inspections between Monday and Friday, even though they do not operate the passenger train between inspections. KXHR requests relief from the second inspection during the week. In the event a special train is operated between Monday and Friday, KXHR states they will conduct the compulsory twice weekly inspections.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2002-11897) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
The Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH) seeks a waiver of compliance from the requirements of [49 CFR 238.305(c)(10)] and [49 CFR 238.317(a)(1)] of the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. Section 238.305(c)(10) requires all end doors and side doors to operate safely and as intended. A non-complying car may continue in passenger service pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, if, at least one operative and accessible door is available on each side of the car; and a notice is prominently displayed directly on the defective door indicating that the door is defective. Section 238.305(d) allows a passenger car found not to be in compliance with the requirements contained in paragraphs (c)(10) at the time of its interior calendar day mechanical inspection to remain in passenger service until the car's next interior calendar day mechanical inspection where it must be repaired or removed from passenger service.
PATH's request was for (MU) passenger cars equipped with two and three double leaf side doors on each side of the car. These cars are allowed to operate beyond the next interior calendar day inspection for up to eight days after the requirements of 238.305(d)(1), (2), and (3) are met. Section 238.305 (d) requires that: (1) A qualified person or a qualified maintenance person determines that the repairs necessary to bring the car into compliance cannot be performed at the time that the current day's interior mechanical inspection is conducted; (2) A qualified person or a qualified maintenance person determines that it is safe to move the equipment in passenger service; and (3) A record is maintained of the non-complying condition with the date and time that the condition was first discovered.
Section 238.317(a)(1) requires that whenever the control stand used to control the train is changed, a Class II brake test shall be performed prior to the train's departure from the terminal. PATH requests partial relief from this requirement. PATH does not want to perform this brake test when the train's terminal dwell time is less then five minutes because the conductor would not have time to perform the test at the rear of the train and walk forward to his operating position between the first and second car.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2002-12409) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room P1-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroads
CSX Transportation, Incorporated (CSXT) seeks relief from the requirements of the Rules, Standard and Instructions, 49 CFR, part 236, section 236.110, to the extent that each test record need not be signed by the person making the inspection or test, in lieu of implementing an electronic system to record and maintain Signal inspection records that provide inherent security measures that uniquely identify the person as the author of the record. Once a record is entered and verified, it cannot be modified. In conjunction with this relief, CSXT also requests the utilization of an electronic system for recording and maintaining applicable inspection and test records as defined in 49 CFR, part 234, subject to approval by the Associate Administrator for Safety, as required by section 234.273.
Applicant's justification for relief: CSXT believes that the electronic system will serve the best interest of CSXT and the Federal and State Inspection authorities that are required to inspect records, and anticipate the system will provide many benefits, including:
• Improved availability of test records
• Improved management reporting of compliance
• Improved consistency for filing records
• A reduction in the need for paper documentation
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and contain a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PI-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PI-401 (Plaza Level), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroads have petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as detailed below.
Union Pacific Railroad Company seeks approval of the proposed modification of the traffic control system, at milepost 250.1 on the Dallas Subdivision, Centennial Yard, in Fort Worth, Texas. The proposed changes consist of the discontinuance and removal of automatic signal 2501 and inoperative approach signal 2500, associated with the 7,500 foot block reduction at the entrance of CTC territory. The 7,500 foot track circuit, protected by signal 2501, will be shortened and used to approach light controlled signal WB at milepost 251.5.
The reason given for the proposed changes is that the signals presently disrupt switching operations due to the need to get permission from the dispatcher to pass signal 2501 if it is red, and changes in the methods of operation have made signal 2501 unnecessary.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and contain a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PI-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PI-401 (Plaza Level), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroads have petitioned the Federal Railroad
Union Pacific Railroad Company seeks approval of the proposed modification of the automatic block signal system, at milepost 2.1 on the Altoona Subdivision, in East St. Paul, Minnesota, consisting of the discontinuance and removal of automatic signal 21, and extension of the approach signal 31 block to include the track presently protected signal 21.
The reason given for the proposed changes is that the Arcade Street overpass near the signal is to be reconstructed, and the new overpass will encroach on the present location of signal 21, necessitating its removal or relocation. The low speed of 10 mph, the reduced train traffic, and the short protected block mitigate the necessity of the signal.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and contain a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PI-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PI-401 (Plaza Level), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel DEEP SCAN.
As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a description of the proposed service, is listed below. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines that in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (65 FR 6905; February 11, 2000) that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels, a waiver will not be granted.
Submit comments on or before August 12, 2002.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2002-12723. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Kathleen Dunn, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-832 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-2307.
Title V of Pub. L. 105-383 provides authority to the Secretary of Transportation to administratively waive the U.S.-build requirements of the Jones Act, and other statutes, for small commercial passenger vessels (no more than 12 passengers). This authority has been delegated to the Maritime Administration per 49 CFR 1.66, Delegations to the Maritime Administrator, as amended. By this notice, MARAD is publishing information on a vessel for which a request for a U.S.-build waiver has been received, and for which MARAD requests comments from interested parties. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD'S regulations at 46 CFR part 388.
(1) Name of vessel and owner for which waiver is requested.
(2) Size, capacity and tonnage of vessel.
(3) Intended use for vessel, including geographic region of intended operation and trade.
(4) Date and Place of construction and (if applicable) rebuilding.
(5) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on other commercial passenger vessel operators.
(6) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on U.S. shipyards.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel LIEBESTRAUM.
As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a description of the proposed service, is listed below. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines that in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (65 FR 6905; February 11, 2000) that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels, a waiver will not be granted.
Submit comments on or before August 12, 2002.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2002-12724. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Kathleen Dunn, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-832 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-2307.
Title V of Pub. L. 105-383 provides authority to the Secretary of Transportation to administratively waive the U.S.-build requirements of the Jones Act, and other statutes, for small commercial passenger vessels (no more than 12 passengers). This authority has been delegated to the Maritime Administration per 49 CFR 1.66, Delegations to the Maritime Administrator, as amended. By this notice, MARAD is publishing information on a vessel for which a request for a U.S.-build waiver has been received, and for which MARAD requests comments from interested parties. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD'S regulations at 46 CFR part 388.
(1) Name of vessel and owner for which waiver is requested.
(2) Size, capacity and tonnage of vessel.
(3) Intended use for vessel, including geographic region of intended operation and trade.
(4) Date and Place of construction and (if applicable) rebuilding.
(5) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on other commercial passenger vessel operators.
(6) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on U.S. shipyards.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel THORR.
As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a description of the proposed service, is listed below. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines that in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (65 FR 6905; February 11, 2000) that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels, a waiver will not be granted.
Submit comments on or before August 12, 2002.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2002-12725. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Kathleen Dunn, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-832 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-2307.
Title V of Pub. L. 105-383 provides authority to the Secretary of Transportation to administratively waive the U.S.-build requirements of the Jones Act, and other statutes, for small commercial passenger vessels (no more than 12 passengers). This authority has been delegated to the Maritime Administration per 49 CFR 1.66, Delegations to the Maritime Administrator, as amended. By this notice, MARAD is publishing information on a vessel for which a request for a U.S.-build waiver has been received, and for which MARAD requests comments from interested parties. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD'S regulations at 46 CFR part 388.
(1) Name of vessel and owner for which waiver is requested.
(2) Size, capacity and tonnage of vessel.
(3) Intended use for vessel, including geographic region of intended operation and trade. According to the applicant:
“I intent to use THORR as my private yacht and offer two (2) to six (6) guests to share in that experience for a fee. I intent to continue to cruise between Seward Alaska, the Prince William Sound and as far west as Kodiak in the summer. The number of day's operation will be limited to the weekends and my days off. My trips will be overnight and three to four days. In September of each year I intend to take THORR down to the South East Alaska for winter lay up and return to Seward in May of each year. I would like to offer (2) to four (4) guests to accompany me on these two trips per year for a fee.”
(4) Date and Place of construction and (if applicable) rebuilding.
(5) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on other commercial passenger vessel operators.
(6) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on U.S. shipyards.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Central Railroad Company of Indianapolis (CERA), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire and operate approximately 31.66 miles of rail line owned by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR).
The transaction was expected to be consummated on or after June 21, 2002, the effective date of the exemption (7 days after the notice was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34221, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220
The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before August 12, 2002, to be assured of consideration.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before August 12, 2002, to be assured of consideration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(a)(2), that a meeting will be held at the U.S. Treasury Department, 15th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, on July 30, 2002, of the following debt management advisory committee: The Bond Market Association; Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee.
The agenda for the meeting provides for a technical background briefing by Treasury staff, followed by a charge by the Secretary of the Treasury or his designate that the Committee discuss particular issues, and a working session. Following the working session, the Committee will present a written report of its recommendations.
The background briefing by Treasury staff will be held at 9 a.m. Eastern time and will be open to the public. The remaining sessions and the committee's reporting session will be closed to the public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d) and Pub. L. 103-202, § 202(c)(1)(B) (31 U.S.C. 3121 note).
This notice shall constitute my determination, pursuant to the authority placed in heads of departments by 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d) and vested in me by Treasury Department Order No. 101-05, that the closed portions of the meeting are concerned with discussions of the issues presented to the Committee by the Secretary and recommendations of the Committee to the Secretary, pursuant to Pub. L. 103-202, 202(c)(1)(B). Thus, this information is exempt from disclosure under that provision and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3)(B). In addition, the closed portions of the meeting are concerned with information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A). The public interest requires that such meetings be closed to the pubic because the Treasury Department requires frank and full advice from representatives of the financial community prior to making its final decision on major financing operations. Historically, this advice has been offered by debt management advisory committees established by the several major segments of the financial community. When so utilized, such a committee is recognized to be an advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 3.
Although the Treasury's final announcement of financing plans may not reflect the recommendations provided in reports of the advisory committee, premature disclosure of the committee's deliberations and reports would be likely to lead to significant financial speculation in the securities market. Thus, these meetings fall within the exemption covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A).
The Office of Financial Markets is responsible for maintaining records of debt management advisory committee meetings and for providing annual reports setting forth a summary of committee activities and such other matters as may be informative to the public consistent with the policy of 5 U.S.C. 552b. The Designated Federal Officer or other responsible agency official who may be contacted for additional information is Paul Malvey, Director, Office of Market Finance at 202-622-2630.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Treasury.
Joint notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the OCC, the Board, the FDIC, and the OTS (the “agencies”) may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), of which the agencies are members, has approved the agencies' publication for public comment of proposed revisions to the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) for banks and the Thrift Financial Report (TFR) for savings associations, which are currently approved collections of information. At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the FFIEC should modify the proposed revisions prior to giving its final approval. The agencies will then submit the revisions to OMB for review and approval.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 10, 2002.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to any or all of the agencies. All comments, which should refer to the OMB control number(s), will be shared among the agencies.
Acopy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the agencies: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or electronic mail to
Sample copies of the proposed new schedule for the Call Report for March 31, 2003, can be obtained at the FFIEC's web site (
Request for OMB approval to extend, with revisions, the following currently approved collections of information for banks and savings associations.
The agencies estimate that only approximately 130 banks and savings associations (banking institutions) have significant subprime lending programs and would have to complete the entire proposed subprime lending schedule. The agencies further estimate that each of these institutions would need approximately 1 to 1.5 hours to complete this schedule. In addition, other banking institutions with any subprime lending programs would have to complete only a single item on the schedule. Although the agencies do not have an estimate of the number of such banking institutions, they believe that this item would add only a negligible amount of burden. The following burden estimates include the proposed revisions.
1.
The estimated time per response is an average, which varies by agency because of differences in the composition of the banks under each agency's supervision (e.g., size distribution of institutions, types of activities in which they are engaged, and number of banks with foreign offices). The time per response for a bank is estimated to range from 15 to 550 hours, depending on individual circumstances.
2.
These information collections are mandatory: 12 U.S.C. 161 (for national banks), 12 U.S.C. 324 (for state member banks), 12 U.S.C. 1817 (for insured state nonmember commercial and savings banks), and 12 U.S.C. 1464 (for savings associations). Except for the items covered in this proposal and a limited number of other items, these information collections are not given confidential treatment. Small businesses (i.e., small banks and savings associations) are affected.
Banks file Call Reports and savings associations file the TFR with the agencies each quarter for the agencies' use in monitoring the condition, performance, and risk profile of reporting individual banking institutions and the industry as a whole. In addition, Call Reports and TFRs provide the most current statistical data available for evaluating banking institutions' corporate applications such as those for mergers, for identifying areas of focus for both on-site and off-site examinations, and for monetary and other public policy purposes. Call Reports and TFRs also are used to calculate all banking institutions' deposit insurance and Financing Corporation assessments, national banks' semiannual assessment fees, and OTS' assessments on savings associations.
The agencies are requesting comment on a proposed revision to the Call Report and the TFR that will enable the agencies to better plan their examinations of banking institutions and to monitor off-site the extent of, changes in, and performance of subprime lending programs at banking institutions. Subprime lending refers to loans to borrowers who have weakened credit histories. The characteristics of a subprime borrower typically include a history of paying debts late, personal bankruptcy filings, or a high debt service-to-income ratio. These borrowers, therefore, pose a higher risk of default than do traditional borrowers at banking institutions. A subprime lending program is the regular or targeted acquisition, through origination or purchase, of loans to subprime borrowers that will be held in portfolio or accumulated for resale.
In May 2000, the OCC, the Board, and the FDIC
The comments received in 2000 on the proposed collections of information on subprime lending in the Call Report and TFR were generally unfavorable, particularly with respect to the agencies' then proposed definition. Furthermore, the commenters overwhelmingly stated that if the agencies did collect subprime lending information, the information should only be collected from banks with subprime lending programs. In addition, the commenters suggested that future requests for comment on a subprime information collection for the Call Report and TFR should be
Over the last two years, the agencies have conducted examinations that have confirmed the agencies' contentions that subprime lending programs continue to pose an increased risk to those institutions involved and to the deposit insurance funds. A disproportionate number of the banking institutions on the FDIC's “problem institution” list during the past two years have been engaged in subprime lending programs and the volume of loans in these programs has exceeded 25 percent of the institutions' Tier 1 capital.
The actual extent of banking institutions' involvement in subprime lending programs is not fully known because there is no regular periodic reporting of this activity to the banking agencies. The estimates that have been made come from examination data, but the quality and timeliness of the subprime lending data derived from examination reports is constrained by the lack of standard industry-wide definitions of the terms “subprime” and “program” and by the length of the examination cycle. The issue of timeliness is particularly troublesome from a safety and soundness perspective because subprime lending programs tend to be a volume-oriented business that encourages rapid portfolio growth. Consequently, there is no reliable way to regularly monitor individual institutions' subprime lending programs between examinations.
This proposal addresses solely the agencies' planned collection of information on subprime consumer lending programs each quarter in the Call Report and TFR beginning March 31, 2003. The agencies continue to believe that a need exists to collect information on subprime lending programs. This information would be the agencies' sole source of off-site data on subprime lending programs. One purpose for which the agencies intend to use these data is to enhance the examination planning process. In addition, the data would provide the agencies with a timely and regular source of information from institutions with subprime consumer lending programs that can be used to monitor the extent of banking institutions' involvement in such programs, including the level of growth in this activity, and the performance of subprime portfolios.
Subsequent to the 2000 proposals, the agencies issued Expanded Guidance for Subprime Lending Programs on January 31, 2001. This guidance contains definitions that describe the characteristics of the terms “program” and “subprime.” Examiners have been using these characteristics during the examination process to determine which institutions have subprime lending programs that, in the aggregate, are greater than or equal to 25 percent of an institution's Tier 1 capital. The agencies propose to use the characteristics described in the Expanded Guidance in the proposed subprime lending program information collection in the Call Report and TFR. These two terms would be defined as follows for purposes of the proposed new schedule:
The term “program” refers to the process of acquiring on a regular or targeted basis, through either origination or purchase, loans to subprime borrowers that are to be held in the institution's own portfolio or accumulated and packaged for sale. The average credit risk profile of such programs or portfolios will likely display significantly higher delinquency and/or loss rates than prime portfolios.
Subprime programs include loan products that attract a disproportionate number of borrowers with weakened credit histories, including payday loan and credit repair products. A subprime program also may include cases where an institution regularly purchases loans, such as indirect auto paper, of which disproportionate amounts qualify as loans to subprime borrowers. In addition, an institution should include any program determined to be a subprime lending program by its primary federal regulator. If a reporting institution has a question as to whether it has a subprime lending program, it should contact its primary federal regulator.
The term “subprime” refers to the credit characteristics of individual borrowers. Subprime borrowers typically have weakened credit histories that include payment delinquencies, and possibly more severe problems such as charge-offs, judgments, and bankruptcies. The borrowers may also display reduced repayment capacity as measured by credit scores, debt-to-income ratios, or other criteria that may encompass borrowers with incomplete credit histories. Subprime loans are loans to borrowers displaying one or more of these characteristics at the time of
• Two or more 30-day delinquencies in the last 12 months, or one or more 60-day delinquencies in the last 24 months;
• Judgment, foreclosure, repossession, or charge-off in the prior 24 months;
• Bankruptcy in the last 5 years;
• Relatively high default probability as evidenced by, for example, a credit bureau risk score (FICO) of 660 or below (depending on the product/collateral), or other bureau or proprietary scores with an equivalent default probability likelihood; and/or
• Debt service-to-income ratio of 50% or greater, or otherwise limited ability to cover family living expenses after deducting total monthly debt-service requirements from monthly income.
This list is illustrative rather than exhaustive and does not define specific parameters for all subprime borrowers. Institutions that have identified borrowers as “subprime” based on their own internal rating systems should be reported as such.
For purposes of reporting on the proposed schedule, subprime lending does not refer to individual subprime loans originated and managed, in the ordinary course of business, as occasional exceptions to prime risk selection standards. Additionally, this definition generally does not apply to the following:
• Prime loans that develop credit problems after acquisition.
• Loans initially extended in subprime programs that are later upgraded, because of their performance, to programs targeted to prime borrowers.
• Community development loans as defined in the Community Reinvestment Act regulations that may have some higher risk characteristics, but are otherwise mitigated by guarantees from government programs,
• Institutions that extend credit to subprime borrowers as part of their standard community lending process or make loans to subprime borrowers as an occasional exception.
Subprime lending, by the nature of the definition, is concentrated in the consumer-lending arena. Thus, the proposed schedule covers only information on consumer loans. Furthermore, the agencies are proposing that only banking institutions that are programmatic lenders of subprime consumer loans should complete some or all of this schedule. Banking institutions that do not have any subprime consumer lending programs will not be required to provide any information on this schedule.
All banking institutions that have any subprime consumer lending programs would be required to report the total dollar amount outstanding of loans in those programs as of the quarter-end report date in Part I, item 1. However, only those banking institutions where the total dollar amount outstanding is greater than or equal to 25 percent of the reporting institution's Tier 1 capital as of the report date would be required to complete the detailed items in Parts II, III, and IV of the schedule discussed below. Once an institution reaches the 25 percent of Tier 1 capital threshold, it must continue to complete Parts II, III, and IV of the schedule until it fails to meet the Tier 1 capital threshold for two consecutive quarter-end report dates or for the remainder of the calendar year, whichever is longer.
The proposed detailed items in Parts II, III, and IV of the schedule would allow the agencies to perform off-site monitoring of the performance of banking institutions with significant exposures to subprime lending. Because these parts of the schedule would be completed only by banking institutions with subprime lending programs of at least 25 percent of Tier 1 capital, the schedule would minimize the information collected from banking institutions with small volumes of loans in subprime lending programs.
Part II collects a breakdown of the total dollar amount of loans in subprime consumer lending programs as of the report date into the following consumer loan categories: open-end and closed-end loans secured by 1-4 family residential properties (with first and junior lien closed-end loans reported separately), credit card loans, loans extended under other revolving credit plans, and other consumer loans. The sum of the amounts outstanding by loan category must equal the total dollar amount reported in Part I.
Part III requires the same breakout of past due and nonaccrual loans as required in Schedule RC-N of the Call Report and Schedule PD of the TFR (i.e., loans past due 30-89 days and still accruing, loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing, and nonaccrual loans) for each category of loans reported in Part II of this schedule. However, loans extended under revolving credit plans other than credit cards and other consumer loans are combined rather than reported separately.
Part IV requires the separate reporting of charge-offs and recoveries as in Schedule RI-B of the Call Report and Schedule VA of the TFR for the same loan categories as in Part III.
The agencies are proposing that the information reported in this schedule be accorded confidential treatment on an individual institution basis. The information requested will provide the agencies with sensitive business data that is needed to aid examiners and supervisory analysts in better evaluating the risk profiles and performance of banking institutions with concentrations of subprime lending programs. This information also will be used to plan the detail and timing of examinations and to provide the agencies with a timely and regular source of information on subprime lending programs, which is not currently available.
The agencies believe that confidential treatment initially should be accorded this information collection because, notwithstanding the Examiner Guidance on Subprime Lending, there is no standard industry-wide approach to the definitions of either “subprime” or “program,” which means that the meanings of these terms are institution-specific. Thus, the reported information will not be entirely comparable from one institution to the next, leading to potential misinterpretation of the data by the public.
The proposal will not result in the collection of data on all loans to subprime borrowers, but only on subprime lending programs. This outcome occurs because of the supervisory and examination, rather than statistical, focus of the proposed schedule. Moreover, because the focus is also on programs rather than individual loans, attempts to aggregate the reported data across institutions will not provide users with statistics on the overall volume of subprime loans held by banking institutions. For this same reason, the reported data will not reveal whether an individual institution does or does not have loans to subprime borrowers, nor will it reveal the entire amount of the institution's loans to subprime borrowers. As a consequence, care must be taken in interpreting the reported data to avoid reaching improper conclusions.
Furthermore, different institutions may reach different conclusions as to whether one or more of their consumer lending programs are subprime programs and, accordingly, whether their subprime lending programs aggregate 25 percent or more of their Tier 1 capital. The agencies therefore believe that some period of time is needed to ensure that banking institutions understand the proposed definitions and how they may apply to their various lending programs. This will also enable examiners to determine whether institutions are properly applying these definitions and correctly reporting the data.
The agencies also have some concern, due to the sensitive nature of these data, that the release of the subprime lending information before banking institutions and the agencies have adequate experience with it could inhibit the collection of accurate and complete data in the future. Until any potential problems with the newly reported data have been addressed, the agencies believe there is a risk that the data will be misinterpreted and that their release at this time could cause potential harm to an institution or an increased risk to deposit insurance funds. The agencies are initially proposing confidential treatment for the proposed new schedule. However, after experience has been gained with the data, e.g., after six or eight quarters, the agencies will reevaluate whether this treatment should be retained.
Public comment is requested on all aspects of this proposal. In addition, comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed revisions to the Call Report and TFR collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimates of the burden of the information collections as they are proposed to be revised, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Comments submitted in response to this Notice will be shared among the agencies and will be summarized or included in the agencies' requests for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Written comments should address the accuracy of the burden estimates and ways to minimize burden as well as other relevant aspects of the information collection request.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 5, 2002.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
In notice document 02-16889 beginning on page 44815 in the issue of Friday, July 5, 2002, make the following corrections:
On page 44816, in the second and third columns, the text should read as follows:
These priorities are specified in the authorizing statute for the program (see section 5244 of the ESEA). The priority points are in addition to any points the applicant earns under the selection criteria listed below. The Secretary may select an application that meets a priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority. The maximum number of points an application may earn based on the priority points and the selection criteria is 115 points.
(a)
(1) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services (
(3) The potential replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation in a variety of settings.
(c)
(1) The extent to which the proposed project encourages parental involvement and ensures that parents have high-quality information about their choices.
(2) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(3) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project.
(4) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.
(5) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
(6) The extent to which the proposed project will be coordinated with similar or related efforts, and with other appropriate community, State, and Federal resources.
(d)
(1) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to improvements in the achievement of students, as measured against rigorous academic standards.
(2) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the effective collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services.
(3) The quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(e)
An eligible entity that receives a grant under this subpart must use grant funds to provide students selected to participate in the program with transportation services or to pay the cost of transportation to and from the public elementary schools and secondary schools, including, if applicable, charter schools, that the students choose to attend under the program.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; amendments.
This action promulgates amendments to the “generic” maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards to add national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for four additional source categories: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and Spandex Production. The generic MACT standards provide a structural framework that allows source categories with similar emission types and MACT control requirements to be covered under one subpart, thus promoting regulatory consistency in NESHAP development. The EPA has identified these four source categories as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), including cyanide compounds, acrylonitrile, acetonitrile, carbonyl sulfide, carbon disulfide, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, toluene, and 2,4 toluene diisocyanate (TDI). Benzene is a known human carcinogen, and 1,3 butadiene is considered to be a probable human carcinogen. The other pollutants can cause noncancer health effects in humans. These standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of MACT. This action also promulgates NESHAP for the heat exchange systems and wastewater operations at ethylene manufacturing facilities.
July 12, 2002.
Docket No. A-97-17 contains supporting information used in developing the generic MACT standards. Dockets established for each of the source categories to be assimilated under the generic MACT standards with this action include: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing (Docket No. A-2000-14), Carbon Black Production (Docket No. A-98-10), Ethylene Production (Docket No. A-98-22), and Spandex Production (Docket No. A-98-25). These dockets include source-category-specific supporting information. All dockets are located at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, Ground Floor, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
For further information concerning applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or local agency representative. If no State or local representative is available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in 40 CFR 63.13. For information concerning the analyses performed in developing the NESHAP, contact the following at the Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. Not all facilities classified under the NAICS or SIC codes are affected. Other types of entities not listed could be affected. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.1104 of the final NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
The purpose of the final NESHAP is to protect the public health by reducing emissions of HAP from facilities in four source categories: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and Spandex Production.
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The four categories of major sources for which NESHAP are being established by today's action were listed on the following dates: Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and February 12, 1998 (63 FR 6291); Carbon Black Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197); Ethylene Production, June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197); and Spandex Production, July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP.
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any health and
We are including NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and Spandex Production source categories under the generic MACT standards to reduce the regulatory burden associated with the development of separate rulemakings. An owner or operator should consult the generic MACT standards for information on applicability of the standards to their source, compliance schedules, and standards. The generic MACT standards generally refer the owner or operator to other subparts for requirements necessary to demonstrate compliance.
We are including the NESHAP for the Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing, Carbon Black Production, Ethylene Production, and Spandex Production source categories in the generic MACT standards to simplify the rulemaking process, to minimize the potential for duplicative or conflicting requirements, to conserve limited resources, and to ensure consistency of the air emissions requirements applied to similar emission points. We believe that the generic MACT regulatory framework is appropriate for these source categories because it allows us to incorporate specific applicability and control requirements that reflect our decisions on these source categories while also utilizing generic requirements previously established for similar emission sources that we have determined are also applicable here.
The major comments received regard the performance specifications for continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) that were proposed as an amendment to the referenced 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. Other comments received on subpart YY and the referenced subparts and the responses to those comments are in Docket No. A-97-17.
Several commenters stated that the proposed performance specifications for CPMS would be costly and would not provide an environmental benefit. We proposed performance specifications for CPMS to ensure that such systems are installed, calibrated, and operated in a manner that would yield accurate and reliable information regarding the performance of closed vent systems and control devices. Subpart SS currently states that “all monitoring equipment shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated according to manufacturer's specifications or other written procedures that provide adequate assurance that the equipment would reasonably be expected to monitor accurately.” Therefore, owners and operators are already required by subpart SS to follow written performance specifications, but not necessarily the ones that we proposed in the amendments.
We have decided not to include the performance specifications for CPMS in the final subpart SS for two reasons. First, the number and complexity of the comments would not allow for the expeditious promulgation of the standards for the four source categories we are including under subpart YY. Second, we are currently developing performance specifications for CPMS to be followed by owners and operators of all sources subject to standards under 40 CFR part 63.
Since owners and operators subject to subpart SS are currently required to follow specifications for CPMS, even though they may not be as specific as those we proposed, we have decided to wait for the rulemaking that will propose performance specifications for all of 40 CFR part 63. We decided it would be premature to promulgate performance specifications for subpart SS when the performance specifications that would ultimately be promulgated for all of 40 CFR part 63 may be significantly different as a result of possible public comments received on that rulemaking.
Nationwide baseline HAP emissions are estimated to be 238 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (263 tpy). The final standards will reduce HAP emissions by approximately 106 Mg/yr (117 tpy). This is a 45 percent HAP emission reduction from the baseline level for this source category and a 58 percent reduction for those facilities required to install controls to comply with the final standards.
We also estimate that the final standards will reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 102 Mg/yr (113 tpy). We estimate that the final standards will result in an increase in sulfur oxides (SO
We believe that there will not be significant adverse non-air health, environmental or energy impacts associated with the final standards. This is supported by impacts analyses associated with the application of the control and recovery devices required under the final standards. We determine impacts relative to the baseline that is set at the level of control in absence of the rule.
Control of equipment leaks is expected to reduce the amount of HAP-containing material that would be discharged to a facility's wastewater treatment stream through equipment washdown or from stormwater runoff.
The use of a scrubber for HAP control of emissions from vents will create HAP-containing effluent. It is anticipated that any wastewater stream created from the use of a scrubber would be treated at a facility's wastewater treatment system with other waste streams.
There are minimal solid or hazardous waste impacts expected as a result of the final standards. A small amount of solid waste may result from replacement of equipment such as seals, packing, rupture disks, and other equipment components, such as pumps and valves. A minimum amount of solid or hazardous waste could also be generated from the use of steam strippers to control wastewater emissions. The possible sources generated include organic compounds recovered in the steam stripper overhead condenser or solids removed during feed pretreatment.
The energy demands associated with the final standards will result from the use of additional electricity, natural gas, and fuel oil to run control equipment. The storage tank, transfer operations, equipment leak, and wastewater controls are not expected to require any additional energy. The total nationwide energy demand that would result from implementing the process vent controls is approximately 3.1 × 10
The total estimated capital cost of the final standards is $939,000. The total estimated annual cost of the final standards is $2.4 million. These costs represent fourth quarter 1998 dollars.
We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the impacts that the final standards would have on the cyanide manufacturing market, consumers, and society. The total annualized social cost (in 1998 dollars) of the final standards on the industry is $2.4 million, which is much less than 0.001 percent of total baseline revenue for the affected sources. A screening analysis indicates that no individual firm affected by the final standards for the cyanide chemicals manufacturing source category would experience costs in excess of 0.001 percent of sales. For this reason, we believe that the impact of the final standards will be minimal. No cyanide chemicals manufacturing facility closures are expected.
In response to comments received on the proposed standards, we made several changes to the final standards, as well as some clarifications designed to make our intentions clearer. The substantive comments and/or changes and responses made since the proposal are summarized in the following paragraphs. Our complete responses to public comments are contained in a memorandum that can be obtained from the docket (see
Some commenters expressed that there was potential for confusion regarding the applicability of the rule. One commenter requested that we specifically exempt downstream equipment from the cyanide chemicals manufacturing NESHAP if the equipment is subject to another NESHAP.
Another commenter expressed that confusion regarding the overlapping requirements affecting the same equipment could be reduced if refined hydrogen cyanide (HCN) “burned on-site as a fuel in a boiler or industrial furnace” was excluded as part of the HCN process. The commenter explained that some producers that generate HCN as a byproduct of acrylonitrile manufacture opt to burn the byproduct HCN on-site as a fuel in boilers and/or industrial furnaces where its end use is regulated under other standards.
One commenter requested that we clarify and restrict the applicability of the rule by revising the definition of “CCMPU” as follows:
The commenter explained that, as proposed, the definition of CCMPU could include a chemical manufacturing process unit that creates HCN or sodium cyanide as an incidental or unintended byproduct that could be considered an affected source subject to the cyanide chemicals manufacturing requirements. The commenter stated that this clarification could also be fulfilled by modifying the definition for “cyanide chemicals product,” as follows:
Based on comments received, we made a few changes to the final standards. To avoid overlapping requirements applying to downstream boilers and/or industrial furnaces, we excluded HCN vent streams used for fuel value in boilers and/or industrial furnaces from HCN chemical manufacturing processes. Exclusion of these boilers and industrial furnaces that use vented emissions for fuel value from the requirements of the cyanide chemicals manufacturing process control requirements is consistent with what is done in other MACT standards.
We also made the commenter's suggested amendments to the “CCMPU” and “cyanide chemicals product” definitions in the final standards. These amendments were made because the intent of the commenter's suggested amendments is consistent with our intent, and we believe that the amended definitions will reduce any potential confusion regarding the applicability of the rule.
Based on this comment, we evaluated the wet end of the sodium cyanide process unit regarding the clarity of the applicability of the wet-end process vent requirements versus the applicability of discarded process wastewater vent requirements. Based on the definitions for “wet-end process vent,” “wastewater,” and “process wastewater,” applicability of requirements appeared to be clear. However, to avoid any potential applicability confusion, the final standards include an amended definition for “wet-end process vent” that specifically clarifies that discarded water that is no longer used in the production process is considered to be process wastewater and that vents from process and maintenance wastewater
a. Reduce the overall annual emission of total HAP from the collection of process vents from continuous unit operations in the process unit by 99 weight-percent in accordance with paragraph (g)(4) of this section.
We agree that the MACT floor for Andrussow/BMA process vents was based on annual emissions and, therefore, compliance with MACT should also be based on annual emissions. We have amended the final standards (Item 2 of Table 9 of § 63.1103(g)) as suggested by the commenter.
Two commenters expressed safety concerns with the proposed leak detection and repair (LDAR) provisions. It was expressed that many of the lines in HCN service are intentionally placed in out-of-the-way locations to minimize risk in the event of a leak. One commenter requested that we either exempt “unsafe-to-monitor” equipment components from the LDAR program or stay implementation of these requirements to allow adequate opportunity to investigate safer methods than those proposed. The commenter explained that a large percentage of pipeline components in HCN service that would be subject to the proposed LDAR provisions are elevated and are not accessible during operation due to safety concerns. The commenter stated that facilities already have procedures in place to ensure that there are no leaks when equipment is in HCN service. Industry feedback indicates that HCN equipment is unsafe to monitor at all times that equipment is in operation.
Based on our evaluation of the comments received regarding safety concerns with the proposed LDAR provisions, we concur that there are some equipment components that may never be safe to monitor. Therefore, we have added language to the final standards specifying that you are allowed to designate “unsafe-to-monitor” equipment with your Notification of Compliance Status report. If it is demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction that designated equipment is never safe to monitor, you would not be required to monitor the designated equipment.
Another commenter requested that we add language to 40 CFR 63.1103(g)(4)(ii)(B) to allow an owner or operator of a cyanide manufacturing facility to include a flare control efficiency greater than 98% in the calculation of the overall HAP emission reduction, provided they can demonstrate a higher control efficiency based on technically relevant measurements that are of sufficient quality, considering data variability.
We agree with the commenters that an owner or operator of a cyanide manufacturing facility should be allowed to include a flare control efficiency greater than 98% in the calculation of their overall HAP emission reduction provided they can demonstrate a higher control efficiency for their flare. Therefore, the final standards allow an owner or operator to include a flare control efficiency greater than 98% in the calculation of their overall HAP emission reduction if they can demonstrate, to the Administrator's satisfaction, a greater control efficiency (40 CFR 63.1103(g)(4)(ii)(A)).
Based on comments received regarding it being unsafe to test HCN-rich vent streams to flares, and our evaluation of the comments, we have included provisions in the final standards that allow an owner or operator to submit engineering calculations and/or data to substantiate that flares meet applicable heat content and flow rates under worst case conditions (40 CFR 63.987(b)(3)(v) and (4)).
We estimate that the final NESHAP will reduce HAP emissions by 1,830 Mg/yr (2,020 tpy). This is a 26 percent HAP emission reduction from the total baseline HAP emissions, and a 95 percent HAP emission reduction for those facilities required to install controls to meet the standards.
We estimate that the final NESHAP will reduce CO emissions by 474,000 Mg/yr (522,000 tpy); VOC by 16,900 Mg/yr (18,600 tpy); hydrogen sulfide by 10,300 Mg/yr (11,300 tpy); and PM by 740 Mg/yr (820 tpy). We estimate that the final NESHAP will increase SO
The total estimated capital cost of the final NESHAP is $54.9 million. The total estimated annual cost of the final NESHAP is $11.2 million. These costs represent fourth quarter 1998 dollars.
We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the impacts the final NESHAP will have on the industry, market, consumers, and society. The total annualized social cost (in 1997 dollars) of the final NESHAP to the industry is $11.2 million, which is less than 0.001 percent of total baseline revenue for the affected sources. A screening analysis suggests only one of the firms affected by the final NESHAP will experience costs in excess of 1 percent of sales, and no firm will experience costs in excess of 1.5 percent of sales. For this reason, we believe that the impact of the final NESHAP will be minimal. We expect no facility closures as a result of the final NESHAP.
We believe that there will not be any significant adverse non-air health, environmental or energy impacts associated with the final NESHAP. This is supported by impacts analyses associated with the application of control and recovery devices required under the final NESHAP.
There are no water pollution or solid waste impacts expected from the use of air emission control devices as a result of the final NESHAP. An increase in energy consumption will result from the use of combustion control systems. We estimate that carbon black production facilities will consume an additional 186 million cubic feet of natural gas per year to meet the regulatory requirements of the final NESHAP. This represents an increase in total domestic natural gas consumption of less than 1/100th of one percent.
In response to comments received on the proposed standards for the Carbon Black Production source category, we made several changes to the final NESHAP. Only one substantive change was made based on comments received on the proposal. We have summarized the relevant comment/change made in the following paragraphs. Our complete responses to public comments are contained in a memorandum that can be obtained from the docket (see
One commenter requested an exemption from the closed vent system initial and annual closed vent system inspection requirements. The commenter expressed that certain safety features are incorporated into their closed vent system operations to protect against overpressure in the case of catastrophic failure of their process filter systems. Concern was expressed that the proposed initial and annual closed vent system inspection requirements may defeat these safety measures because cost-effective technology to provide leak proof seals for the extreme operating temperature ranges that occur in the carbon black production process is not available. The commenter explained that the catastrophic loss of a bag filter due to gaseous build-up and failure can result in ignition of gases, fires, and explosions. In order to prevent the failure of the compartments, industry isolates the failed compartment from the process. Safety relief valves (e.g., weighted-lid systems) are designed into the system to relieve excess pressures, to prevent fires and explosions, and to prevent loss of compartments. The commenter explained that a typical pressure relief device used in carbon black production does not seal 100 percent, but that the process emits very small amounts of HAP, and single bag failure results in emissions that lead to opacity exceedances.
We evaluated the commenter's concerns and request for exemption from closed vent system inspection requirements for specified pressure relief devices used to protect against overpressure in the case of catastrophic failure of their process filter systems. Based on safety concerns and technology considerations, we have included provisions in the final NESHAP that exempt pressure relief devices that meet specified criteria (i.e., devices used to protect against overpressure in the case of catastrophic failure of the process filter system) from the closed vent system inspection requirements of 40 CFR 63.983(b) and (c). The final NESHAP require that exempted pressure relief devices meeting criteria specified in the NESHAP be identified in your Notification of Compliance Status report.
A question arose concerning the potential installation of cogeneration technology at carbon black plants which would recover waste heat and gas for use as a fuel input for power generation. This technology could potentially be used to meet the HAP control requirements of the NESHAP. However, cogeneration may result in NO
In 1992, we adopted an explicit PCP exclusion for electric utility steam generating units (57 FR 32314). In a July 1, 1994, guidance memorandum, we provided guidance to permitting authorities on the approvability of PCP exclusions for source categories other than electric utilities. In that guidance (available at
We believe that the current guidance on the PCP exclusion adequately provides for the possible exemption from major NSR for cogeneration technology resulting from the NESHAP. Permitting authorities should follow that guidance to the extent allowed under the applicable SIP in order to determine whether the installation of cogeneration technology in a given circumstance qualifies as a PCP. Projects that qualify for the exclusion would be covered under minor source regulations in the applicable SIP, and permitting authorities would be expected to provide adequate safeguards against NAAQS and increment violations and adverse impacts on AQRV in Federal Class I areas. Only in those areas where potential adverse impacts cannot be resolved through the minor NSR programs or other mechanisms would major NSR apply.
Environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts were estimated for the proposed ethylene production NESHAP. No changes have been made to the provisions for process vents, storage vessels, transfer operations, or equipment leaks that would affect these estimates. The changes that were made
Specifically, the original estimates of impacts associated with heat exchange system requirements were estimated to be minimal because the proposed NESHAP would have required monthly monitoring which is already being performed by most facilities. As pointed out by several comments, most facilities are not testing at the inlet and outlet of each heat exchanger, as required in the proposed NESHAP, and such a requirement would result in increased compliance costs. However, this requirement has been removed from the NESHAP, making the requirements consistent with the basis of the original impacts assessment.
Although the requirements for waste have been significantly revised, they remain consistent with the basis for the original impacts assessment. The original assessment was based on the assumption that facilities with a total annual benzene (TAB) quantity less than 10 Mg/yr would have to add equipment to manage and treat waste streams. The revised waste requirements maintain this requirement. For facilities with a TAB quantity greater than 10 Mg/yr, the majority of comments regarding the impacts estimated for waste concerned the fact that costs were not included for facilities that will have to add equipment to manage and treat streams that were previously uncontrolled due to a compliance option. The revised NESHAP allow facilities to use the compliance options; therefore, it is not necessary to revise the impacts assessment.
The estimates of environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts, which have not been revised, are presented in detail in the preamble for the proposed ethylene production NESHAP (65 FR 76433, December 6, 2000). In summary, it is estimated that the NESHAP will decrease HAP emissions by 60 percent or 992 Mg/yr (1,090 tpy) and VOC emissions by 64 percent or 9,271 Mg/yr (10,188 tpy). The annual cost (including amortized capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and recovery credits) is estimated to range from $7,600 per year for facilities already managing and treating their waste according to the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP to $1.3 million per year for facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr that are not currently subject to the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP requirements to manage and treat waste streams. No adverse economic impact is expected and no significant adverse non-air health, environmental, or energy impacts are expected to result from compliance with the ethylene production NESHAP.
Comments on the proposed NESHAP were received from ten different entities. A comprehensive summary of public comments can be found in the document entitled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants—Ethylene Production, Background Information Document for Final Standards, Summary of Public Comments and Responses” (the ethylene production NESHAP BID). The BID contains summaries of all of the comments received with corresponding responses that describe all of the changes that have been made to the NESHAP.
The most significant comments concerned three emission types: waste, heat exchange systems, and equipment leaks. These comments also resulted in the most significant changes to the proposed NESHAP. The following sections summarize the comments received and changes that have been made regarding waste, heat exchange systems, and equipment leaks.
Several commenters disagreed with the determination of MACT for waste for a variety of reasons. Generally, commenters argued that the MACT floor should be based on the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. As such, commenters viewed our proposed requirements as more stringent than the MACT floor, which they stated are not justified. Commenters mainly disagreed with the fact that the proposed waste requirements did not include the 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr compliance options, the 10 Mg/yr TAB quantity applicability cut-off, and applicability and treatment requirements based on benzene. We considered each of the specific issues and came to the conclusions discussed in the following sections.
Commenters disagreed with the fact that the compliance options were not included in the waste requirements for the proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP. Generally, the commenters argued that the compliance options have been found to be equivalent to the standard requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP, through development of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP and the waste standards for the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP and, therefore, should be included. The commenters also noted that three of the five best performing facilities are using a compliance option.
Since proposal of the Ethylene Production NESHAP, we have obtained information on which facilities are using compliance options and what streams they are controlling. Our general finding is that, regardless of how a facility is complying with the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP, facilities typically control continuous streams, and facilities tend not to control intermittent streams. Examples of streams that are typically not controlled are samples and maintenance waste (both during normal operations and turn-arounds). The fact that the same types of streams are typically being controlled, regardless of whether a facility is complying with the standard requirements or a compliance option, supports the finding that the 1, 2 and 6 Mg/yr compliance options are equivalent to the standard Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP requirements (and to each other) in the level of control achieved at ethylene production facilities. Therefore, we have determined that it is appropriate to include the 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr
Review of the practices in use at the five best performing ethylene production facilities (representing 12 percent of the industry) shows that four of the five are subject to and, therefore, are assumed to be complying with the management and treatment requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP. Only one of the best performing facilities is not required to comply with the management and treatment requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP because the TAB quantity for the facility is less than 10 Mg/yr. Exempting facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr from management and treatment requirements would not reflect the level of control achieved by the average of the five best-performing facilities.
We have determined that the MACT floor for waste includes the management and treatment of waste streams from ethylene production, regardless of a facility's TAB quantity. However, using the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP stream applicability requirements to determine which streams must be controlled at facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr may not be appropriate. The 1, 2, and 6 Mg/yr compliance options are not appropriate because their use at a facility with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr could result in no waste streams being controlled. For example, the 6 Mg/yr option allows a facility to choose which streams to manage and treat as long as the TAB quantity for all streams is less than 6 Mg/yr. If the TAB quantity for the facility is already 6 Mg/yr or less, no streams would have to be managed and treated, which is not consistent with the MACT floor level of control. Requiring facilities to comply with the standard requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP would also not be appropriate because it may require the facilities to treat intermittent streams which are generally not controlled by the best-performing facilities that form the basis of the MACT floor determination.
We have determined that the most appropriate way to require facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr to achieve the level of control achieved by the best-performing facilities is to specify the streams that must be controlled. Data received since proposal indicate that the best performing ethylene facilities control two types of streams as part of their Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP compliance strategy: (1) Spent caustic streams (wastes from the caustic washing process to remove sulfur compounds and other contaminants from the process stream), and (2) dilution steam blowdown streams (condensed steam used to quench the cracked gas condensates). We have determined that it is appropriate to apply the flow rate and concentration control applicability cut-offs in the standard requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP to these streams. The best-performing facilities are generally not controlling intermittent streams.
Based on this information, the Ethylene Production NESHAP have been revised to require that facilities with a TAB quantity less than 10 Mg/yr manage and treat, according to the requirements of the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP, each spent caustic and dilution steam blowdown waste stream with a benzene concentration greater than or equal to 10 ppmw, a flow rate greater than or equal to 0.02 lpm, and an annual wastewater quantity greater than or equal to 10 Mg/yr. The control requirements for these streams apply at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), if the SSM precludes the ability to comply and the facility follows the provisions of their SSM plan.
Several commenters disagreed with EPA's decision to base applicability and treatment requirements on total HAP rather than benzene. Commenters argued that because they are currently treating wastes based on benzene concentration, the requirement to treat wastes based on total HAP concentration is an above-the-floor option. The commenters stated that existing treatment systems are not likely to be capable of treating to the more stringent standards based on total HAP. Commenters stated that although the additional costs would be significant, the additional emission reductions would be minimal because benzene is generally an appropriate surrogate for HAP, and little additional emission reduction would be achieved.
Our original intent in proposing stream applicability and treatment requirements on total HAP content rather than benzene content was to ensure that streams containing HAP other than benzene are treated and controlled. We maintain that because compliance with the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP represents the MACT floor and results in control of HAP other than benzene, the MACT floor includes control of HAP other than benzene. However, we have determined that it is not necessary to base stream applicability and treatment requirements on total HAP to ensure that all HAP are managed and treated. Information obtained through survey responses and comments shows that, with few exceptions, all of the waste streams from ethylene production units that contain HAP contain benzene. According to commenters (Docket A-98-22), of all the waste streams generated by 33 ethylene manufacturing production units, only two do not contain benzene but contain other HAP. One stream is generated from a reflux drum on a debutanizer column. The stream contains 1,3-butadiene and has a flow rate of 2 gallons per minute. The other stream is an intermittent stream that is generated during turnarounds that contains naphthalene. Applying the finding that the best-performing
We have determined that it is not necessary to express the treatment requirements in terms of total HAP. We agree with commenters that treatment and control devices used to remove or destroy benzene will remove and destroy the other HAP regulated by this rule to approximately the same level. Benzene can be used as a surrogate to determine treatment and control efficiencies. If no benzene is present in a regulated stream, another HAP (such as 1,3-butadiene) must be used to show that treatment and control efficiencies required for benzene are achieved for that HAP. In such cases, compliance can also be demonstrated by routing the stream to a control device that is being used to comply with the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP.
The final rule retains the certification requirements. The discharger has the ultimate responsibility for assuring that waste transferred to another party for off-site treatment is treated in conformity with the applicable standard. The transferee is acting as the agent of the discharger when it accepts responsibility for treating the waste. The provisions in the proposal requiring certification by the transferee are less onerous for the discharger than the only practicable alternative, which would require that the discharger actively supervise the activities of the offsite treatment facility. The certification provisions are similar to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G (the Hazardous Organic NESHAP), and will pose no unreasonable burden on the generators or receivers of the waste.
Several commenters argued that the requirement does not reflect the floor level of control, stating that none of the best-performing facilities are required to test at the inlet and outlet of every heat exchanger. These commenters argued that such a requirement would be an above-the-floor option that is not cost effective. Several commenters provided estimates of the additional costs associated with sampling and testing at each heat exchanger. The estimated annualized costs provided by the commenters ranged from $60,000 to $1.2 million per year for a single ethylene production unit.
One commenter suggested an approach for addressing the circulation rate issue. The commenter based the suggestion on the assumptions that: (1) The requirements of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP result in an adequate level of leak detection, and (2) the circulation rate of cooling water through an ethylene production unit is eight times the circulation rate through a Hazardous Organic NESHAP unit. Using these assumptions, the 1 ppmw leak definition of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP and the average of circulation rates reported for ethylene units in survey responses, the commenter estimated that a 6.35 pound per hour (lb/hr) leak rate would be detected at a Hazardous Organic NESHAP unit. The commenter suggested allowing facilities to decide where to test for leaks with the condition that a leak of this magnitude would be detected. The commenter stated that such a requirement would ensure a level of performance comparable to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP and would provide facilities flexibility to tailor a monitoring program to their unique circumstances. The commenter explained that one facility may choose to sample the combined cooling water flow from many heat exchangers using a test method with a relatively low detection limit, while another may sample the flow from fewer exchangers using a higher detection limit.
Based on information provided by commenters, we agree that requiring testing at the inlet and outlet of each heat exchanger does not represent the floor level of control. We find that the suggestion to allow facilities to develop a site-specific sampling plan based on performance comparable to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP would represent the floor. We have reviewed and agree with the commenter's suggested approach for establishing the floor level sampling plan based on a specified leak detection limit, with one exception. We adjusted the calculation to correct an error in calculating the average circulation rate, which resulted in a leak rate that must be detected of 6.75 lb/hr. Going beyond the floor to the proposed testing requirement would impose costs that are unreasonable given the small emissions reductions that would be achieved. The final rule allows the use of any sampling location plan that is sufficiently sensitive to detect a leak rate of 6.75 lb/hr.
The final rule requires monthly monitoring for the first 6 months. If no leaks are detected during this period, then the monitoring frequency changes to quarterly. If a leak is subsequently detected, then monthly monitoring is required until the leak is repaired. After the leak is repaired, then monthly monitoring is required for 6 months. If no leaks occur during this period, the monitoring frequency returns to quarterly.
Our original intent in requiring repair in 15 days was to provide consistency with the repair requirements for other leaking components. Through the comments received in response to the proposed NESHAP, we have learned that repairing heat exchangers is different than repairing other types of leaking components. According to commenters, to repair a heat exchanger, it must be shut down, isolated from the process, cleaned, opened, tested to find the leak(s), and repaired. The commenters added that removing an exchanger from service often requires a unit to be shutdown. Commenters provided the contrasting example of a leaking valve, for which packing and flange bolts can often simply be tightened externally or, in extreme cases, can be externally pumped with a sealant or clamped to repair. Based on the information received in response to the proposed NESHAP, we agree that the 15-day repair period is more stringent than the floor and that the more stringent requirement is not reasonable because it does not allow adequate time for repair. We have determined that a 45-day repair period represents the floor. This is the repair period allowed by the Hazardous Organic NESHAP. In addition to extending the repair period to 45 days, we have revised the repair and delay of repair provisions to be consistent with the Hazardous Organic NESHAP.
The proposed Ethylene Production NESHAP required connector monitoring. Commenters disagreed with the approach EPA used to determine the MACT floor, stating that HAP emissions from uncontrolled connectors are overestimated due to an inaccurate emission factor. One commenter (Docket A-98-22) provided an alternate emission factor based on data that they gathered from ethylene production units. According to the commenter, when their emission factor is used in the MACT floor analysis, it results in a different five best-performing facilities, of which only two perform connector monitoring. Commenters asserted that connector monitoring is, therefore, not part of the floor. In addition, one commenter explained that their study shows that there is no statistically significant difference between the average emission rates for connectors being monitored for the first time and those that are monitored as part of a continuing monitoring program. Commenters also provided cost data to show that some facilities will incur high costs to monitor connectors with no statistically measurable emissions benefit.
Due to uncertainties regarding connector emission factors used in the original MACT floor analysis, we performed an analysis using an emission factor provided by a commenter; however, this does not mean that we have accepted the commenter's emissions factor as a more accurate estimator of connector emissions (Docket A-98-22). The objective of the analyses was to determine the impact using different connector emission factors would have on which facilities are determined to be the five best-performing sources. Although this analysis resulted in a slightly different five best-performing sources, the floor was the same, since three of the five facilities are monitoring connectors. Through this analysis, we have concluded that, regardless of the emission factor used, the majority of the best-performing facilities are performing connector monitoring.
We also conducted a study of the existing permits at certain facilities that had adopted permit conditions requiring 100 percent connector monitoring annually in exchange for emissions credits to be used for operational flexibility. In setting the MACT floor we found our knowledge of existing permit conditions compelling in terms of emissions benefits and therefore relevant in establishing the MACT floor. Certainly any monitoring worthy of conducting for the purpose of obtaining emissions credits was beneficial beyond cost.
Based on these analyses, we conclude that connector monitoring is part of the MACT floor. We do not believe that the available data support the commenters' conclusion that connector monitoring should not be included in the MACT floor. However, in consideration of the data submitted by the industry, we elected to require compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks, which requires connector monitoring, but also allows for reduced monitoring frequency for good performance instead of annual monitoring. This provides the opportunity to reduce monitoring costs in cases where a low proportion of connectors are leaking. In offering a performance-based requirement for connector monitoring, we also have provided some consistency in approach with the heat exchanger and other equipment monitoring provisions.
There are no additional emissions reductions achieved by the final NESHAP. The level of control required by the final NESHAP is already in place at the two affected reaction spinning facilities.
The total estimated annual compliance cost of the final NESHAP is $78,040. This estimate includes annualized capital costs for monitoring equipment purchased. Annual costs also include monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs. Costs were not included for control equipment since this is already in place at the two reaction spinning process facilities.
The capital costs are estimated to be $32,820 (in 1998 dollars). The capital costs are for purchase of thermocouples and liquid flow transducers for CPMS equipment and closed vent systems leak detection monitors. These costs are more than likely an overestimate because the two affected facilities already have monitors on their carbon adsorbers.
The goal of the economic impact analysis is to estimate the market response of the spandex production facilities to the final NESHAP and to determine the economic effects that may result from the final NESHAP. The Spandex Production source category contains five facilities, but only the two facilities that use the reaction spinning process are affected by the final
Spandex fiber production leads to potential HAP emissions from fiber spinning lines, storage tanks, and process vents; however, the emission sources are well controlled by the affected spandex manufacturing facilities. The mandated levels of control are met at these sources; therefore, no costs for additional add-on air pollution control equipment are expected to be incurred by the spandex facilities to comply with the final NESHAP. Instead, the compliance costs for the final NESHAP relate primarily to monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping activities. The estimated total annualized cost for the final NESHAP is $78,040, which represents less than 0.01 percent of the revenues of the companies that own the spandex manufacturing facilities. The final NESHAP are, therefore, expected to have a negligible impact on the Spandex Production source category.
The economic impacts at the facility and company levels are measured by comparing the annualized compliance cost for each entity to its revenues. A cost-to-sales ratio is first calculated and then is multiplied by 100 to convert the ratio into percentages. For the final NESHAP, a cost-to-sales ratio exceeding 1 percent is determined to be an initial indicator of the potential for a significant facility impact. Revenues at the facility level are not available, therefore estimated facility revenues received from the sale of spandex fiber are used. Both affected facilities are expected to incur positive compliance costs. The ratio of costs to estimated revenues range from a low of 0.22 percent to a high of 0.35 percent. Thus, on average, the economic impact of the final NESHAP is minimal for the facilities producing spandex fibers.
The share of compliance costs to company sales are calculated to determine company level impacts. One company owns the two affected facilities, so only one firm faces positive compliance costs from the final NESHAP. The ratio of costs to company revenues is 0.10 percent. At the company level, the final NESHAP are not anticipated to have a significant economic impact on companies that own and operate the spandex fiber facilities. For more information, consult the economic impact analysis report entitled, Economic Impact Analysis: Spandex Production, which is in the docket for the spandex source category.
We believe that there would not be significant adverse environmental or energy impacts associated with the final NESHAP. The industry's baseline level of control is high, and the level of control required by the final NESHAP is currently being achieved for the emission point types. Environmental impacts from the application of the control or recovery devices proposed for the Spandex Production source category are also expected to be minimal for secondary air pollutants. In general, we determine impacts relative to the baseline that is set at the level of control in absence of the final NESHAP.
There is no incremental increase in emissions related to water pollution or solid waste as a result of the final NESHAP.
Comments on the proposed Spandex Production NESHAP were received from two different entities: the Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC) and Dupont. A summary and response to the general comments submitted can be found in Docket A-98-25.
Dupont's comments expressed concern that because the dry spinning spandex production process was not mentioned in the proposal, this could be interpreted as no standard for this source category and, as a result, these facilities would be subject to a case-by-case MACT determination. The discussion of this comment can be found in direct final amendments that are being published separately in this issue of the
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must determine whether a final regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that today's final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” because it will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the rule. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the rule.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and EPA's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
Today's final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. No facilities subject to the final rule are owned by State or local governments. Therefore, State and local governments will not have any direct compliance costs resulting from the final rule. Furthermore, EPA is directed to develop the final rule by section 112 of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to the final rule.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”
The final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.
Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. Today's final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it establishes an environmental standard based on technology, not health or safety risk. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, today's final rule has been determined not to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is approximately $22.2 million per year. The final rule contains no mandates affecting State, local, or Tribal governments. Thus, today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
We have determined that the final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them.
The RFA generally requires us to give special consideration to the effect of Federal regulations on small entities and to consider regulatory options that might mitigate any such impacts. We must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless we determine that the rule will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on small entities, a small entity is defined differently for the four source categories for which we are proposing standards. Based on those definitions, there are no small entities affected by the final rule. Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we have determined that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The information collection requirements in today's final rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Information is required to ensure compliance with the final rule. If the relevant information were collected less frequently, EPA would not be reasonably assured that a source is in compliance with the rule. In addition, EPA's authority to take administrative action would be reduced significantly.
The final rule requires owners or operators of affected sources to retain records for a period of 5 years. The 5-year retention period is consistent with the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 and with the 5-year record retention requirement in the operating permit program under title V of the CAA.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the final rule are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to us for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to our policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, “Confidentiality of Business Information.”
The EPA expects the final rule to affect a total of 75 facilities over the first 3 years. The EPA assumes that no new facilities will become subject to the rule during each of the first 3 years. The EPA expects 75 existing facilities to be affected by the final rule, and these existing facilities will begin complying in the third year.
The estimated average annual burden for the first 3 years after promulgation of the rule for the industries and the implementing agency is outlined below. You can find the details of this information collection in the “Standard Form 83 Supporting Statement for ICR No. 1893.03,” in Docket No. A-97-17.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the following methods in the final rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3B, 4, 18, 25, 25A, 27, 316, and 320. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 27, and 316. Three voluntary consensus standards were identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods and procedures and are cited in the final rule.
The voluntary consensus standard, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) PTC 19-10-1981—Part 10, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, is cited in the final rule for its manual method for measuring the oxygen content of exhaust gas. Part 10 of ASME PTC 19-10-1981 is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B.
The voluntary consensus standard, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases described below for inclusion in the rule in addition to EPA Methods. Similar to EPA's performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also a performance-based method for measurement of gaseous organic compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method 18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18 where: (1) The target compounds are those listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, and (2) the target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by volume and 100 ppmv.
For target compounds not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed, met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water soluble. For target compounds not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99 and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 does not apply.
The voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D1946-90 (2000), Standard Practice for Analysis of Reformed Gas by Gas Chromatography, is an acceptable method for measuring process vent emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrogen for the purposes of the final rule.
The search and review results have been documented and are placed in the Generic MACT docket (Docket No. A-97-17).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
This subpart establishes requirements for controlling emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from heat exchange systems and waste streams at new and existing ethylene production units.
You must comply with the requirements of this subpart according to the schedule specified in § 63.1102(a).
(a) Unless defined in paragraph (b) of this section, definitions for terms used in this subpart are provided in the Clean Air Act, § 63.1103(e), and 40 CFR 61.341.
(b) The following definitions apply to terms used in this subpart:
The provisions of this subpart apply to your heat exchange system if you own or operate an ethylene production unit expressly referenced to this subpart XX from subpart YY of this part. The provisions of subpart A (General Provisions) of this part do not apply to this subpart except as specified in subpart YY of this part.
Your heat exchange system is exempt from the requirements in §§ 63.1085 and 63.1086 if it meets any one of the criteria in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(a) Your heat exchange system operates with the minimum pressure on the cooling water side at least 35 kilopascals greater than the maximum pressure on the process side.
(b) Your heat exchange system contains an intervening cooling fluid, containing less than 5 percent by weight of total HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart, between the process and the cooling water. This intervening fluid must serve to isolate the cooling water from the process fluid and must not be sent through a cooling tower or discharged. For purposes of this section, discharge does not include emptying for maintenance purposes.
(c) The once-through heat exchange system is subject to a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with an allowable discharge limit of 1 part per million by volume (ppmv) or less above influent concentration, or 10 percent or less above influent concentration, whichever is greater.
(d) Your once-through heat exchange system is subject to a NPDES permit that meets all of the conditions in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The permit requires monitoring of a parameter or condition to detect a leak of process fluids to cooling water.
(2) The permit specifies the normal range of the parameter or condition.
(3) The permit requires monthly or more frequent monitoring for the parameters selected as leak indicators.
(4) The permit requires you to report and correct leaks to the cooling water when the parameter or condition exceeds the normal range.
(e) Your recirculating or once-through heat exchange system cools process fluids that contain less than 5 percent by weight of total HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart.
Unless you meet one of the requirements for exemptions in § 63.1084, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(a) Monitor the cooling water for the presence of substances that indicate a leak according to § 63.1086.
(b) If you detect a leak, repair it according to § 63.1087 unless repair is delayed according to § 63.1088.
(c) Keep the records specified in § 63.1089.
(d) Submit the reports specified in § 63.1090.
You must monitor for leaks to cooling water by monitoring each heat exchange system according to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, monitoring each heat exchanger according to the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, or monitoring a surrogate parameter according to the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section. If you elect to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you may use alternatives in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section for determining the mean entrance concentration.
(a)
(1) You define the equipment that comprises each heat exchange system. For the purposes of implementing paragraph (a) of this section, a heat exchange system may consist of an entire heat exchange system or any combinations of heat exchangers such that, based on the rate of cooling water at the entrance and exit to each heat exchange system and the sensitivity of the test method being used, a leak of 3.06 kg/hr or greater of the HAP in Table 1 to this subpart would be detected. For example, if the test you decide to use has a sensitivity of 1 ppmv for total HAP, you must define the heat exchange system so that the cooling water flow rate is 51,031 liters per minute or less so that a leak of 3.06 kg/hr can be detected.
(2) Monitoring periods. For existing sources, monitor cooling water as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. Monitor heat exchange systems at new sources according to the specifications in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) Monitor monthly for 6 months, both initially and following completion of a leak repair. Then monitor as provided in either paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) or (a)(2)(i)(B) of this section, as appropriate.
(A) If no leaks are detected by monitoring monthly for a 6-month period, monitor quarterly thereafter until a leak is detected.
(B) If a leak is detected, monitor monthly until the leak has been repaired. Upon completion of repair, monitor according to the specifications in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(ii) Monitor the cooling water weekly for heat exchange systems at new sources.
(3) Determine the concentration of the monitored substance in the heat
(4) Take a minimum of three sets of samples at each entrance and exit.
(5) Calculate the average entrance and exit concentrations, correcting for the addition of make-up water and evaporative losses, if applicable. Using a one-sided statistical procedure at the 0.05 level of significance, if the exit mean concentration is at least 10 percent greater than the entrance mean, or a leak of 3.06 kg/hr or greater of the HAP (total or speciated) in Table 1 to this subpart or other representative substance into the cooling water is detected, you have detected a leak.
(b)
(1) Monitoring periods. For existing sources, monitor cooling water as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section. Monitor each heat exchanger at new sources according to the specifications in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Monitor monthly for 6 months, both initially and following completion of a leak repair. Then monitor as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) or (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section, as appropriate.
(A) If no leaks are detected by monitoring monthly for a 6-month period, monitor quarterly thereafter until a leak is detected.
(B) If a leak is detected, monitor monthly until the leak has been repaired. Upon completion of repair, monitor according to the specifications in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
(ii) Monitor the cooling water weekly for heat exchangers at new sources.
(2) Determine the concentration of the monitored substance in the cooling water using any method listed in 40 CFR part 136, as long as the method is sensitive to concentrations as low as 10 ppmv. Use the same method for both entrance and exit samples. Validation of 40 CFR part 136 methods for the HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart may be determined according to the provisions of appendix D to this part. Alternative methods may be used upon approval by the Administrator.
(3) Take a minimum of three sets of samples at each heat exchanger entrance and exit.
(4) Calculate the average entrance and exit concentrations, correcting for the addition of make-up water and evaporative losses, if applicable. Using a one-sided statistical procedure at the 0.05 level of significance, if the exit mean concentration is at least 1 ppmv or 10 percent greater than the entrance mean, whichever is greater, you have detected a leak.
(c)
(1) You shall prepare and implement a monitoring plan that documents the procedures that will be used to detect leaks of process fluids into cooling waters. The plan shall require monitoring of one or more process parameters or other conditions that indicate a leak. Monitoring that is already being conducted for other purposes may be used to satisfy the requirements of this section. The plan shall include the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) A description of the parameter or condition to be monitored and an explanation of how the selected parameter or condition will reliably indicate the presence of a leak.
(ii) The parameter level(s) or condition(s) that shall constitute a leak. This shall be documented by data or calculations showing that the selected levels or conditions will reliably identify leaks. The monitoring must be sufficiently sensitive to determine the range of parameter levels or conditions when the system is not leaking. When the selected parameter level or condition is outside that range, you have detected a leak.
(iii) Monitoring periods. For existing sources, monitor cooling water as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section. Monitor heat exchange systems at new sources according to the specifications in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of this section.
(A) Monitor monthly for 6 months, both initially and following completion of a leak repair. Then monitor as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A)(
(1) If no leaks are detected, monitor quarterly thereafter until a leak is detected.
(2) If a leak is detected, monitor monthly until the leak has been repaired. Upon completion of repair, monitor according to the specifications in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section.
(B) Monitor the cooling water weekly for heat exchange systems at new sources.
(iv) The records that will be maintained to document compliance with the requirements of this section.
(2) If a leak is identified by audio, visual, or olfactory inspection, a method listed in 40 CFR part 136, or any other means other than those described in the monitoring plan, and the method(s) specified in the plan could not detect the leak, you shall revise the plan and document the basis for the changes. You shall complete the revisions to the plan no later than 180 days after discovery of the leak.
(3) You shall maintain, at all times, the monitoring plan that is currently in use. The current plan shall be maintained on-site, or shall be accessible from a central location by computer or other means that provide access within 2 hours after a request. If the monitoring plan is changed, you must retain the most recent superseded plan for at least 5 years from the date of its creation. The superseded plan shall be retained on-site or accessible from a central location by computer or other means that provide access within 2 hours after a request.
(d)
(1) Assume that the entrance mean concentration of the monitored substance is zero; or,
(2) Determine the entrance mean concentration of a monitored substance at a sampling location anywhere upstream of the heat exchanger or heat exchange system, provided that there is not a reasonable opportunity for the concentration to change at the entrance to each heat exchanger or heat exchange system.
If a leak is detected, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a)
(a) Repair the leak as soon as practical but not later than 45 calender days after you received the results of monitoring tests that indicated a leak. You must repair the leak unless you demonstrate that the results are due to a condition other than a leak.
(b) Once the leak has been repaired, use the monitoring requirements in § 63.1086 within 7 calender days of the repair or startup, whichever is later, to confirm that the heat exchange system has been repaired.
You may delay the repair of heat exchange systems if the leaking equipment is isolated from the process. You may also delay repair if repair is technically infeasible without a shutdown, and you meet one of the conditions in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) If a shutdown is expected within the next 2 months of determining delay of repair is necessary, you are not required to have a special shutdown before that planned shutdown.
(b) If a shutdown is not expected within the next 2 months of determining delay of repair is necessary, you may delay repair if a shutdown for repair would cause greater emissions than the potential emissions from delaying repair until the next shutdown of the process equipment associated with the leaking heat exchanger. You must document the basis for the determination that a shutdown for repair would cause greater emissions than the emissions likely to result from delay of repair. The documentation process must include the activities in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) State the reason(s) for delaying repair.
(2) Specify a schedule for completing the repair as soon as practical.
(3) Calculate the potential emissions from the leaking heat exchanger by multiplying the concentration of HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart (or other monitored substances) in the cooling water from the leaking heat exchanger by the flow rate of the cooling water from the leaking heat exchanger and by the expected duration of the delay.
(4) Determine emissions of HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart (or other monitored substances) from purging and depressurizing the equipment that will result from the unscheduled shutdown for the repair.
(c) If repair is delayed because the necessary equipment, parts or personnel are not available, you may delay repair a maximum of 120 calendar days. You must demonstrate that the necessary equipment, parts or personnel were not available.
You must keep the records in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section, according to the requirements of § 63.1109(c).
(a) Monitoring data required by § 63.1086 that indicate a leak, the date the leak was detected, or, if applicable, the basis for determining there is no leak.
(b) The dates of efforts to repair leaks.
(c) The method or procedures used to confirm repair of a leak and the date the repair was confirmed.
(d) Documentation of delay of repair as specified in § 63.1088.
(e) If you validate a 40 CFR part 136 method for the HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart according to the procedures in appendix D to this part, then you must keep a record of the test data and calculations used in the validation.
If you delay repair for your heat exchange system, you must report the delay of repair in the semiannual report required by § 63.1110(e). If the leak remains unrepaired, you must continue to report the delay of repair in semiannual reports until you repair the leak. You must include the information in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section in the semiannual report.
(a) The fact that a leak was detected, and the date that the leak was detected.
(b) Whether or not the leak has been repaired.
(c) The reasons for delay of repair. If you delayed the repair as provided in § 63.1088(b), documentation of emissions estimates.
(d) If a leak remains unrepaired, the expected date of repair.
(e) If a leak is repaired, the date the leak was successfully repaired.
This subpart requires you to comply with 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, National Emission Standards for Benzene Waste Operations. There are some differences between the ethylene production waste requirements and those of subpart FF.
The major differences between the requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, and the requirements for ethylene production sources are listed in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(a) The requirements for ethylene production sources apply to all ethylene production sources that are part of a major source. The requirements do not include a provision to exempt sources with a total annual benzene quantity less than 10 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) from control requirements.
(b) The requirements for ethylene production sources apply to continuous butadiene waste streams which do not contain benzene quantities that would make them subject to the management and treatment requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF.
(c) The requirements for ethylene production sources do not include the compliance options at 40 CFR 61.342(c)(3)(ii), (d) and (e) for sources with a total annual benzene quantity less than 10 Mg/yr.
(d) If you transfer waste off-site, you must comply with the requirements in § 63.1096 rather than 40 CFR 61.342(f).
The waste stream provisions of this subpart apply to your waste streams if you own or operate an ethylene production facility expressly referenced to this subpart XX from subpart YY of this part. The provisions of subpart A (General Provisions) of this part do not apply to this subpart except as specified in a referencing subpart.
The types of waste described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are exempt from this subpart.
(a) Waste in the form of gases or vapors that is emitted from process fluids.
(b) Waste that is contained in a segregated storm water sewer system.
For waste that is not transferred off-site, you must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section for continuous butadiene waste streams and paragraph (b) of this section for benzene waste streams. If you
(a)
(1) Route the continuous butadiene stream to a treatment process or wastewater treatment system used to treat benzene waste streams that complies with the standards specified in 40 CFR 61.348. Comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF; with the changes in Table 2 to this subpart, and as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Determine the butadiene concentration of the waste stream according to 40 CFR 61.355(c)(1) through (3), except substitute “1,3-butadiene” for each occurrence of “benzene.” You may validate 40 CFR part 136 methods for 1,3-butadiene according to the procedures in appendix D to this part. You do not need to determine the butadiene concentration of a waste stream if you designate that the stream must be controlled.
(ii) Comply with 40 CFR 61.342(c)(1)(ii) and (iii) for each waste management unit that receives or manages the waste stream prior to and during treatment or recycling of the waste stream.
(iii) Comply with the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 61.356(b), (b)(1) and (b)(2), except substitute “1,3-butadiene” for each occurrence of “benzene” and “continuous butadiene waste stream” for each occurrence of “waste stream.”
(iv) Comply with the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 61.357(a), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(3)(iii) through (v), and (d)(1) and (2), except substitute “1,3-butadiene” for each occurrence of “benzene” and “continuous butadiene waste stream” for each occurrence of “waste stream.”
(v) Include only the information in 40 CFR 61.357(a)(2) and (a)(3)(iii) through (v) in the report required in 40 CFR 61.357(a) and (d)(2).
(2) Comply with the process wastewater requirements of subpart G of this part. Submit the information required in § 63.146(b) in the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.1110(d). Submit the information required in § 63.146(c) through (e) in either the Periodic Reports required in § 63.152 or the Periodic Reports required in § 63.1110(e).
(3) If the total annual benzene quantity from waste at your facility is less than 10 Mg/yr, as determined according to 40 CFR 61.342(a), comply with the requirements of this section at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, if the startup, shutdown, or malfunction precludes the ability of the affected source to comply with the requirements of this section and the owner or operator follows the provisions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, as specified in § 63.1111.
(b)
(1) If the total annual benzene quantity from waste at your facility is less than 10 Mg/yr, as determined according to 40 CFR 61.342(a), manage and treat spent caustic waste streams and dilution steam blowdown waste streams according to 40 CFR 61.342(c)(1) through (c)(3)(i). The requirements of this paragraph (b)(1) shall apply at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, if the startup, shutdown, or malfunction precludes the ability of the affected source to comply with the requirements of this section and the owner or operator follows the provisions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, as specified in § 63.1111.
(2) If the total annual benzene quantity from waste at your facility is greater than or equal to 10 Mg/yr, as determined according to 40 CFR 61.342(a), you must manage and treat waste streams according to any of the options in 40 CFR 61.342(c)(1) through (e).
If you elect to transfer waste off-site, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(a) Include a notice with the shipment or transport of each waste stream. The notice shall state that the waste stream contains organic HAP that are to be treated in accordance with the provisions of this subpart. When the transport is continuous or ongoing (for example, discharge to a publicly-owned treatment works), the notice shall be submitted to the treatment operator initially and whenever there is a change in the required treatment.
(b) You may not transfer the waste stream unless the transferee has submitted to the Administrator a written certification that the transferee will manage and treat any waste stream received from a source subject to the requirements of this subpart in accordance with the requirements of this subpart.
(c) By providing this written certification to the Administrator, the certifying entity accepts responsibility for compliance with the regulatory provisions in this subpart with respect to any shipment of waste covered by the written certification. Failure to abide by any of those provisions with respect to such shipments may result in enforcement action by EPA against the certifying entity in accordance with the enforcement provisions applicable to violations of those provisions by owners or operators of sources.
(d) The certifying entity may revoke the written certification by sending a written statement to the Administrator and you. The notice of revocation must provide at least 90 days notice that the certifying entity is rescinding acceptance of responsibility for compliance with the regulatory provisions of this subpart. Upon expiration of the notice period, you may not transfer the waste stream to that off-site treatment operation. Written certifications and revocation statements to the Administrator from the transferees of waste shall be signed by the responsible official of the certifying entity, provide the name and address of the certifying entity, and be sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Office at the addresses listed in 40 CFR 63.13. Such written certifications are not transferable by the treater to other off-site waste treatment operators.
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities
(1) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards in §§ 63.1085, 63.1086 and 63.1095, under § 63.6(g). Where these standards reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Approval of major changes to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(5) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Properly install, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that is capable of taking periodic readings. Records shall be generated as specified in § 63.998(d)(1)(ii)(A). The flow indicator shall be installed at the entrance to any bypass line.
(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the non-diverting position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. Records shall be generated as specified in § 63.998(d)(1)(ii)(B).
(b)
(4) For each bypass line, the owner or operator shall comply with paragraph (b)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) If a flow indicator is used, take a reading at least once every 15 minutes.
(ii) If the bypass line valve is secured in the non-diverting position, visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism at least once every month to verify that the valve is maintained in the non-diverting position, and the vent stream is not diverted through the bypass line.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(iii) The actual exit velocity of a flare shall be determined by dividing the volumetric flow rate (in unit of standard temperature and pressure), as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as appropriate, by the unobstructed (free) cross sectional area of the flare tip.
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards in §§ 63.983(a) and (d), 63.984, 63.985(a), 63.986(a), 63.987(a), 63.988(a), 63.990(a), 63.993(a), 63.994(a), and 63.995(a) under § 63.6(g). Where these standards reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Approval of major changes to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(5) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii)
(iii)
(C) * * *
(
(D) To measure the total organic regulated material concentration at the outlet of a control device, use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or ASTM D6420-99. If you have a combustion control device, you must first determine which regulated material compounds are present in the inlet gas stream using process knowledge or the screening procedure described in Method 18. In conducting the performance test, analyze samples collected at the outlet of the combustion control device as specified in Method 18 or ASTM D6420-99 for the regulated material compounds present at the inlet of the control device. The method ASTM D6420-99 may be used only under the conditions specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(D)(
(
(
(
(E) To measure the TOC concentration, use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or use Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, according to the procedures in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(E)(
(
(
(
(
(iv)
(F) To measure inlet and outlet concentrations of total organic regulated material, use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or ASTM D6420-99, under the conditions specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)(D)(
(G) To determine inlet and outlet concentrations of TOC, use Method 25 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Measure the total gaseous non-methane organic (TGNMO) concentration of the inlet and outlet vent streams using the procedures of Method 25. Use the TGNMO concentration in Equations 4 and 5 of paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
(H) Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, may be used instead of Method 25 to measure inlet and outlet concentrations of TOC if the condition in either paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(H)(
(
(
(I) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device contains formaldehyde, you must conduct emissions testing according to paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(I)(
(
(
(b)
(1) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(i) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards in §§ 63.1003 through 63.1015, under § 63.6(g). Where these standards reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) Approval of major changes to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(iv) Approval of major changes to monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(v) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(f)
(1) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (f)(i) through (v) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(i) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards in §§ 63.1022 through 62.1034, under § 63.6(g), and the standards for quality improvement programs in § 63.1035. Where these standards reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) Approval of major changes to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(iv) Approval of major changes to monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(v) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards in §§ 63.1062 and 63.1063(a) and (b) for alternative means of emission limitation, under § 63.6(g).
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Approval of major changes to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(5) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(a)
(g)
(1)
(ii) After the compliance dates specified in § 63.1102, a storage vessel that must be controlled according to the requirements of this subpart and subpart Ka or Kb of 40 CFR part 60 is required to comply only with the storage vessel requirements of this subpart.
(2)
(ii) After the compliance dates specified in § 63.1102, a process vent that must be controlled according to the requirements of this subpart and subpart III, RRR or NNN of 40 CFR part 60 is required to comply only with the process vent requirements of this subpart.
(3)
(4)
(ii) After the compliance dates specified in § 63.1102, equipment that must be controlled according to this subpart and subpart H of this part is in compliance with the equipment leak requirements of this subpart if it complies with either set of requirements. The owner or operator must specify the rule with which they will comply in the Notification of Compliance Status report required by § 63.1110(a)(4).
(5)
(6)
(A) Comply with the provisions in §§ 63.133 through 63.137 and 63.140 for all equipment used in the storage and conveyance of the waste stream.
(B) Comply with the provisions in §§ 63.1103(e), 63.138, and 63.139 for the treatment and control of the waste stream.
(C) Comply with the provisions in §§ 63.143 through 63.148 for monitoring and inspections of equipment and for recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The owner or operator is not required to comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associated with the treatment and control requirements in §§ 61.355 through 61.357.
(ii) After the compliance date specified in § 63.1102, compliance with § 63.1103(e) shall constitute compliance with the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP (subpart FF of 40 CFR part 61) for waste streams that are subject to both the control requirements of § 63.1103(e)(3) for ethylene production sources and the control requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF.
* * * The definitions in this section do not apply to waste requirements for ethylene production sources.
(a)
(1)
(ii) The owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected source that has an initial startup after the applicable effective date in Table 1 to § 63.1102 of this section shall comply with this subpart upon startup of the source.
(iii) The owner or operator of an affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after the proposal date, but before the effective date in Table 1 to this section, shall comply with this subpart no later than the date 3 years after the effective date if the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) (A) and (B) of this section are met.
(A) The promulgated standards are more stringent than the proposed standards.
(B) The owner or operator complies with this subpart as proposed during the 3-year period immediately after the effective date of standards for the affected source.
(2)
(ii) The owner or operator of an area source that increases its emissions of (or its potential to emit) HAP such that the source becomes a major source shall be subject to the relevant standards for existing sources under this subpart. Such sources shall comply with the relevant standards within 3 years of becoming a major source.
(b) [Reserved].
(e)
(A) All storage vessels (as defined in § 63.1101) that store liquids containing organic HAP.
(B) All ethylene process vents (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section) from continuous unit operations.
(C) All transfer racks (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section) that load HAP-containing material.
(D) Equipment (as defined in § 63.1101) that contains or contacts organic HAP.
(E) All waste streams (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section) associated with an ethylene production unit.
(F) All heat exchange systems (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section) associated with an ethylene production unit.
(G) All ethylene cracking furnaces and associated decoking operations.
(ii)
(A) Equipment that is located within an ethylene production unit that is subject to this subpart but does not contain organic HAP.
(B) Stormwater from segregated sewers.
(C) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems in segregated sewers.
(D) Spills.
(E) Water from safety showers.
(F) Water from testing of fire-fighting and deluge systems.
(G) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain organic HAP as impurities.
(H) Transfer racks, loading arms, or loading hoses that only transfer liquids containing organic HAP as impurities.
(I) Transfer racks, loading arms, or loading hoses that vapor balance during all transfer operations.
(J) Air emissions from all ethylene cracking furnaces, including furnace stack emissions during decoking operations.
(K) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere.
(L) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks, railcars, barges, or ships.
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(3)
(f)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(ii) Pressure relief devices used to protect against overpressure in the case of catastrophic failure of your process filter system are exempt from the closed vent system inspection requirements of § 63.983(b) and (c). Exempt pressure relief devices must be designated and identified in your Notification of Compliance Status report.
(g)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii) The control efficiency shall be assigned as specified in paragraph (g)(4)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section.
(A) If the process vent is controlled using a flare in accordance with the provisions of § 63.987, or a combustion device in accordance with the provisions of § 63.988(b)(2), for which a performance test has not been conducted, the control efficiency shall be assumed to be 98 weight-percent. For hydrogen-fueled flares, an owner or operator may use a control efficiency greater than 98 weight-percent if they can provide engineering calculations and supporting information demonstrating a greater control efficiency.
(B) If the process vent is controlled using a combustion, recovery, or recapture device for which a performance test has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of § 63.997, the control efficiency shall be the efficiency determined by the performance test.
(5)
(ii) For process vent hydrogen cyanide emissions that are vented to a control device other than a flare during startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the design evaluation must include documentation that the control device being used achieves the required control efficiency during the reasonably expected maximum flow rate and emission rate during startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(iii) If a facility controls process vent emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction by using a flare, an owner or operator is not required to perform flow rate and heat content testing as specified in § 63.987(b)(3)(ii) and (iii). In lieu of performing flow rate and heat content testing, an owner or operator is required to submit engineering calculations that substantiate that a flare meets the applicable heat content or flow rates, or provide data from a compliance assessment that the flare is in compliance under worst case conditions (e.g., maximum operating conditions).
(iv) If flare velocity and net heating value testing, as specified in § 63.11(b)(6)(ii) and (b)(7)(i), would create an unreasonable hazard for testing personnel, an owner or operator is allowed to submit engineering calculations that substantiate vent stream velocity and heat content of a flare in lieu of test data. These calculations are required to be submitted with the facilities' compliance test notification report for approval by the Administrator.
(v) The data from any performance test method used to measure HCN concentrations must be validated using EPA Method 301 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A).
(h)
(A) All process vents (as defined in § 63.1101).
(B) All storage vessels (as defined in § 63.1101) that store liquids containing organic HAP.
(C) All spandex fiber spinning lines using a spinning solution having organic HAP.
(ii)
(A) Equipment that is located within a spandex production process unit that is subject to this subpart but does not contain organic HAP.
(B) Vessels storing organic liquids that contain organic HAP as impurities.
(iii)
(2)
(3)
(a) * * * The owner or operator of a process vent is not required to determine the criteria specified for a process vent that is being controlled (including control by flare) in accordance with the applicable weight-percent, TOC concentration, or organic HAP concentration requirement in § 63.1103.
(e)
(f) * * *
(1) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as appropriate. * * *
(k) * * * If a process vent flow rate or process vent organic HAP or TOC concentration is being determined for comparison with the applicable flow rate or concentration value presented in the tables in § 63.1103 to determine control requirement applicability, engineering assessment may be used to determine the flow rate or concentration for the representative operating conditions expected to yield the highest flow rate or concentration.
(m) * * *
(2)
(a)
(1) A closed vent system designed to collect HAP-containing vapors displaced from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the collected vapors to a flare. The owner or operator must meet the requirements of § 63.982(a)(3).
(2) A closed vent system designed to collect HAP-containing vapors displaced from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the collected vapors to a control device other than a flare. The owner or operator must meet the requirements of § 63.982(a)(3).
(3) Process piping designed to collect the HAP vapors displaced from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the collected vapors to a process where the HAP vapors shall predominantly meet one of, or a combination of, the ends specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section or to a fuel gas system. The owner or operator must meet the requirements of § 63.982(a)(3).
(i) Recycled and/or consumed in the same manner as a material that fulfills the same function in that process;
(ii) Transformed by chemical reaction into materials that are not HAP;
(iii) Incorporated into a product; and/or
(iv) Recovered.
(4) Process piping designed to collect the HAP vapors displaced from tank trucks or railcars during loading and to route the collected vapors to a vapor balance system. The vapor balance system must be designed to route the
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Have a current certification in accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) pressure test requirements of 49 CFR part 180 for tank trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for railcars; or
(2) Have been demonstrated to be vapor-tight within the preceding 12 months as determined by the procedures in paragraph (h) of this section. Vapor-tight means that the pressure in a truck or railcar tank will not drop more than 750 pascals within 5 minutes after it is pressurized to a minimum of 4,500 pascals.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(1) The pressure test procedures specified in Method 27 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
(2) A pressure measurement device that has a precision of ± 2.5 millimeters of mercury or better and that is capable of measuring above the pressure at which the tank truck or railcar is to be tested for vapor tightness.
(i)
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the nonopacity emissions standards in § 63.1103(a)(3), (b)(3) through (5), (c)(3), (d)(3), (e)(3), (f)(3), (g)(3) and (4), and (h)(3) under § 63.6(g). Follow the requirements in § 63.1113 to request permission to use an alternative means of emission limitation. Where these standards reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Approval of major changes to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
(5) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule; amendments.
The EPA is taking direct final action to amend the “generic” maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards to clarify the agency's intent concerning dry spinning spandex production processes. The national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the Spandex Production source category, along with the NESHAP for three other source categories, are being included in the Generic MACT rule in this issue of the
The direct final rule will be effective on September 25, 2002 without further notice, unless significant adverse comments are received by August 12, 2002, or by August 26, 2002 if a public hearing is requested. See the proposed rule in this issue of the
Ms. Elaine Manning, Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standards Division (Mailcode C43903), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5499, electronic mail (e-mail) address:
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Ms. Elaine Manning, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Mailcode C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers likely to be interested in the revisions to the regulation affected by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine all of the applicability criteria in § 63.1104 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of these amendments to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
The EPA received several comments on the proposed standards for spandex production. One commenter was concerned that because the dry spinning spandex production process was not mentioned in the proposal, an interpretation could be made that EPA failed to make any decision concerning a MACT standard for this group of sources, and as a result these facilities would be subject to a case-by-case MACT determination under CAA section 112(j). Prior to proposal, we evaluated HAP emissions from dry spinning spandex production and determined that adoption of MACT standards requiring additional emissions reductions for these facilities is not necessary or appropriate. Our
However, we agree with the commenter that our silence in the proposal regarding the dry spinning production process might be interpreted as a failure to specifically address the need for standards governing emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from these facilities and, thereby, trigger the case-by-case determinations required by the “hammer” provision in CAA section 112(j). Since we did not explicitly state our decision not to adopt any standards for these sources or describe our rationale for that decision in the proposed rule, we have determined that we should supplement our proposal. However, since we do not expect our decision that no MACT standards are necessary for spandex dry spinning facilities to be controversial, and we do not anticipate any adverse comments concerning our decision, we have determined that it is appropriate to effectuate this decision through a direct final rule. This assures that any ambiguity which might otherwise exist concerning our intention to adopt MACT requirements for these facilities will be resolved in a timely manner.
If any adverse comment is received concerning our decision not to adopt MACT standards for spandex dry spinning facilities, we will withdraw this direct final rule. In the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the
During the rule development, we investigated emissions from dry spinning spandex production processes (comparing the emissions to the reaction spinning process) and made the following findings.
While dry and reaction spinning processes have many similarities, there are significant differences in HAP emissions and controls between the processes. The dry and reaction spinning processes are similar in their use of reactants and process chemistry. Both processes involve the same basic process steps, including production of prepolymer, production of polymer, extrusion of fibers, and drying of fibers. However, a major process difference that affects the amount of HAP emissions from the dry spinning process is the type of solvent used in the production. In the dry spinning production process, non-HAP solvents are used as opposed to HAP-containing solvents used in the reaction spinning process. The estimated total HAP from the three dry spinning production facilities is approximately 4.1 megagrams per year (mg/yr) (4.5 tons per year (tpy)) whereas the two reaction spinning processes emit 303 mg/yr (334 tpy).
Although the dry spinning production process does not use HAP solvents, small amounts of organic HAP are used and generated. The HAP that is produced in the dry spinning process is formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is generated as a byproduct of heating the dimethyl acetamide in the spin cells and is emitted from the process vent along with the non-HAP solvent. None of the existing dry spinning production facilities have controls in place for formaldehyde emissions. Therefore, the floor for dry spinning production process vents is no control. A beyond-the-floor analysis (development of a regulatory option and analysis of the costs associated with the option) was performed on the HAP emissions from the dry spinning production process. The flow rates for process vent streams from the dry spinning production process are large and the concentration of formaldehyde is low. The total annual cost to control these emissions would be approximately $49 million per year, or $12 million per ton of formaldehyde controlled. This is an unreasonable cost to go beyond the floor. Controlling this stream would also use significant amounts of energy. We do not know of a way to change the process or the feeds to reduce the HAP emissions. We have, therefore, decided not to select the beyond-the-floor regulatory option.
The other source of HAP emissions from dry spinning production sources is methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) storage. The MDI is one of the raw materials used in the spandex production process and has a very low volatility. Thus, we would expect emissions of MDI from the storage tanks to also be very low, perhaps even undetectable. All MDI storage tanks at dry spinning spandex production facilities are fixed-roof tanks. Additionally, one facility has carbon canisters on the vents from the MDI storage tanks (although the control efficiency of the canisters cannot be determined). We estimate that the combined annual MDI emissions from the storage tanks at all three dry spinning facilities do not exceed 500 pounds. We do not believe that requiring additional controls on these storage tanks would yield any meaningful emission reductions. This conclusion is corroborated by our determination that all of the MDI storage tanks at dry spinning production facilities are below the size and vapor pressure requirements for control under all existing MACT standards.
Based on the above analysis, we have concluded that the MACT floor for spandex dry spinning facilities is no control and that adoption of additional emission controls is not warranted. Therefore, we determined that it is not necessary or appropriate to promulgate any MACT requirements for these facilities.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that these amendments do not constitute a “significant regulatory action” because they do not meet any of the above criteria. Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to
These rule amendments do not have federalism implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because State and local governments do not own or operate any sources that would be subject to these amendments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officals in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”
These rule amendments do not have tribal implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, or on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own or operate spandex production facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these rule amendments.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. These rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on technology performance, not health or safety risks. Furthermore, these rule amendments have been determined not to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that these rule amendments do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Today's amendments do not add new requirements that would increase the costs of the rule. Thus, these rule amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that these rule amendments contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because they contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, these rule amendments are not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business in the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 325411 or 325412 that has as many as 750 employees; (2) a small business in NAICS code 325199 that has as many as 1,000 employees; (3) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (4) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of the rule amendments on small entities, the EPA has determined
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. However, an information collection request (ICR) has been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (March 7, 1996), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This direct final rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801,
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401,
a. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(i) introductory text;
b. Adding paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(C); and
c. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions of
The revision and additions are to read as follows:
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(ii) * * *
(C) Emission points listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section that are associated with a dry spinning spandex production process unit.
(2)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule, amendments.
This action proposes an amendment to the “generic” maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for the Spandex Production source category. This action corrects an oversight in the December 6, 2000 proposal.
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Comments. Written comments must be received by August 12, 2002, unless a hearing is requested by July 22, 2002. If a hearing is requested, written comments must be received by August 26, 2002.
Ms. Elaine Manning, Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standards Division (Mailcode C43903), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5499, electronic mail (e-mail) address:
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Ms. Elaine Manning, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Mailcode C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers likely to be interested in the revisions to the rule affected by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine all of the applicability criteria in § 63.1104 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of these proposed amendments to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business in the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 325411 or 325412 that has as many as 750 employees; (2) a small business in NAICS code 325199 that has as many as 1,000 employees; (3) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (4) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The EPA has determined that none of the small entities will experience a significant impact because the amendments impose no additional regulatory requirements on owners or operators of affected sources. The amendments correct an oversight.
For information regarding other administrative requirements for this action, please see the direct final rule action that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission will revise its Schedule of Regulatory Fees in order to recover the amount of regulatory fees that Congress has required it to collect for fiscal year 2002. Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides for the annual assessment and collection of regulatory fees for annual “Mandatory Adjustments” and “Permitted Amendments” to the Schedule of Regulatory Fees.
September 9, 2002.
Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0444.
By the Commission: Commissioner Copps concurring and issuing a statement.
1. By this
2. We must collect $218,757,000 through regulatory fees to recover the costs of our competition, enforcement, spectrum management, and consumer information activities for FY 2002.
3. In revising our fees, we adjusted the payment units and revenue requirement for each service subject to a fee, consistent with section 159(b)(2). The Schedule of Regulatory Fees is set forth in §§ 1.1152 through 1.1156 of the Commission's rules.
4. Section 9(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, authorizes the Commission to assess and collect annual regulatory fees to recover its regulatory costs.
5. For fiscal years after FY 1994, we modified the fee schedule to increase the fees in accordance with the amounts Congress required us to collect in each succeeding fiscal year. Section 9(b)(2), entitled “Mandatory Adjustments,” requires that we revise the Schedule of Regulatory Fees to reflect the amount that Congress annually requires us to recover through regulatory fees.
6. Section 9(i) requires that we develop accounting systems necessary to adjust our fees pursuant to changes in the cost of regulating various services that are subject to a fee, and for other purposes.
7. However, we found that developing a regulatory fee structure based on available but insufficiently detailed cost information sometimes did not permit us to recover the amount that Congress required us to collect. In some instances, the large increases in the cost of regulation could not be adjusted to an acceptable and balanced level. We concluded that it would be best to discontinue attempts to base the schedule on our available cost data. Instead, we chose to adjust the FY 1999 through FY 2001 fees through “Mandatory Adjustments” only. We have found no reason to deviate from this policy for FY 2002. However, we are applying the “Mandatory Adjustments” as we did in FY 2001 to better incorporate changes in payment units. Finally, section 9(b)(4)(B) requires us to notify Congress, if there are any “Permitted Amendments,” 90 days before those amendments go into effect.
8. We also amended the rules governing our regulatory fee program based upon our prior experience in administering the program.
9. In calculating FY 2002 regulatory fees for each service, we adjusted the estimated payment units for each service to reflect substantial changes in payment units for many services since adopting our FY 2001 fees. We obtained our estimated payment units through a variety of means, including our licensee data bases, actual prior year payment records, and industry and trade group projections. Whenever possible, we verified these estimates from multiple sources to ensure accuracy of these estimates. Attachment B summarizes how revised payment units were determined for each fee category.
10. We compared the sum of all estimated revenue requirements for FY 2001 to the amount that we must collect for FY 2002, which is approximately 9.3% more total revenue than in FY 2001. We increased each FY 2001 fee revenue category estimate by 9.3% to provide a total FY 2002 revenue estimate of $218,757,000. Attachment C provides detailed calculations showing how we determined the revised revenue amounts to be raised for each service.
11. Once we determined the revenue requirement for each service and class of licensee, we divided the revenue requirement by the number of estimated payment units (and by the license term for “small” fees) to obtain actual fee amounts for each fee category. These calculated fee amounts were then rounded in accordance with section 9(b)(2) of the Act.
12. Once we established our tentative FY 2002 fees, we evaluated proposals made by Commission staff concerning “Permitted Amendments” to the Fee Schedule and to our collection procedures. We examined the results of our calculations to determine if further adjustments of the fees and/or changes to payment procedures were warranted based upon the public interest and other criteria established in 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3). Unless otherwise noted herein, nothing else in this proceeding is intended to change any policies or procedures established or reaffirmed in the
13. Finally, we have incorporated, as Attachment F, Guidance containing detailed descriptions of each fee category, information on the individual or entity responsible for paying a particular fee and other important information designed to assist potential fee payers in determining the extent of their fee liability, if any, for FY 2002.
14. The Commission issued a
15. In response to the
16. Amateur licensees Steven Karty and William J. Hanrahan support the payment of a regulatory fee for the initial administrative cost actually incurred by the Commission, but question why the amateur vanity call sign fee must be paid upon renewal. William J. Hanrahan also suggests that there be no cost distinction between vanity call signs and systematically assigned call signs. Section 9 of the Communications Act, as amended, provides for the recovery of the Commission's costs associated with its enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information, and international activities.
17. Allied Personal Communications Industries Association of California (“Allied”) argues that the CMRS Messaging fee of $0.08 per unit represents a 60% increase from last year's per unit fee of $0.05, rather than an increase of 9.3% that Congress requires us to collect.
18. The 9.3% increase has been applied to the total revenue required to be collected from the CMRS Messaging industry, not to the per unit fee assessed in FY 2001. The FY 2002 unit fee results from dividing this new revenue requirement by the estimated number of units which we believe will be reported and a fee paid for FY 2002. While using a higher unit estimate of “38.9 or even 45.3 million units” would significantly lower the per unit fee, the commenters have not demonstrated that those estimates accurately represent the number of paying units currently in use by the messaging industry. Furthermore, the commenters have provided no basis to substantiate the claim that a $0.03 annual increase per unit will be damaging to the industry. With respect to the suggestion that revenues be used as the basis for determining regulatory fees for CMRS messaging, this suggestion will require further consideration, particularly in determining whether a comprehensive source of revenue information is available for all entities engaged in providing CMRS messaging services.
19. AT&T Corporation (“AT&T”) asserts that the current regulatory fees mechanism does not conform to the methodology used for assessment and collection of universal service support and requests the Commission, to be consistent, reduce the time lag between the accrual of revenues and the payment of regulatory fees.
20. AT&T also suggests that the Commission simultaneously modify its regulatory fee collections methodology from a historical revenue-based assessment to a connection and capacity-based mechanism if and when the Commission modifies its universal service contribution methodology.
21. We are retaining the procedures that we have established for the payment of regulatory fees.
22. As we have in the past, we are treating regulatory fee payments by certain licensees as “standard fees” which are those regulatory fees that are payable in full on an annual basis. Payers of standard fees are not required to make advance payments for their full license term and are not eligible for installment payments. All standard fees are payable in full on the date we establish for payment of fees in their regulatory fee category. The payment dates for each regulatory fee category will begin September 10, 2002 and end at close of business September 25, 2002.
23. While time constraints will again preclude an opportunity for installment payments, regulatees in any category of service with a liability of $12,000 or more may choose to pay these fees on the last date that fee payments may be submitted. The date for installment payments will end at close of business on September 25, 2002.
24. As we have in the past, we are treating regulatory fee payments by certain licensees as “small” fees subject to advance payment consistent with the requirements of section 9(f)(2). Advance payments will be required from licensees of those services that we decided would be subject to advance payments in our FY 1994
25. As we have in the past, regulatees whose
26. For licensees and permittees of Media (formerly Mass Media) services, we propose that the responsibility for payment of regulatory fees rests with the holder of the permit or license on October 1, 2001. However, in instances where a Media service license or authorization is
27. For regulatees whose fees are based upon a subscriber, unit or circuit count, such as cable subscriber services and Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) cellular, mobile, and messaging services, the number of a regulatees' subscribers, units or circuits on
28. Because of the time constraint in paying regulatory fees, the Commission
29. Pursuant to MD Docket No. 00-205 adopted on August 24, 2001 effective December 3, 2001 regulatory fee filers are required to provide FRN's with regulatory fee payments.
30. The population count for radio stations is not derived merely by a census count of the surrounding community, but from a formula that incorporates various indices such as power, tower size, class size, and other technical attributes. The methodology for calculating the population count is listed in
31. In addition, we will make corrections for such population calculation errors, whether by refunding or billing for corrected fee amounts, only for three (3) fiscal years after the error appears in the Media Regulatory Fees Public Notice. For example, in the case of a population calculation error resulting in an overstated fee amount, if the Media Regulatory Fees Public Notice for FY 2002 contains a population calculation and related fee error and the licensee provides the appropriate verification of the error before September 30, 2005, the Commission will refund the amount overpaid. Similarly, in a case where a population calculation error results in an understated fee amount, if the Fiscal Year 2002 population calculation error is discovered and verified before September 30, 2005, the Commission will bill the licensee for the difference between the correct fee and the fee listed in the Fiscal Year 2002 Media Regulatory Fees Public Notice. We believe that three years provides a reasonable time for a licensee or the Commission to discover and seek to rectify population calculation errors, and that limiting the time for correction of fees will protect both licensees and the Government from being subject to indefinite potential obligations to make corrective payments. We proposed this issue of addressing incorrect population counts for AM and FM radio stations in the
32. Regulatory fee payments may be made by Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and Discover credit cards. When paying by credit card, regulatees have two options: (1) Regulatees may submit their payment by using the Commission's FeeFiler (an electronic payment system), or (2) Regulatees may provide the requested credit card information on the FCC Form 159, (Remittance Advice), and mail it to the address described in the Public Notice. Refunds of regulatory fees paid by credit cards are made by check payable to the regulatory fee payor.
33. It has come to our attention that we did not make corresponding revisions to certain descriptive portions of sections 1.1152 and 1.1157 of our rules when the regulatory fees for wireless radio services were amended to include standard annual regulatory fees based on payment units for Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Mobile and CMRS Messaging. The descriptive portions of sections 1.1152 and 1.1157 of our rules are changed to reflect that it is no longer the case that all regulatory fee payments for wireless radio services are paid in advance when applications are filed.
34. The Commission incurs transaction costs when processing refunds. The Commission has determined that, in some instances, the transaction costs outweigh the dollar amount of the refund. Therefore, for purposes of more efficient money management, payments in excess of an application or regulatory fee will be refunded only if the overpayment is
35. The Commission's Schedule of Regulatory Fees for FY 2002 is contained in Attachment D of this
36. As required in 47 U.S.C. 159(c), an additional charge shall be assessed as a penalty for late payment of any regulatory fee. A late payment penalty of 25 percent of the amount of the required regulatory fee will be assessed on the first day following the deadline date for filing of these fees. Failure to pay regulatory fees and/or any late penalty will subject regulatees to sanctions, including the provisions set forth in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (“DCIA”). The Commission assesses administrative processing charges on delinquent debts to recover additional costs incurred in
37. Accordingly, it is ordered that the rule changes specified herein be adopted. It is further ordered that the rule changes made herein will become effective September 9, 2002, which is no less that 30 days from the date of publication in the
38. Authority for this proceeding is contained in sections 4(i) and (j), 8, 9, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
39. Further information about this proceeding may be obtained by contacting the Fees Hotline at (888) 225-5322.
Administrative practice and procedures, Communications common carriers, Radio, Telecommunications, Television.
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309 and 325(e).
(a) Fee payments should be in the form of a check, bank draft, on money order denominated in U.S. dollars and drawn on a United States financial institution and made payable to the Federal Communications Commission or by a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover credit card. No other credit card is acceptable. Fees for applications and other filings paid by credit card will not be accepted unless the credit card section of FCC Form 159 is completed in full. The Commission discourages applicants from submitting cash and will not be responsible for cash sent through the mail. Personal or corporate checks dated more than six months prior to their submission to the Commission's lockbox bank and postdated checks will not be accepted and will be returned as deficient. Third party checks (i.e., checks with a third party as maker or endorser) will not be accepted.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
Payments in excess of an application fee will be refunded only if the overpayment is $10 or more.
(a) (1) The amount of the regulatory fee payment that is due with any application for authorization shall be the multiple of the number of years in the entire term of the requested license or other authorization multiplied by the annual fee payment required in the Schedule of Regulatory Fees, effective at the time the application is filed. Except as set forth in § 1.1160, advance payments shall be final and shall not be readjusted during the term of the license or authorization, notwithstanding any subsequent increase or decrease in the annual amount of a fee required under the Schedule of Regulatory Fees.
(2) Failure to file the appropriate regulatory fee due with an application for authorization will result in the return of the accompanying application, including an application for which the Commission has assigned a specific filing deadline.
(b)(1) Payments of standard regulatory fees applicable to certain wireless radio, mass media, common carrier, cable and international services shall be filed in full on an annual basis at a time announced by the Commission or the Managing Director, pursuant to delegated authority, and published in the
(2) Large regulatory fees, as annually defined by the Commission, may be submitted in installment payments or in a single payment on a date certain as announced by the Commission or the Managing Director, pursuant to delegated authority, and published in the
Any regulatory fee payment must be submitted in the form of a check, bank draft or money order denominated in U.S. dollars and drawn on a United States financial institution and made payable to the Federal Communications Commission or by Visa, Mastercard, American Express or Discover credit cards only. The Commission discourages applicants from submitting cash payments and will not be responsible for cash sent through the mail. Personal or corporate checks dated more than six months prior to their submission to the Commission's lockbox bank and postdated checks will not be accepted and will be returned as deficient.
(a) * * *
(1) When no regulatory fee is required or an excessive fee has been paid. In the case of an overpayment, the refund amount will be based on the applicants', permittees', or licensees' entire submission. All refunds will be issued to the payor named in the appropriate block of the FCC Form 159. Payments in excess of a regulatory fee will be refunded only if the overpayment is $10.00 or more.
The following attachments will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
2. This rulemaking proceeding is initiated to amend the Schedule of Regulatory Fees in the amount of $218,757,000, the amount that Congress has required the Commission to recover. The Commission seeks to collect the necessary amount through its revised fees, as contained in the attached Schedule of Regulatory Fees, in the most efficient manner possible and without undue burden on the public.
3. None.
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
5. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for cable and other pay television services, which includes all such companies generating $11 million or less in revenue annually.
6. The Commission has developed its own definition of a small cable system operator for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.
7. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a definition of a small cable system operator, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.”
8.
9. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its Telecommunications Provider Locator report, which encompasses data compiled from FCC Form 499-A Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets.
10. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs)
11.
12.
13.
14. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to licensees in the international services. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is generally the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC).
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26. Additionally, the SBA defines a radio broadcasting station that has $5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business.
27. The rules may affect an estimated total of 1,230 television stations, approximately 1,281 of which are considered small businesses.
28.
29. The Commission estimates that there are approximately 3,600 translators and boosters. The Commission does not collect financial information on any broadcast facility, and the Department of Commerce does not collect financial information on these auxiliary broadcast facilities. We believe that most, if not all, of these auxiliary facilities could be classified as small businesses by themselves. We also recognize that most commercial translators and boosters are owned by a parent station which, in some cases, would be covered by the revenue definition of small business entity discussed above. These stations would likely have annual revenues that exceed the SBA maximum to be designated as a small business (either $5 million for a radio station or $10.5 million for a TV station). Furthermore, they do not meet the Small Business Act's definition of a “small business concern” because they are not independently owned and operated.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
However, four of the 16 winning bidders in the two previous narrowband PCS auctions were small businesses, as that term was defined under the Commission's Rules. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this IRFA, that a large portion of the remaining narrowband PCS licenses will be awarded to small entities. The Commission also assumes that at least some small businesses will acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means of the Commission's partitioning and disaggregation rules.
38.
39.
40.
41. These revised fees in the Report and Order apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained extended implementation authorizations. We do not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. We assume, for purposes of this FRFA, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.
42.
43. The Commission is unable at this time to estimate the number of small businesses which could be impacted by the rules. The Commission's 1994 Annual Report on PLMRs
44.
45.
46. Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals. Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in this FRFA, we estimate that there may be at least 712,000 potential licensees which are individuals or are small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. We estimate that only 16,800 will be subject to FY 2001 regulatory fees.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55. With certain exceptions, the Commission's Schedule of Regulatory Fees applies to all Commission licensees and regulatees. Most licensees will be required to count the number of licenses or call signs authorized, complete and submit an FCC Form 159 (“FCC Remittance Advice”), and pay a regulatory fee based on the number of licenses or call signs.
56. Each licensee must submit the FCC Form 159 to the Commission's lockbox bank after computing the number of units subject to the fee. Licensees may also file electronically to minimize the burden of submitting multiple copies of the FCC Form 159. Applicants who pay small fees in advance and provide fee information as part of their application must use FCC Form 159.
57. Licensees and regulatees are advised that failure to submit the required regulatory fee in a timely manner will subject the licensee or regulatee to a late payment penalty of 25 percent in addition to the required fee.
58. The Commission's rules currently provide for relief in exceptional circumstances. Persons or entities may request a waiver, reduction or deferment of payment of the regulatory fee.
59. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. As described in Section IV of this IRFA,
60.
61. With the use of actual cost accounting data for computation of regulatory fees, we found that some fees which were very small in previous years would have increased dramatically and would have a disproportionate impact on smaller entities. The methodology we are adopting in this
62. Several categories of licensees and regulatees are exempt from payment of regulatory fees.
In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2002, we adjusted FY 2001 payment units for each service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2002 payment liabilities. We obtained our updated estimates through a variety of means. For example, we used Commission licensee data bases, actual prior year payment records and industry and trade association projections when available. We tried to obtain verification for these estimates from multiple sources and, in all cases, we compared FY 2002 estimates with actual FY 2001 payment units to ensure that our revised estimates were reasonable. Where appropriate, we adjusted and/or rounded our final estimates to take into consideration the fact that certain variables that impact on the number of payment units cannot yet be estimated exactly. These include an unknown number of waivers and/or exemptions that may occur in FY 2002 and the fact that, in many services, the number of actual licensees or station operators fluctuates from time to time due to economic, technical or other reasons. Therefore, when we note, for example, that our estimated FY 2002 payment units are based on FY 2001 actual payment units, it does not necessarily mean that our FY 2002 projection is
Attachment E—Comparison Between FY 2001, FY 2002 Proposed and Final Regulatory Fees
1. The guidelines below provide an explanation of regulatory fee categories established by the Schedule of Regulatory Fees in section 9(g) of the Communications Act,
2.
3. Two levels of statutory fees were established for the Private Wireless Radio Services—exclusive use services and shared use services. Thus, licensees who generally receive a higher quality communication channel due to exclusive or lightly shared frequency assignments will pay a higher fee than those who share marginal quality assignments. This dichotomy is consistent with the directive of section 9, that the regulatory fees reflect the benefits provided to the licensees.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16. Finally, with regard to our definition of a CMRS payment units, we clarify that fees are assessable on each CMRS subscriber considered “active” as of December 31, 2001. Examples of CMRS subscribers include: subscribers of terrestrial mobile telephone services, subscribers of one-way or two-way paging services, and subscribers of other wireless messaging services that are capable of transmitting and/or receiving data communications. A “feeable” CMRS payment unit is a CMRS subscriber that has possession of a mobile device that can transmit or receive voice or non-voice communications, or a CMRS subscriber has a contractual agreement for the provision of a CMRS service. The responsible payer of the regulatory fee is the CMRS licensee. For example, John Doe purchases a pager and obtains a paging services contract from Paging Licensee X. Paging Licensee X is responsible for paying the applicable regulatory fee for this unit. Further, if John Doe purchases a pager and obtains paging services from a paging reseller which resells services from Paging Licensee X, Paging Licensee X is still responsible for paying the applicable regulatory fee for this CMRS payment unit.
17. The regulatory fees for the Media fee category apply to broadcast licensees and permittees. Noncommercial Educational Broadcasters are exempt from regulatory fees.
18. These categories include licensed Commercial AM (Classes A, B, C, and D) and FM (Classes A, B, B1, C, C1, C2, and C3) Radio Stations operating under part 73 of the Commission's Rules.
19. Licensees may determine the appropriate fee payment by referring to the FCC's internet world wide web site (
Non-receipt of a Public Notice does not relieve a licensee of its obligation to submit its regulatory fee payment).
20. This category includes holders of permits to construct
21. This category includes holders of permits to construct
22. This category includes licensed Commercial VHF and UHF Television Stations covered under part 73 of the Commission's Rules, except commonly owned Television Satellite Stations, addressed separately below. Markets are Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMA) as listed in the
23. Commonly owned Television Satellite Stations in any market (authorized pursuant to Note 5 of § 73.3555 of the Commission's Rules) that retransmit programming of the primary station are assessed a fee of $805 annually. Those stations designated as Television Satellite Stations in the 2002 Edition of the
24. This category includes holders of permits to construct
25. This category includes holders of permits to construct
26. The fee for UHF and VHF Television Satellite Station construction permits for FY 2002 is $420. A regulatee who held a construction permit on October 1, 2001 will pay a fee of $420 for each permit. A regulatee pays a construction permit fee only if the permit is for a new facility. If the regulatee held a license on October 1, 2001 or prior, but also has a construction permit to make modifications to the licensed facility, it is required to pay the applicable
27. This category includes Low Power UHF/VHF Television stations operating under part 74 of the Commission's Rules with a transmitter power output limited to 1 kW for a UHF facility and, generally, 0.01 kW for a VHF facility. Low Power Television (LPTV) stations may retransmit the programs and signals of a TV Broadcast Station, originate programming, and/or operate as a subscription service. This category also includes translators and boosters operating under part 74 which rebroadcast the signals of full service stations on a frequency different from the parent station (translators) or on the same frequency (boosters). The stations in this category are secondary to full service stations in terms of frequency priority. We have also received requests for waivers of the regulatory fees from operators of community based Translators. These Translators are generally not affiliated with commercial broadcasters, are nonprofit, nonprofitable, or only marginally profitable, serve small rural communities, and are supported financially by the residents of the communities served. We are aware of the difficulties these Translators have in paying even minimal regulatory fees, and we have addressed those concerns in the ruling on reconsideration of the FY 1994
28. This category includes licensees of remote pickup stations (either base or mobile) and associated accessory equipment authorized pursuant to a single license, Aural Broadcast Auxiliary Stations (Studio Transmitter Link and Inter-City Relay) and Television Broadcast Auxiliary Stations (TV Pickup, TV Studio Transmitter Link, TV Relay) authorized under part 74 of the Commission's Rules. Auxiliary Stations are generally associated with a particular television or radio broadcast station or cable television system. This category does not include translators and boosters (see paragraph 26
29. This category includes Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS), authorized under parts 21 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to use microwave frequencies for video and data distribution within the United States. For FY 2002, MDS and MMDS stations will pay an annual regulatory fee of $430 per call sign.
30. This category includes operators of Cable Television Systems, providing or distributing programming or other services to subscribers under part 76 of the Commission's Rules. For FY 2002, Cable Systems will pay a regulatory fee of $.53 per subscriber.
31. This category includes Cable Antenna Relay Service (CARS) stations used to transmit television and related audio signals, signals of AM and FM Broadcast Stations, and cablecasting from the point of reception to a terminal point from where the signals are distributed to the public by a Cable Television System. For FY 2002, licensees will pay an annual regulatory fee of $65 per CARS license.
32. This category includes licensees in the Point-to-Point Microwave Radio Service, Local Television Transmission Radio Service, and Digital Electronic Message Service, authorized under part 101 of the Commission's Rules to use microwave frequencies for video and data distribution within the United States. These services are now included in the Microwave category (see paragraph 5
33. This category includes all providers of local and telephone services to end users. Covered services include the interstate and international portion of wireline local exchange service, local and long distance private line services for both voice and data, dedicated and network packet and packet-like services, long distance message telephone services, and other local and toll services. Providers of such services are referred to herein as “interstate telecommunication service providers''.
34. Interstate service providers include CAP/CLECs, incumbent local exchange carriers (local telephone operating companies), interexchange carriers (long distance telephone companies), local resellers, OSPs (operator service providers that enable customers to make away from home calls and to place calls with alternative billing arrangements), payphone service providers, prepaid card, private service providers, satellite carriers that provide fixed local or message toll services, shared tenant service providers, toll resellers, and other local and other service providers.
35. To avoid imposing a double payment burden on resellers, we base the regulatory fee on end-user revenues. Interstate telecommunication service providers, including resellers, must submit fee payments based upon their proportionate share of interstate and international end-user revenues for local and toll services. We use the terms end-user revenues, local service and toll service, based on the methodology used for calculating contributions to the Universal Service support mechanisms.
36. Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Earth Stations, equivalent C-Band Earth Stations and antennas, and earth station systems comprised of very small aperture terminals operate in the 12 and 14 GHz bands and provide a variety of communications services to other stations in the network.
37.
38. Geostationary Orbit (also referred to as Geosynchronous) Space Stations are domestic and international satellites positioned in orbit to remain approximately fixed relative to the earth. Most are authorized under part 25 of the Commission's Rules to provide communications between satellites and earth stations on a common carrier and/or private carrier basis. In addition, this category includes Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service which includes space stations authorized under part 100 of the Commission's rules to transmit or re-transmit signals for direct reception by the general public encompassing both individual and community reception. For FY 2002, entities authorized to operate geostationary space stations (including DBS satellites) will be assessed an annual regulatory fee of $99,700 per operational station in orbit. Payment is required for any geostationary satellite that has been launched and tested and is authorized to provide service.
39. Non-Geostationary Orbit Systems (such as Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Systems) are space stations that orbit the earth in non-geosynchronous orbit. They are authorized under part 25 of the Commission's rules to provide communications between satellites and earth stations on a common carrier and/or private carrier basis. For FY 2002, entities authorized to operate Non-Geostationary Orbit Systems (NGSOs) will be assessed an annual regulatory fee of $103,200 per operational system in orbit. Payment is required for any NGSO System that has one or more operational satellites operational. In our FY 1997
Licensees of Non-Geostationary Satellite Systems (such as LEOs) are assessed a regulatory fee upon the commencement of operation of a system's first satellite as reported annually pursuant to §§ 25.142(c), 25.143(e), 25.145(g), or upon certification of operation of a single satellite pursuant to § 25.120(d).
40. Regulatory fees for International Bearer Circuits are to be paid by facilities-based common carriers (either domestic or international) activating the circuit in any transmission facility for the provision of service to an end user or resale carrier. Payment of the fee for bearer circuits by non-common carrier submarine cable operators is required for circuits sold on an indefeasible right of use (IRU) basis or leased to any customer, including themselves or their affiliates, other than an international common carrier authorized by the Commission to provide U.S. international common carrier services.
41. This fee category includes common carriers authorized under part 23 of the Commission's Rules to provide radio communications between the United States and a foreign point via microwave or HF troposcatter systems, other than satellites and satellite earth stations, but not including service between the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada using frequencies above 72 MHz. For FY 2002, International Public Fixed Radio Service licensees will pay a $1,400 annual regulatory fee per call sign.
42. This category covers International Broadcast Stations licensed under part 73 of the Commission's Rules to operate on frequencies in the 5,950 kHz to 26,100 kHz range to provide service to the general public in foreign countries. For FY 2002, International HF Broadcast Stations will pay an annual regulatory fee of $495 per station license.
Specific information on each day tower, including field ratio, phasing, spacing and orientation was retrieved, as well as the theoretical pattern RMS figure (mV/m @ 1 km) for the antenna system. The standard, or modified standard if pertinent, horizontal plane radiation pattern was calculated using techniques and methods specified in §§ 73.150 and 73.152 of the Commission's rules.
The maximum of the horizontal and vertical HAAT (m) and ERP (kW) was used. Where the antenna HAMSL was available, it was used in lieu of the overall HAAT figure to calculate specific HAAT figures for each of 72 radials under study. Any available directional pattern information was applied as well, to produce a radial-specific ERP figure. The HAAT and ERP figures were used in conjunction with the propagation curves specified in § 73.313 of the Commission's rules to predict the distance to the city grade (70 dBuV/m or 3.17 mV/m) contour for each of the 72 radials.
Other Entities Present at the Meeting:
The List of regulatory fees is available from the FCC Public Reference Room, CY-A257, 445 12th St. SW, Washington, DC 20554.
I am concerned that the Commission does not address when or how it would adjust the regulatory fees to take into account changes to the cost of regulating various services. The paging industry argues that it faces a 60 percent per unit increase in regulatory fees this year due to a declining subscriber base, notwithstanding reduced regulatory resources devoted to paging. Today's order concludes that the paging industry has not demonstrated that an increase from $.05 to $.08 per unit per year would harm the industry as a whole, but fails to address the underlying concern about revisions to the Commission's methodology. I take some comfort, however, that the Commission plans to have in place a new accounting system in the near future, and that, in the meantime, our rules expressly provide that individual providers may seek reduction or deferral of regulatory fees due to financial hardship.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the current list of 562 tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs by virtue of their status as Indian tribes. This notice is published pursuant to Section 104 of the Act of November 2, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-454; 108 Stat. 4791, 4792).
Daisy West, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Tribal Government Services, MS-4631-MIB, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. Telephone number: (202) 208-2475.
This notice is published in exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9 and 209 DM 8.
Published below is a list of federally acknowledged tribes in the contiguous 48 states and in Alaska. The list is updated from the notice published on March 13, 2000 (65 FR 13298). Six tribal entities have been added to the list. Three of the six tribes became newly recognized since the last publication. The other three tribes were omitted from earlier
Several tribes have also made changes to their tribal name. Most of the name changes are minor in nature, except for the California Valley Miwok Tribe (formerly the Sheep Ranch Rancheria). To aid in identifying tribal name changes, the tribe's former name is included with the new tribal name. We will continue to list the tribe's former name for several years before dropping the former name from the list. We have also made several corrections. To aid in identifying corrections, the tribe's previously listed name is included with the tribal name.
The listed entities are acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States as well as the responsibilities, powers, limitations and obligations of such tribes. We have continued the practice of listing the Alaska Native entities separately solely for the purpose of facilitating identification of them and reference to them given the large number of complex Native names.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice to public housing agencies on applying to HUD for designation of certain New York state public housing units as Federally covered units.
The purpose of this Notice is to: advise public housing agencies (PHAs) in the State of New York on applying for designation of public housing units developed and funded in accordance with New York law as “covered units,” up to 7,000 of which will be eligible to receive Federal public housing operating and capital funds allocated according to statutory and regulatory formulas; obtain information about all developments and units that could be “covered units”; and obtain PHAs' preferences as to which of their developments and units they would want included in the Federal housing program.
PHAs must respond by: September 10, 2002.
Submit one original set of information requested in this notice to HUD Headquarters at the following address: HUD Office of Public and Indian Housing, Grants Management Center, 501 School St. SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Provide one copy of the information requested in this notice to the local HUD Program Center or HUB.
Sherry Fobear-McCown, Program Analyst, Office of Policy, Program and Legislative Initiatives, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 4116, Washington, DC 20410; telephone: (202) 708-0713 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access that number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Section 9(n) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act), added by section 519 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (Title V of Pub. L. 105-276), authorized the Secretary of HUD to include State and locally developed public housing units developed under New York law into the Federal public housing program for purposes of receiving allocations of operating and capital funds pursuant to statutory and regulatory formulas. This provision authorizes the inclusion of not more than 7,000 units in New York in the federal public housing program. However, a separate provision of the same law (Sec. 226 of Pub. L. 105-276) prohibited the use of these Federal funds to provide new assistance for State and locally developed public housing units. These conflicting provisions gave rise to legal questions concerning HUD's authority and responsibility to implement section 9(n). Both the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have issued decisions this year, indicating that implementation of section 9(n) should proceed retroactive to Fiscal Year 2000.
A New York public housing agency that operates, owns, or manages covered locally developed public housing units is eligible to seek inclusion of those units in the Federal public housing program. The term “covered locally developed public housing units” is defined by section 9(n)(1)(b) of the 1937 Act as public housing units developed pursuant to laws of the State of New York and that received debt service and operating subsidies pursuant to such laws.
Funding for “covered units” will be provided from the public housing Operating Fund and Capital Fund. Funding for “covered units” will cover Fiscal Year 2000 through 2003 and thereafter, and will directly reduce the amount of Operating Fund and Capital Fund monies in Fiscal Year 2003 and thereafter that would otherwise be distributed to all public housing agencies.
Information requested by this notice, and in the form and manner described in this Notice, is due no later than September 10, 2002. No exceptions to this deadline will be considered. Submit one original set of documents to HUD Headquarters at the following address and one copy to the local HUB or Program Center: HUD Office of Public and Indian Housing, Grants Management Center, Michael E. Diggs, Director, 501 School St. SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, Telephone: (202) 358-0221 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access that number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
PHAs interested in having units designated as “covered units” shall submit the following information for
Provide the following in the order it is presented. Items 1-11 shall be submitted for each site:
(1) Name of development;
(2) Number of units;
(3) Location (census tract);
(4) Age and general condition;
(5) Composition of units by bedroom size, and family, elderly, or disabled designation;
(6) Current vacancy rate and vacancy rate for past two years;
(7) If readily available, actual operating expenses for the last two fiscal years; if such information is not readily available, list any unusually large recent, current, or projected operating costs (e.g. extraordinarily high utilities costs);
(8) Summary of large capital improvements made over preceding five-year period;
(9) Projected capital needs for next five years;
(10) Debt service amounts (if any);
(11) Extraordinary liabilities the Federal government may need to assume (e.g., litigation);
(12) Most recent Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) rating and designation for the PHA from HUD, or copy of any recent performance assessment from applicable State or local government or other independent entity; and
(13) Other information requested by HUD as necessary to complete its review.
In addition, the PHA shall identify in its submission the developments and total number of units it seeks to include in the Federal public housing program and any other factors HUD should take into account.
The information collection requirements contained in this notice NOFA have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for emergency approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Upon approved, the OMB Control Number will be published in a separate notice. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid control number.
Final approval and funding, for both fiscal years commencing with Fiscal Year 2000 and future fiscal years, are subject to any further relevant legislative action; acceptable submission and HUD approval of all information required by this Notice; documentation of sufficient managerial competence HUD may require if PHAS or other assessments of competence are not applicable or sufficient; an independent physical inspection satisfactory to HUD; and the execution of an Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) or ACC amendment including the covered units selected pursuant to this Notice.
Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Request for applications under the Office of Community Services' Training, Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building Program.
The Office of Community Services announces that competing applications will be accepted for new grants pursuant to the Secretary's authority under Section 674(b) of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act, as amended, by the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training, and Educational Services (Coats) Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998, (Pub. L. 105-285). This program announcement consists of seven parts. Part A provides information on the legislative authority and defines terms used in the program announcement. Part B describes the purposes of the program, the priority areas that will be considered for funding, and which organizations are eligible to apply in each priority area. Part C provides details on application prerequisites, anticipated amounts of funds available in each priority area, estimated number of grants to be awarded, and other grant-related information. Part D provides information on application procedures including the availability of forms, where to submit an application, criteria for initial screening of applications, and project evaluation criteria. Part E provides guidance on the content of an application package. Part F provides instructions for completing an application. Part G details post-award requirements.
The closing date for submission of applications is August 26, 2002. The closing date for receipt of applications is 4:30 p.m. Eastern time zone. Applications received after 4:30 p.m. on the closing date will be classified as late. Postmarks and other similar documents do not establish receipt of an application. Detailed application submission instructions, including addresses where applications must be sent are found in Part D of this program announcement.
Margaret Washnitzer, Director, Division of State Assistance, Office of Community Services, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW, Washington, DC 20447, (202) 401-9343. This program announcement, along with the necessary applications forms, is accessible on the OCS web site for reading or downloading at:
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is “93.570.” This Program announcement title is “Training, Technical Assistance, and Capacity-Building Program.”
Sections 674(b)(2) and 678A(a)(1)(A) of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act of 1981, (Pub. L. 97-35) as amended by the Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998, (Pub. L. 105-285) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to utilize a percentage of appropriated funds for: Training, technical assistance, planning, evaluation, performance measurement, monitoring, to assist States in carrying out corrective actions and to correct programmatic deficiencies of eligible entities, and for reporting and data collection activities related to programs or projects carried out under the CSBG Act. The Secretary may carry out these activities through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements. To address program quality in financial management practices, management information and reporting systems, measurement of program results, and to ensure responsiveness to identified local needs, the Secretary is required to distribute funds directly to eligible entities, or statewide or local organizations (including faith-based organizations) or associations with demonstrated expertise in providing training to individuals and organizations on methods of effectively addressing the needs of low-income families and communities. The Secretary may carry out the remaining activities through appropriate entities.
The process for determining the technical assistance, training and capacity-building activities to be carried out must (a) ensure that the needs of eligible entities and programs relating to improving program quality, including financial management practices, are addressed to the maximum extent feasible; and (b) incorporate mechanisms to ensure responsiveness to local needs, including an on-going procedure for obtaining input from State and national networks of eligible entities. Thus, the CSBG Monitoring and Assessment Task Force (MATF) continues to focus on implementation of the Results-Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) system to address the challenges and unmet needs of States and Community Action Agencies and to increase program quality and management within the Community Services Network. The Task Force has taken a comprehensive approach to monitoring, including establishing national goals and outcome measures and target dates for nation-wide implementation; reviewing data needs relevant to these outcome measures; and assessing technical assistance and training provided toward capacity building within the Community Services Network.
For purposes of the FY 2001 CSBG Training, Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building Program, the following definitions apply:
The principal purposes of this Training, Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building announcement are to:
Priority areas of the Office of Community Services' Fiscal Year 2002 Spring Training, Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building Program are as follows:
This priority area addresses activities to assist states and eligible entities to acquire skills and further understand legal frameworks for community action. In order to ensure that OCS meets its compliance and technical assistance responsibilities for the CSBG Program and continues its effective partnership with the Community Services Network, grants awarded under Priority 1.1 will be funded in the form of a Cooperative Agreement. A Cooperative agreement is to be renewed annually for a specified number of years.
OCS will fund one national organization associated with community action to: (a) Re-engage the public in an on-going dialogue about the conditions of poverty and how community action at the State and local levels may address those conditions more effectively; (b) identify and promote strategies for integrating services within communities to address the multiple conditions of poverty among individuals and families and that help them achieve greater self-sufficiency; (c) identify and promote strategies for improving the supportive conditions of communities in which poor families live; and (d) identify and promote community action strategies for strengthening the family environment in which children are raised through greater engagement of fathers and the promotion of healthy marriages. In addition, OCS will support an effort to identify and reward “excellence” among community action programs that have achieved measurable outcomes in one or more of the areas described above.
OCS will fund one national non-profit organization to provide legal assistance to local community action agencies to help them improve the lives of clients and the conditions of communities in which they live. Specifically, the successful applicant will provide legal assistance to: (1) Help agencies understand and advocate for the rights of clients in such matters as community governance and/or service eligibility; (2) safeguard the statutory role of agencies as client and community advocates; (3) interpret Federal, State, and local statutes or regulations that pertain to the roles and functions of community action; and (4) assist local agencies involved in litigation or formal administrative actions to obtain appropriate legal counsel.
The purpose of this Sub-Priority is to continue to strengthen the fiscal and management capacity of eligible entities, especially those that may be considered “at risk.” OCS will fund one project which will provide coordinated, timely, peer-to-peer technical assistance and crisis aversion intervention for CAAs which have identified themselves as experiencing programmatic, administrative, board, and/or fiscal management problems. Peer-to-peer assistance may involve helping an agency resolve adverse program monitoring or audit findings, improve or upgrade financial management systems, prevent losses of funds, avert serious deterioration of the board of directors, or other immediate problems that prevent the agency carrying out their client and community service obligations.
One of the primary goals of the Administration is to encourage expansion of the number and kinds of organizations devoted to helping communities and low-income citizens achieve their potential. The Administration has developed a “Faith-based and Community-based Initiative” that has, among other things, called for the removal of barriers thereby creating greater participation of faith-based groups in providing community services, and stronger coordination among all service organizations within a community that address the needs of low-income citizens.
OCS recognizes that the Community Services Network (CSN) has a long history of forming partnerships with a variety of service providers at the community level, including faith-based organizations. OCS intends to encourage further expansion of such collaborative efforts to achieve both client and community goals.
OCS intends to fund the development and dissemination of two technical assistance documents intended to help partners in the CSN, at both the State and community levels, learn ways to enhance collaboration of community action with other service providers, including faith-based and community organizations. In addition, OCS will support capacity-building efforts in selected States and/or communities to form new or expanded community action partnerships to achieve specific client or community results, and to disseminate the results of these capacity-building efforts to the Network.
OCS will fund up to four technical assistance and capacity building efforts to promote the achievement of client-focused Goals 1 and 6:
Guide to Achieving Client Outcomes Through Community Action Partnerships with Other Service Providers, Such As Faith-Based, Charitable, and/or Other Community Groups—OCS will support the development of a technical assistance guide to help State and local community
Capacity-Building Grants to Promote Self-sufficiency and/or Family Strengthening Through Collaboration Between Community Action and Other Service Providers, Including Faith-Based and Community Organizations—OCS will fund between one and three States or local community action agencies or other non-profit service providers, to build new or expanded collaborations. Specifically, OCS seeks to encourage innovative work among organizations to promote client/family self-sufficiency and/or to strengthen families. The successful applicant(s) will describe in their application(s): (1) The specific goal(s) they intend to advance through new or expanded partnerships between community action and other service providers, including faith-based and community organizations; (2) the specific and measurable client-focused results the proposed collaboration(s) are intended to achieve and the means by which such results will be measured and reported; (3) the particular contributions each organizational partner will bring to the collaboration, including special skills, and human and financial resources; (4) evidence of previous success, including descriptions of other collaborations, and measurable client improvements that resulted from such collaborative work; and (5) formal letters of agreement and participation among all collaborating organizations with specific descriptions of anticipated contributions of resources and time to the effort.
As with sub-priority area 2.1, OCS will fund up to four grants to promote the achievement of community-focused goals (community development and citizen empowerment) through new or expanded collaboration between community action and other service providers, such as faith-based, charitable, and/or other community groups. OCS will solicit applications in two categories:
Guide to Achieving Community Development/Citizen Empowerment Goals Through Collaboration Between Community Action and other Service Providers, Such as Faith-Based, Charitable, and/or Other Community Groups—OCS will support the development of a technical assistance guide to help State and local community action agencies learn of ways to establish or expand partnerships with other service providers to advance community development and citizen empowerment—ROMA national goals 2 and 3.
Specifically, the successful applicant for the grant to develop this guide will describe in its application how it will: (1) Identify State or local partners within the Network that have a history of successful linkage/collaboration with other service providers, such as faith-based, charitable, and/or other community groups, to achieve community outcomes; (2) gather information about the ways these partnerships have been achieved, including formal and informal methods for establishing and maintaining the collaboration, interchange of information, human and financial resources, client referral and case management, and capturing and reporting results; (3) gather insights and analyses from participating community action other service provider staff and clients on particular strengths and challenges of such collaboration; and (4) develop a guide based on the information described above in a manner useful to the CSN.
Capacity-Building Grants to Promote Community Development and/or Citizen Empowerment Through Collaboration Between Community Action and Other Service Providers, Such as Faith-Based, Charitable, and/or Other Community Groups—OCS will fund between one and three States or local community action agencies or other non-profit organizations, to build new or expanded collaborations. Specifically, OCS seeks to encourage innovative work among organizations to promote community development and/or citizen empowerment. The successful applicant(s) will describe in their application(s): (1) The specific goal(s) they intend to advance through new or expanded partnerships between community action other service providers, including faith-based and community organizations; (2) the specific and measurable community and client-focused results the proposed collaboration(s) are intended to achieve and the means by which such results will be measured and reported; (3) the particular contributions each organizational partner will bring to the collaboration, including special skills, and human and financial resources; (4) evidence of previous success, including descriptions of other collaborations, and measurable community and client improvements that resulted from such collaborative work; and (5) formal letters of agreement and participation among all collaborating organizations with specific descriptions of anticipated contributions of resources and time to the effort.
See individual sub-priority areas in Part B.
The Office of Community Services intends to support grants for successful
OCS invites qualified entities to submit competing grant applications for the award of cooperative agreements under the FY 2002 Spring Training, Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Program Announcement. The purpose of the cooperative agreement is to assure that there is increased capacity in the community services network to provide national ROMA training, timely, coordinated peer-to-peer-technical assistance to address crises at the local level by CSBG-service providers; and to develop tools to promote collaboration between community action and other community groups, including faith-based/charitable organizations. The duties and responsibilities of the applicant and ACF/OCS in fulfilling the agreement will include the following:
1. Develop and implement work plans that will ensure that the services and activities approved in the application address the training and technical assistance needs of the community services network based on the requirement for specified projects.
2. Collaborate with the OCS to finalize the major goals and objectives of the overall project and exchange information on strategies for achieving the goals and objectives.
3. Provide a plan to access the outcomes of the project quarterly.
4. Promote the involvement of OCS in applicant meetings, conferences and initiatives to strengthen the knowledge base of the applicant and the OCS.
1. Within 60 days of the award of the grant, OCS will meet with the grantee to coordinate and develop a joint work plan with agreed upon short- and long-term priorities based on the applicant's work plan.
2. Discuss mechanisms of obtaining project status.
3. Through the duration of the cooperative agreement, review and comment on materials prior to their finalization.
4. Promote the involvement of OCS in applicant meetings, conferences and initiatives to strengthen the knowledge base of the applicant and the OCS.
5. Promote the involvement of OCS in applicant meetings, conferences and initiatives to strengthen the knowledge base of the applicant and the OCS.
6. Work collaboratively with the grantee in reviewing and providing feedback to address need for project adjustments and updates.
7. Develop any special conditions related to implementation of such projects.
The total amount of funds currently available for new grants and one cooperative agreement in FY 2002 under this Program Announcement is $1,260,000. For multi-year projects, continued funding is dependent upon proof of satisfactory performance and the availability of Federal funds. Amounts expected to be available and numbers of grants under each sub-priority area stated in Part B are as follows:
This announcement is inviting applications for project periods up to 3 years. Awards, on a competitive basis, will be for a one-year budget period, although project periods may be for up to 3 years. Applications for continuation grants funded under these awards beyond the one-year budget period but within the 3 year project period will be entertained in subsequent years on a noncompetitive basis, subject to availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee and a determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the Government.
Please note that specific project periods under this announcement vary depending on the Sub-Priority Area.
The overall intended beneficiaries of the projects to be funded under this Spring FY 2002 CSBG Training, Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Program Announcement are the various “partners” in the Community Services Network. Specific beneficiaries are indicated under each sub-priority area in Part B.
OCS will not fund any project where the role of the applicant is primarily to serve as a conduit for funds to organizations other than the applicant. This prohibition does not bar the making of subgrants or subcontracting for specific services or activities needed to conduct the project. However, the applicant must have a substantive role in the implementation of the project for which funding is requested.
Separate applications must be made for each sub-priority area. An applicant
Each application must include an assessment or self-evaluation to determine the degree to which the goals and objectives of the project are met, such as client satisfaction surveys, administration of simple before/after tests of knowledge with comparison of scores to show grasp of teaching points, simple measures of the results of service delivery, and others as appropriate. Goal setting and goal measurement should be the framework for evaluation. Goals, to the extent suitable, should be impact-oriented.
Applications for awards under this Spring FY 2002 CSBG Training, Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Program must be submitted on Standard Forms (SF) 424, 424A, and 424B. Part F and the attachments to this program announcement contain all the instructions and forms required for submission of an application. These forms may be photocopied for use in developing the application.
Part F also contains instructions for the project narrative. The project narrative must be submitted on plain bond paper along with the SF-424 and related forms.
A copy of this program announcement and the required forms are available on the Internet through the OCS web site at:
If the program announcement cannot be accessed through the OCS web site, it can be obtained by writing or telephoning the office listed under the section entitled
Refer to the section entitled “Closing Date” at the beginning of this program announcement for the last day on which applications should be submitted.
Mailed applications shall be considered as meeting the announced deadline if they are received on or before deadline time and date. Applicants are responsible for mailing applications well in advance when using all mail services to ensure that the applications are received on or before the deadline time and date. Mailed applications must be sent to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, “Attention: CSBG Training, Technical Assistance, and Capacity Building Program”, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20447.
Applications hand-carried by applicants, applicant couriers, or by overnight/express mail couriers, shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, at the: Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, “Attention: CSBG Training, Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Program”, 901 D Street, SW., 2nd Floor Mailroom, Washington, DC 20024.
ACF cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax or through other electronic media. Therefore, applications transmitted to ACF electronically will not be accepted regardless of date or time of submission and time of receipt. Applications, once submitted, are considered final and no additional materials will be accepted.
One signed original application and two copies should be submitted at the time of initial submission (OMB 0970-0062).
The first page of the SF-424 must contain in the lower right-hand corner a designation indicating under which sub-priority are funds are being requested. For example, if you are applying for Sub-Priority Area 2.6—Local Capacity Building, you must have a designation of 2.6 in the lower right-hand corner. Without this clear designation, your proposal may not be reviewed correctly.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection of information.
All information collections within this Program Announcement are approved under OMB Control Number 0970-0062 which expires 12/31/2003.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs” and 45 CFR Part 100, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Programs and Activities.” Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance under covered programs. Note: State/territory participation in the intergovernmental review process does not signify applicant eligibility for financial assistance under a program. A potential applicant must meet the eligibility requirements of the program for which it is applying prior to submitting an application to its SPOC, if applicable, or to ACF.
The following States and Territories have elected to participate under the Executive Order process and have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC): Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, American Samoa, Guam. Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands.
Jurisdictions not listed have elected not to participate in the Executive Order process. Applicants from these jurisdictions or for projects to be administered by Federally recognized Indian Tribes need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372.
Although the jurisdictions described above no longer participate in the process, entities which have met the eligibility requirements of the program are still eligible to apply for a grant even
SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those Official State process recommendations which they intend to trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule under 45 CFR 100.10.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, 4th Floor, Aerospace Center, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447.
A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory is included as Attachment H to this program announcement.
Applications that meet the screening requirements in Sections 8.a. and 8.b. below will be reviewed competitively. Such applications will be referred to reviewers for a numerical score and explanatory comments based solely on responsiveness to program guidelines and evaluation criteria published in this announcement.
Qualified panelists not directly responsible for programmatic management of the grant will review applications. The results of these reviews will assist OCS in considering competing applications. Reviewers' scores will weigh heavily in funding decisions but will not be the only factors considered. Applications will be ranked and generally considered in order of the average scores assigned by reviewers. However, highly ranked applications are not guaranteed funding since other factors deemed relevant may be considered including, but not limited to, the timely and proper completion of projects funded with OCS funds granted in the past five years; comments of reviewers and government officials; staff evaluation and input; geographic distribution; previous program performance of applicants; compliance with grant terms under previous DHHS grants; audit reports; investigative reports; and applicant's progress in resolving any final audit disallowance on OCS or other Federal agency grants.
OCS reserves the right to discuss applications with other Federal or non-Federal funding sources to ascertain the applicant's performance record.
All applicants will receive a written acknowledgment with an assigned identification number. This number, along with any other identifying codes, must be referenced in all subsequent communications concerning the application. If an acknowledgment is not received within three weeks after the deadline date, please notify ACF by telephone at (202) 401-5103.
All applications that meet the published deadline for submission will be screened to determine completeness and conformity to the requirements of this Announcement. Only those applications meeting the following requirements will be reviewed and evaluated competitively. Others will be returned to the applicants with a notation that they were unacceptable.
(1) The application must contain a Standard Form 424 “Application for Federal Assistance” (SF-424), a budget (SF-424A), and signed “Assurances” (SF-424B) completed according to instructions published in Part F and Attachments A, B, and C of this program announcement.
(2) A budget narrative, which corresponds to the object class categories in the SF 424A for the use of Federal funds, must be included in the application.
(3) The SF-424 and the SF-424B must be signed by an official of the applicant organization who has authority to obligate the organization legally.
(4) A project narrative must also accompany the standard forms.
Applications, which pass the initial screening, will be forwarded to reviewers and/or OCS staff to verify, prior to the programmatic review, that the applications comply with this program announcement in the following areas:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
An application may be disqualified from the competition and returned to the applicant if it does not conform to one or more of the above requirements.
Applications that pass the pre-rating review will be assessed and scored by reviewers. Each reviewer will give a numerical score to each application reviewed. These numerical scores will be supported by explanatory statements on a formal rating form describing major strengths and weaknesses under each applicable criterion published in this announcement.
The in-depth evaluation and review process will use the following criteria coupled with the specific requirements contained in Part B.
(a) The application documents that the project addresses vital needs related to the purposes stated under the appropriate sub-priority area discussed in this program announcement (Part B) and provides statistics and other data and information in support of its contention. (0-10 points).
(b) The application provides current supporting documentation or other testimonies regarding needs from
The work program is results-oriented, appropriately related to the legislative
Applicant addresses the following: Specific outcomes to be achieved; performance targets that the project is committed to achieving, including reasons for not setting lower or higher target levels and how the project will verify the achievement of these targets; critical milestones which must be achieved if results are to be gained; organizational support, including priority this project has for the agency; past performance in similar work; and specific resources contributed to the project that are critical to success.
Applicant defines the comprehensive nature of the project and methods that will be used to ensure that the results can be used to address a statewide or nationwide project as defined by the priority area.
Applicant adequately describes how the project will assure long-term program and management improvements and have advantages over other products offered to achieve the same outcomes for State CSBG offices, CAA State and/or regional associations, and/or local providers of CSBG services and activities.
The applicant indicates the types and amounts of public and/or private resources it will mobilize, how those resources will directly benefit the project, and how the project will ultimately benefit low-income individuals and families.
If proposing a project with a training and technical assistance focus, applicant indicates the number of organizations and/or staff it will impact.
If proposing a project with a data collection focus, applicant provides a description of the mechanism it will use to collect data, how it can assure collections from a significant number of States, and the number of States willing to submit data to the applicant.
If proposing to develop a symposium series or other policy-related project(s), the applicant identifies the number and types of beneficiaries.
Methods of securing participant feedback and evaluations of activities are described in the application.
Applicant describes how it will involve partners in the Community Services Network in its activities. Where appropriate, applicant describes how it will interface with other related organizations.
If subcontracts are proposed, documentation of the willingness and capacity for the subcontracting organization(s) to participate is described.
(a) The applicant demonstrates that it has experience and a successful track record relevant to the specific activities and program area that it proposes to undertake.
If applicant is proposing to provide training and technical assistance, it details its competence in the specific program priority area and as a deliverer with expertise in the specific fields of training and technical assistance on a nationwide basis.
If applicable, information provided by the applicant also addresses related achievements and competence of each cooperating or sponsoring organization. (0-10 points)
(b) Applicant fully describes, for example in a resume, the experience and skills of the proposed project director and primary staff showing specific qualifications and professional experiences relevant to the successful implementation of the proposed project. (0-10 points)
(a) The resources requested are reasonable and adequate to accomplish the project. (0-3 points)
(b) Total costs are reasonable and consistent with anticipated results. (0-2 points)
A cover letter containing an e-mail address and a facsimile (FAX) number, if available, should accompany the application. This will facilitate receipt of an acknowledgment from ACF that the application has been received. (See Part D., 8.a.)
Each application should include one original and two additional copies of the following:
a. A completed Standard Form 424 which has been signed by an official of the organization applying for the grant who has authority to obligate the organization legally. The applicant must be aware that, in signing and submitting the application for this award, it is certifying that it will comply with the Federal requirements concerning the drug-free workplace and debarment regulations set forth in Attachments D and E.
b. “Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs” (SF-424A). (Attachment B)
c. A completed, signed and dated “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs” (SF-424B). (Attachment C)
d. Drug-free Certification. (The applicant is certifying that it will comply with this requirement by signing and submitting the SF-424.) (Attachment D)
e. Debarment Certification. (Attachment E)
f. Certification Regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke. (The applicant is certifying that it will comply with this requirement by signing and submitting the SF-424.) (Attachment F)
g. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, SF-LLL. Complete, sign and date form, as appropriate. (Attachment G)
h. A Project Abstract of 500 words or less. The abstract should provide a succinct description of the need, project goals, and a summary of work plan and the proposed impact. Abstract will be maintained as part of the Grantee Administration Tracking System (GATES).
i. A Project Narrative consisting of the following elements preceded by a consecutively numbered table of contents that will describe the project in the following order:
(i) Need for Assistance
(ii) Work Program
(iii) Significant and Beneficial Impact
(iv) Evidence of Significant Collaborations
(v) Ability of Applicant to Perform
(vi) Appendices including proof of non-profit status, such as IRS determination of non-profit status, where applicable; relevant sections of by-laws, articles of incorporation, and/or statement from appropriate State CSBG office which confirms eligibility; resumes; Single Point of Contact comments, where applicable; and any partnership/collaboration agreements.
The original must bear the signature of the authorizing official representing the applicant organization.
The total number of pages for the entire application package should not exceed 35 pages, including appendices. Pages should be numbered sequentially throughout.
If appendices include photocopied materials, they must be legible.
Applications should be two-hole punched at the top center and fastened separately with a compressor slide paper fastener or a binder clip. The submission of bound applications or
Applications must be submitted on white 8
The standard forms attached to this program announcement shall be used when submitting applications for all funds under this announcement.
It is recommended that the applicant reproduce the SF-424, (Attachment A), SF-424A (Attachment B), SF-424B (Attachment C) and that the application be typed on the copies. If an item on the SF-424 cannot be answered or does not appear to be related or relevant to the assistance requested, the applicant should write “NA” for “Not applicable.”
The application should be prepared in accordance with the standard instructions in Attachments A and B corresponding to the forms, as well as the specific instructions set forth below:
1. For the purposes of this program announcement, all projects are considered “Applications”; there are no “Pre-Applications.”
5. and 6. The legal name of the applicant must match that listed as corresponding to the Employer Identification Number. Where the applicant is a previous Department of Health and Human Services grantee, enter the Central Registry System Employee Identification Number (CRS/EIN) and the Payment Identifying Number, if one has been assigned, in the Block entitled “Federal Identifier” located at the top right hand corner of the form.
7. If the applicant is a non-profit corporation, enter “N” in the box and specify “non-profit corporation” in the space marked “Other.” Proof of non-profit status such as IRS determination, articles of incorporation, or by-laws, must be included as an appendix to the project narrative.
8. For the purposes of this announcement, all applications are “New.”
9. Enter “DHHS-ACF/OCS.”
10. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the OCS program covered under this announcement is “93.570.”
The title is “Office of Community Services” Discretionary CSBG Awards—Fiscal Year 2002 Spring Training, Technical Assistance, and Capacity-Building Programs.”
15a. For purposes of this announcement, this amount should reflect the amount requested for the entire project period.
15b-e. These items should reflect both cash and third party in-kind contributions for the total project period.
See instructions accompanying the form as well as the instructions set forth below:
In completing these sections, the Federal budget entries will relate to the requested OCS Training and Technical Assistance Program funds only, and Non-Federal will include mobilized funds from all other sources—applicant, State, and other. Federal funds, other than those requested from the Training and Technical Assistance Program should be included in Non-Federal entries.
Sections A and D must contain entries for both Federal (OCS) and non-Federal (mobilized).
Col. (a): Line 1—Enter “OCS Training and Technical Assistance Program”; Col.
(b): Line 1—Enter “93.570”.
Col. (c) and (d): Not Applicable
Col. (e)-(g): For lines 1 enter in column (e), (f) and (g) the appropriate amounts needed to support the project for the entire project period.
Line 5—Enter the figures from Line 1 for all columns completed under (e), (f), and (g).
This section should contain entries for OCS funds only. For all projects, the first budget period of 12 months will be entered in Column #1. Allowability of costs is governed by applicable cost principles set forth in 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
A separate itemized budget justification should be included to explain fully and justify major items, as indicated below. The budget justification should immediately follow the Table of Contents.
If the applicant organization is in the process of initially developing or renegotiating a rate, it should immediately, upon notification that an award will be made, develop a tentative indirect cost rate proposal based on its most recently completed fiscal year in accordance with the principles set forth in the pertinent DHHS Guide for Establishing Indirect Cost Rates, and submit it to the appropriate DHHS Regional Office.
It should be noted that when an indirect cost rate is requested, those costs included in the indirect cost pool cannot be budgeted or charged as direct costs to the grant.
This section is to record the amounts of Non-Federal resources that will be used to support the project. Non-Federal resources refer to other than OCS funds for which the applicant has received a commitment. Provide a brief explanation, on a separate sheet, showing the type of contribution, broken out by Object Class Categories, section B.6) and whether it is cash or third party in-kind. The firm commitment of these required funds must be documented and submitted with the application.
Except in unusual situations, this documentation must be in the form of letters of commitment or letters of intent from the organization(s)/individuals from which funds will be received.
Col. (b): Enter the amount of cash or donations to be made by the applicant.
Col. (c): Enter the State contribution.
Col. (d): Enter the amount of cash and third party in-kind contributions to be made from all other sources.
Col. (e): Enter the total of column (b), (c), and (d). Lines 9, 10, and 11 should be left blank.
To be completed by applicants applying for funds for a three year project period.
Applicant must sign and return the “Assurances” found at Attachment C with its application.
Each narrative section of the application must address one or more of the focus areas described in Part B and follow the format outlined below:
Following approval of the applications selected for funding, notice of project approval and authority to draw down project funds will be made in writing. The official award document is the Financial Assistance Award, which indicates, the amount of Federal funds approved for use in the project, the project and budget periods for which support is provided, the terms and conditions of the award, and the total project period for which support is contemplated.
In addition to the standard terms and conditions which will be applicable to grants, grantee will be subject to the provisions of 45 CFR parts 74 (non-governmental) and 92 (governmental) and OMB Circulars A-122 (nonprofit) and A-87 (governmental).
Grantees will be required to submit semi-annual program progress narrative and financial reports (SF-269) as well as a final program progress narrative report and a final financial report.
Grantees are subject to the audit requirements in 45 CFR parts 74 (non-governmental) and 92 (governmental) and OMB Circular A-133.
Section 319 of Public Law 101-121, signed into law on October 23, 1989 imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification related to lobbying on recipients of Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and loans. It provides exemptions for Indian tribes and tribal organizations. Current and prospective recipients (and their sub-tier contractors and/or grantees) are prohibited from using Federal funds, other than profits from a Federal contract, for lobbying Congress or any Federal agency in connection with the award of a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or loan. In addition, for each award action in excess of $100,000 (or $150,000 for loans) the law requires recipients and their subtier contractors and/or subgrantees (1) to certify that they have neither used nor will use any appropriated funds for payment to lobbyists, (2) to disclose the name, address, payment details, and purpose of any agreements with lobbyists whom recipients or their subtier Contractors or subgrantee will pay with profits or
Public Law 103-227, Part C. Environmental Tobacco Smoke, also known as the Pro-Children Act of 1994 (Act), requires that smoking not be permitted in any portion of any indoor facility owned or leased or contracted for by an entity and used routinely or regularly for the provision of health, day care, education, or library services to children under the age of 18, if the services are funded by Federal programs either directly or through States or local governmental by Federal grant, contract, loan or loan guarantee. The law does not apply to facilities funded solely by Medicare or Medicaid funds, and portions of facilities used for in-patient drug or alcohol treatment. Failure to comply with the provisions of the law may result in the imposition of a civil monetary penalty of up to $1,000 per day and/or the imposition of an administrative compliance order on the responsible entity.
By signing and submitting this application, the applicant/grantee certifies that it will comply with the requirement of the Act. The applicant/grantee further agrees that it will require the language of this certification be included in any sub-awards, which contain provisions for children's services and that all subgrantees shall certify accordingly.
Attachment H indicates the regulations that apply to all applicants/grantees under this program.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the
Please do not return your completed form to the Office of Management and Budget. Send it to the address provided by the sponsoring agency.
This is a standard form used by applicants as a required facesheet for preapplications and applications submitted for Federal assistance. It will be used by Federal agencies to obtain applicant certification that States which have established a review and comment procedure in response to Executive Order 12372 and have selected the program to be included in their process, have been given an opportunity to review the applicant's submission.
1. Self-explanatory.
2. Date application submitted to Federal agency (or State if applicable) and applicant's control number (if applicable).
3. State use only (if applicable).
4. If this application is to continue or revise an existing award, enter present Federal identifier number. If for a new project, leave blank.
5. Legal name of applicant, name of primary organizational unit which will undertake the assistance activity, complete address of the applicant, and name and telephone number of the person to contact on matters related to this application.
6. Enter Employer Identification Number (EIN) as assigned by the Internal Review Service.
7. Enter the appropriate letter in the space provided.
8. Check appropriate box and enter appropriate letter(s) in the space(s) provided:
—“New” means a new assistance award.
—“Continuation” means an extension for an additional funding/budget period for a project with a projected completion date.
—“Revision” means any change in the Federal Government's financial obligation or contingent liability form an existing obligation.
9. Name of Federal agency from which assistance is being requested with this application.
10. Use the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title of the programs under which assistance is requested.
11. Enter a brief descriptive title of the project. If more than one program is involved, you should append an explanation on a separate sheet. If appropriate (e.g., construction or real property projects), attach a map showing project location. For preapplications, use a separate sheet to provide a summary description of this project.
12. List only the largest political entities affected (e.g., State, counties, cities).
13. Self-explanatory.
14. List the applicant's Congressional District and any District(s) affected by the program or project.
15. Amount requested or to be contributed during the first funding/budget period by each contributor. Value of in-kind contributions should be included on appropriate lines as applicable. If the action will result in a dollar change to an existing award, indicate the amount of the change. For decreases, enclose the amounts in parentheses. If both basic and supplemental amounts are included, show breakdown on an attached sheet. For multiple program funding, use totals and show breakdown using same categories as item 15.
16. Applicants should contact the State Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for Federal Executive Order 12372 to determine whether the application is subject to the State intergovernmental review process.
17. This question applies to the applicant organization, not the person who signs as the authorized representative. Categories of debt include delinquent audit disallowances, loans and taxes.
18. To be signed by the authorized representative of the applicant. A copy of the governing body's authorization for you to sign this application as official representative must be on file in the applicant's office (Certain Federal agencies may require that this authorization be submitted as part of the application.)
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 180 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0348-0044), Washington, DC 20503.
Please do not return your completed form to the Office of Management and Budget. Send to the address provided by the sponsoring agency.
This form is designed so that application can be made for funds from one or more grant programs. In preparing the budget, adhere to any existing Federal grantor agency guidelines which prescribe now and whether budgeted amounts should be separately shown for different functions or activities within the program. For some programs, grantor agencies may require budgets to be separately shown by function or activity. For other programs, grantor agencies may require a breakdown by function or activity. Sections A, B, C, and D should include budget estimates for the whole project except when applying for assistance which requires Federal authorization in annual or other funding period increments. In the latter case, Sections A, B, C, and D should provide the budget for the first budget period (usually a year) and Section E should present the need for Federal assistance in the subsequent budget periods. All applications should contain a breakdown by the object class categories shown in Lines a-k of section B.
For applications pertaining to a single Federal grant program (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog number) and not requiring a functional or activity breakdown, enter on Line 1 under Column (a) the Catalog program title and the Catalog number in Column (b).
For applications pertaining to a single program requiring budget amounts by multiple functions or activities, enter the name of each activity or function on each line in Column (a), and enter the Catalog number in Column (b). For applications pertaining to multiple programs where none of the programs require a breakdown by function or activity, enter the Catalog program title on each line in Column (a) and the respective Catalog number on each line in Column (b).
For applications pertaining to multiple programs where one or more programs require a breakdown by function or activity, prepare a separate sheet for each program requiring the breakdown. Additional sheets should be used when one form does not provide adequate space for all breakdown of data required. However, when more than one sheet is used, the first page should provide the summary totals by programs.
For new applications, leave Column (c) and (d) blank. For each line entry in Columns (a) and (b), enter in Columns (e), (f), and (g) the appropriate amounts of funds needed to support the project for the first funding period usually a year).
For continuing grant program applications, submit these forms before the end of each funding period as required by the grantor agency. Enter in Columns (c) and (d) the estimated amounts of funds which will remain unobligated at the end of the grant funding period only if the Federal grantor agency instructions provide for this. Otherwise, leave these columns blank. Enter in columns (e) and (f) the amounts of funds needed for the upcoming period. The amounts(s) in Column (g) should be the sum of amounts in Columns (e) and (f).
For supplemental grants and changes to existing grants, do not use Columns (c) and (d). Enter in Column (e) the amount of the increase or decrease of Federal funds and enter in Column (f) the amount of the increase or decrease of non-Federal funds. In Column (g) enter the new total budgeted amount (Federal and non-Federal) which includes the total previous authorized budgeted amounts plus or minus, as appropriate, the amounts shown in Columns (e) and (f). The amount(s) in Column (g) should not equal the sum of amounts in Columns (e) and (f).
Line 5—Show the total for all columns used.
In the column headings (1) through (4), enter the titles of the same programs, functions, and activities shown on Lines 1-4, Column (a), Section A. When additional sheets are prepared for Section A, provide similar column headings on each sheet. For each program, function or activity, fill in the total requirements for funds (both Federal and non-Federal) by object class categories.
Line 6a-j—Show the totals of Lines 6a to 6h in each column.
Line 6j—Show the amount of indirect cost.
Line 6k—Enter the total amounts on lines 6i and 6j. For all applications for new grants and continuation grants the total amount in column (5), Line 6k, should be the same as the total amount shown in Section A, Column (g), Line 5. For supplemental grants and changes to grants, the total amount of the increase or decrease as shown in Columns (1)-(4), Line 6k should be the same as the sum of the amounts in Section A, Columns (e) and (f) on Line 5.
Line 7—Enter the estimated amount of income, if any, expected to be generated from this project. Do not add or subtract this amount from the total project amount. Show under the program narrative statement the nature and source of income. The estimated amount of program income may be considered by the Federal grantor agency in determining the total amount of the grant.
Lines 8-11—Enter amounts of non-Federal resources that will be used on the grant. If in-kind contributions are included, provide a brief explanation on a separate sheet.
Column (a)—Enter the program titles identical to Column (a), Section A. A breakdown by function or activity is not necessary.
Column (b)—Enter the contribution to be made by the applicant.
Column (c)—Enter the amount of the State's cash and in-kind contribution if the applicant is not a State or State agency. Applicants which are a State or State agencies should leave this column blank.
Column (d)—Enter the amount of cash and in-kind contributions to be made from all other sources.
Column (e)—Enter total of Columns (b), (c), and (d).
Line 12—Enter the total for each of Columns (b)-(e). The amount in Column (e) should be equal to the amount on Line 5, Column (f), Section A.
Line 13—Enter the amount of cash needed by quarter from the grantor agency during the first year.
Line 14—Enter the amount of cash from all other sources needed by quarter during the first year.
Line 15—Enter the totals of amounts on Lines 13 and 14.
Lines 16-19—Enter in Column (a) the same grant program titles shown in Column (a), Section A. A breakdown by function or activity is not necessary. For new applications and continuation grant applications, enter in the proper columns amounts of Federal funds which will be needed to complete the program or project over the succeeding funding periods (usually in years). This section need not be completed for revisions (amendments, changes, or supplements) to funds for the current year of existing grants.
If more than four lines are needed to list the program titles, submit additional schedules as necessary.
Line 20—Enter the total for each of the Columns (b)-(3). When additional schedules are prepared for this Section, annotate accordingly and show the overall totals on this line.
Line 21—Use this space to explain amounts for individual direct object class cost categories that may appear to be out of the ordinary or to explain the details as required by the Federal grantor agency
Line 22—Enter the type of indirect rate (provisions, predetermined, final or fixed) that will be in effect during the funding period, the estimated amount of the base to which the rate is applied, and the total indirect expense.
Line 23—Provide any other explanations or comments deemed necessary.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0349-0040), Washington, DC 20503.
Please do not return your completed form to the Office of Management and Budget. Send it to the address provided by the sponsoring agency.
Certain of these assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If you have questions, please contact the awarding agency. Further, certain Federal awarding agencies may require applicants to certify to additional assurances. If such is the case, you will be notified.
As the duly authorized representative of the applicant, I certify that the applicant:
1. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance and the institutional, managerial and financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay the non-Federal share of project cost) to ensure proper planning, management and completion of the project described in this application.
2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller General of the United States and, if appropriate, the State, through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the award; and will establish a proper accounting system in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards or agency directives.
3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict interest, or personal gain.
4. Will initiate and complete the work within the applicable time frame after receipt of approval of the awarding agency.
5. Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4728-4763) relating to prescribed standards for merit systems for programs funded under one of the 19 statutes or regulations specified in Appendix A of OPM's Standards for a Merit System of Personnel Administration (5 CFR 900, Subpart F).
6. Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin; (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps; (d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; (e) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (f) the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (g) §§ 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. §§ 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing; (i) any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for Federal assistance is being made; and, (j) the requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to the application.
7. Will comply, or has already complied, with the requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provide for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced or whose property is acquired as a result of Federal or federally-assisted programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real property acquired for project purposes regardless of Federal participation in purchases.
8. Will comply, as applicable, with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which limit the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.
9. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. § 276c and 18 U.S.C. § 874), and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 327-333), regarding labor standards for federally-assisted construction subagreements.
10. Will comply, if applicable, with flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) which requires recipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more.
11. Will comply with environmental standards which may be prescribed pursuant to the following: (a) Institution of environmental quality control measure under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and Executive Order (EO) 11514: (b) notification of violating facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c) protection of wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; (d) evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in accordance with EO 11988; (e) assurance of project consistency with the approved State management program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.); (f) conformity of Federal actions to State (Clean Air) Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.); (g) protection of underground sources of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (P.L. 93-523); and, (h) protection of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (P.L. 93-205).
12. Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271 et seq.) related to protecting components or potential components of the national wild and scenic rivers system.
13. Will assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 470), EO 11593 (identification and protection of historic properties), and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. §§ 469a-1 et seq.).
14. Will comply with P.L. 93-348 regarding the protection of human subjects involved in research, development, and related activities supported by this award of assistance.
15. Will comply with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-544, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 et seq.) pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of warm blooded animals held for research, teaching, or other activities supported by this award of assistance.
16. Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4801 et seq.) which prohibits the use of lead-based paint in construction or rehabilitation of residence structures.
17. Will cause to be performed the required financial and compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular No. A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.”
18. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies governing this program.
This certification is required by the regulations implementing the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988: 45 CFR Part 76, Subpart, F. Sections 76.630(c) and (d)(2) and 76.645(a)(1) and (b) provide that a Federal agency may designate a central receipt point for STATE-WIDE AND STATE AGENCY-WIDE certifications, and for notification of criminal drug convictions. For the Department of Health and Human Services, the central pint is: Division of Grants Management and Oversight, Office of Management and Acquisition, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 517-D,
1. By signing and/or submitting this application or grant agreement, the grantee is providing the certification set out below.
2. The certification set out below is a material representation of fact upon which reliance is placed when the agency awards the grant. If it is later determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violates the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, the agency, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized under the Drug-Free Workplace Act.
3. For grantees other than individuals, Alternate I applies.
4. For grantees who are individuals, Alternate II applies.
5. Workplaces under grants, for grantees other than individuals, need not be identified on the certification. If known, they may be identified in the grant application. If the grantee does not identify the workplaces at the time of application, or upon award, if there is no application, the grantee must keep the identity of the workplace(s) on file in its office and make the information available for Federal inspection. Failure to identify all known workplaces constitutes a violation of the grantee's drug-free workplace requirements.
6. Workplace identifications must include the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the grant takes place. Categorical descriptions may be used (e.g., all vehicles of a mass transit authority or State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performers in concert halls or radio studios).
7. If the workplace identified to the agency changes during the performance of the grant, the grantee shall inform the agency of the change(s), if it previously identified the workplaces in question (see paragraph five).
8. Definitions of terms in the Nonprocurement Suspension and Debarment common rule and Drug-Free Workplace common rule apply to this certification. Grantees' attention is called, in particular, to the following definitions from these rules:
Controlled substance means a controlled substance in Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and as further defined by regulation (21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15);
Conviction means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposition of sentence, or both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the Federal or State criminal drug statutes;
Criminal drug statute means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance;
Employee means the employee of a grantee directly engaged in the performance of work under a grant, including: (i) All direct charge employees; (ii) All indirect charge employees unless their impact or involvement is insignificant to the performance of the grant; and, (iii) Temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the grant and who are on the grantee's payroll. This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the grantee (e.g., volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the grantee's payroll; or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces).
The grantee certifies that it will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by:
(a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition;
(b) Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about—
(1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
(2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
(3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and
(4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace;
(c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a);
(d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will—
(1) Abide by the terms of the statement; and
(2) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction;
(e) Notifying the agency in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under paragraph (d)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affect grant;
(f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under paragraph (d)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted—
(1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or
(2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
(g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).
(B) The grantee may insert in the space provided (below the sites) for the performance or work done in connection with the specific grant:
Check if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here.
(a) The grantee certifies that, as a condition of the grant, he or she will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance in conducting any activity with the grant;
(b) If convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any grant activity, he or she will report the conviction, in writing, within 10 calendar days of the conviction, to every grant officer or other designee, unless the Federal agency designates a central point for the receipt of such notices. When notice is made to such a central point, it shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant.
1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective primary participant is providing the certification set out below.
2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the prospective primary participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this transaction.
3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the prospective primary participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default.
4. The prospective primary participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
5. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of the rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the department or agency to which this proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.
6. The prospective primary participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this transaction.
7. The prospective primary participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” provided by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions.
8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless is knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs.
9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.
10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default.
(1) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:
(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded by any Federal department or agency;
(b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and
(d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State or local) terminated for cause or default.
(2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below.
2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.
3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or had become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
4. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meaning set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the person to which this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.,
5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, [[Page 33043]] should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated.
6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include this clause titled “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions.
7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs.
8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.
9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participant in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.
(1) The proposective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.
(2) Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
Public Law 103227, Part C Environmental Tobacco Smoke, also known as the Pro Children Act of 1994 (Act), requires that smoking not be permitted in any portion of any indoor routinely owned or leased or contracted for by an entity and used routinely or regularly for provision of health, day care, education, or library services to children under the age of 18, if the services are funded by Federal programs either directly or through State or local governments, by Federal grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee. The law does not apply to children's services provided in private residences, facilities funded solely by Medicare or Medicaid funds, and portions of facilities used for inpatient drug or alcohol treatment. Failure to comply with the provisions of the law may result in the imposition of a civil monetary penalty of up to $1000 per day and/or the imposition of an administrative compliance order on the responsible entity. By signing and submitting this application the applicant/grantee certifies that it will comply with the requirements of the Act.
The applicant/grantee further agrees that it will require the language of this certification be included in any subawards which contain provisions for the children's services and that all subgrantees shall certify accordingly.
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code, Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
The undersigned states, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
If any funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions. Submission of this statement in a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required statement shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
This disclosure form shall be completed by the reporting entity, whether subawardee or prime Federal recipient, at the initiation or receipt of a covered Federal action, or a material change to a previous filing, pursuant to title 31 U.S.C. section 1352. The filing of a form is required for each payment or agreement to make payment to any lobbying entity for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with a covered Federal action. Complete all items that apply for both the initial filing and material change report. Refer to the implementing guidance published by the Office of Management and Budget for additional information.
1. Identify the type of covered Federal action for which lobbying activity is and/or has been secured to influence the outcome of a covered Federal action
2. Identify the status of the covered Federal action.
3. Identify the appropriate classification of this report. If this is a followup report caused by a material change to the information previously reported, enter the year and quarter in which the change occurred. Enter the date of the last previously submitted report by this reporting entity for this covered Federal action.
4. Enter the full name, address, city, State and zip code of the reporting entity. Include Congressional District, if known. Check the appropriate classification of the reporting entity that designates if it is, or expects to be, a prime or subaward recipient. Identify the tier of the subawardee, e.g., the first subawardee of the prime is the 1st tier. Subawards include but are not limited to subcontracts, subgrants and contract awards under grants.
5. If the organization filing the report in item 4 checks “Subawardee,” then enter the full name, address, city, State and zip code of the prime Federal recipient. Include Congressional District, if known.
6. Enter the name of the Federal agency making the award or loan commitment. Include at least one organizational level below agency name, if known. For example, Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard.
7. Enter the Federal program name or description for the covered Federal action (item 1). If known, enter the full Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and loan commitments.
8. Enter the most appropriate Federal identifying number available for the Federal action identified in item 1 (e.g., Requests for Proposal (RFP) number; Invitation for Bid (IFB) number; grant announcement number; the contract, grant, or loan award number; the application/proposal control number assigned by the Federal agency). Include prefixes, e.g., “RFP-DE-90-001.”
9. For a covered Federal action where there has been an award or loan number commitment by the Federal agency, enter the Federal amount of the award/loan commitment for the prime entity identified in item 4 or 5.
10. (a) Enter the full name, address, city, State and zip code of the lobbying registrant under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 engaged by the reporting entity identified in item 4 to influence the covered Federal action.
(b) Enter the full names of the individual(s) performing services, and include full address if different from 10(a). Enter Last Name, First Name, and Middle Initial (MI).
11. The certifying official shall sign and date the form, print his/her name, title, and telephone number.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is OMB No. 0348-0046. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0348-0046), Washington, DC 20503.
In accordance with Executive Order #12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” Section 4, “the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall maintain a list of official State entities designated by the States to review and coordinate proposed financial assistance and direct Federal development.” This attached listing is the OFFICIAL OMB LISTING. OMB's point of contact for the SPOC list is Frederick J. Charney (202) 395-3993 or grants@omb.eop.gov. This listing is also published in the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance biannually.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.
General notice.
The purpose of this Notice is to announce preliminary guidance for notification of possession of select agents as mandated in Section 202(a) of Public Law 107-188 “Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.”
John R. Moore, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Program Planning and Evaluation, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop D-23, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone: (404) 639-7070.
On June 12, 2002, President George W. Bush signed Public Law 107-188 “Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.” Section 202(a) of the Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, within 30 days of enactment, to provide written guidance on how persons in possession of biological agents or toxins shall notify the Secretary of such possession. To meet this requirement, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted a proposed data collection instrument (see draft form below) and guidance document to the Office for Management and Budget (OMB) for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. CDC published a notice in the
Each facility should designate a responsible facility official (RFO) to complete this form by September 10, 2002. It is the responsibility of the RFO to ensure management oversight of this notification requirement. The RFO should be either a safety officer, a senior management official of the facility, or both, who has been authorized by the facility to complete and submit the notification form. The RFO should not be an individual who actually possesses, uses, or transfers such agents or toxins. To complete the notification form, the RFO will need to inventory its facility and consult with others (
Further guidance, the approved data collection instrument, and location of submission will be announced at a later date.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of amendment to approved Tribal-State Compact.
Under Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish, in the
This action is effective July 12, 2002.
George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian, Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.