10–19–01 Friday Vol. 66 No. 203 Oct. 19, 2001 Pages 53073–53328
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:23 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\19OCWS.LOC pfrm09 PsN: 19OCWS
1 II Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001
The FEDERAL REGISTER is published daily, Monday through SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, PUBLIC Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Subscriptions: Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Superintendent of Assistance with public subscriptions 512–1806 Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official edition. General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 Single copies/back copies: The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Paper or fiche 512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Assistance with public single copies 512–1803 Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 523–5243 Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 523–5243 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see http://www.nara.gov/ FEDERAL REGISTER WORKSHOP fedreg. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration THE FEDERAL REGISTER: WHAT IT IS AND authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication HOW TO USE IT established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. FOR: Any person who uses the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases WHO: Sponsored by the Office of the Federal Register. on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. WHAT: Free public briefings (approximately 3 hours) to present: 1. The regulatory process, with a focus on the Federal Register The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the system and the public’s role in the development of authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register regulations. as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6 a.m. each 2. The relationship between the Federal Register and Code day the Federal Register is published and it includes both text of Federal Regulations. and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. 3. The important elements of typical Federal Register documents. GPO Access users can choose to retrieve online Federal Register 4. An introduction to the finding aids of the FR/CFR system. documents as TEXT (ASCII text, graphics omitted), PDF (Adobe Portable Document Format, including full text and all graphics), WHY: To provide the public with access to information necessary to or SUMMARY (abbreviated text) files. Users should carefully check research Federal agency regulations which directly affect them. retrieved material to ensure that documents were properly There will be no discussion of specific agency regulations. downloaded. On the World Wide Web, connect to the Federal Register at http:/ WASHINGTON, DC /www.access.gpo.gov/nara. Those without World Wide Web access can also connect with a local WAIS client, by Telnet to WHEN: October 23, 2001—9:00 a.m. to noon swais.access.gpo.gov, or by dialing (202) 512-1661 with a computer WHERE: Office of the Federal Register and modem. When using Telnet or modem, type swais, then log Conference Room in as guest with no password. 800 North Capitol Street, NW. For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access Washington, DC User Support Team by E-mail at [email protected]; by fax at (202) 512–1262; or call (202) 512–1530 or 1–888–293–6498 (toll (3 blocks north of Union Station Metro) free) between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday–Friday, RESERVATIONS: 202–523–4538; or except Federal holidays. [email protected] The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $699, or $764 for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $264. Six month What’s NEW! subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The charge for individual copies in paper form is $10.00 for each issue, or Federal Register Table of Contents via e-mail $10.00 for each group of pages as actually bound; or $2.00 for Subscribe to FEDREGTOC, to receive the Federal Register Table of each issue in microfiche form. All prices include regular domestic Contents in your e-mail every day. postage and handling. International customers please add 25% for foreign handling. Remit check or money order, made payable to If you get the HTML version, you can click directly to any document the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit in the issue. Account, VISA, MasterCard or Discover. Mail to: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA To subscribe, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select: 15250–7954. Online mailing list archives There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing FEDREGTOC-L in the Federal Register. Join or leave the list How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the Then follow the instructions. page number. Example: 66 FR 12345.
.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:23 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\19OCWS.LOC pfrm09 PsN: 19OCWS
2 III
Contents Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 203
Friday, October 19, 2001
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Defense Department See Historic Preservation, Advisory Council See Army Department PROPOSED RULES Agricultural Marketing Service Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): RULES Architect-engineer contractors selection; new Tobacco inspection: consolidated form, 53313–53328 Flue-cured tobacco— Growers referendum results, 53075–53076 PROPOSED RULES Education Department Beef promotion and research, 53124–53130 NOTICES Agency information collection activities: Agriculture Department Submission for OMB review; comment request, 53213 See Agricultural Marketing Service See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Board See Federal Crop Insurance Corporation RULES See Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Program; implementation: Meetings: Third-party enhancement of guarantees; refinancing and National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, transfer restrictions, 53078–53080 and Economics Advisory Board, 53199–53200 Employment and Training Administration Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Adjustment assistance: Plant-related quarantine, domestic: Cookson Pigments, Inc., 53254 Mediterranean fruit fly, 53123–53124 Huntsman Polymers, 53254 PixTech, Inc., et al., 53254–53256 Army Department Plum Creek Timber, 53256 NOTICES Powermatic Corp., 53256 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Savannah Luggage Works, 53256–53257 Base realignment and closure— Sherwood, Harsco Corp., 53257 Camp Bonneville, WA, 53213 TDK Ferrites Corp., 53257 Triple-O, Inc., 53257–53258 Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase From Adjustment assistance and NAFTA transitional adjustment People Who Are assistance: See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind Arka Knitwear, 53250 or Severely Disabled Greenwood Mills, Inc., et al., 53250–53252 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Hasbro Manufacturing Services, 53252 NOTICES Rosboro Lumber Co., 53252–53253 Agency information collection activities: Summit Timber Co., 53253 Proposed collection; comment request, 53223–53225 Willamette Industries, Inc., 53253 NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance: Coast Guard Eaton Corp., 53258 RULES GE Harris Harmon Railway Technology Corp., 53258 Drawbridge operations: Graphic Controls, 53258–53259 Louisiana; correction, 53088–53089 Pratt & Whitney HAC, 53259 Triple-O, Inc., 53259 Commerce Department See International Trade Administration Employment Standards Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES See Patent and Trademark Office Minimum wages for Federal and federally-assisted construction; general wage determination decisions, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or 53259–53261 Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement list; additions and deletions, 53201–53202 Energy Department Procurement list; additions and deletions; correction, 53202 See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Customs Service Physicians panel determinations on worker requests for NOTICES assistance in filing for State workers’ compensation Senior Executive Service: benefits; guidelines Performance Review Boards; membership, 53285–53286 Hearing, 53130–53131
VerDate 11
Environmental Protection Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and Flood elevation determinations: promulgation; various States; air quality planning Various States, 53112–53121 purposes; designation of areas: PROPOSED RULES Pennsylvania, 53094–53106 Flood elevation determinations: Air quality implementation plans; approval and Various States, 53182–53191 promulgation; various States: NOTICES Pennsylvania, 53090–53094 Agency information collection activities: Air quality planning purposes; designation of areas: Proposed collection; comment request, 53221–53222 California, 53106–53112 Disaster and emergency areas: PROPOSED RULES Florida, 53222 Air pollution control: State operating permits programs— Federal Energy Regulatory Commission California, 53140–53178 PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Natural Gas Policy Act: Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Interstate natural gas pipelines— Agency statements— Business practice standards, 53134–53139 Comment availability, 53219 NOTICES Weekly receipts, 53218–53219 Hydroelectric applications, 53215–53218 Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Executive Office of the President Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 53214–53215 See Presidential Documents Federal Highway Administration Export-Import Bank PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Engineering and traffic operations: Agency information collection activities: Design-build contracting, 53287–53311 Proposed collection; comment request, 53219–53220 Federal Reserve System Federal Aviation Administration RULES RULES Depository institutions; reserve requirements (Regulation Airworthiness directives: D): Dornier, 53080–53083 Low reserve tranche, reserve requirement exemption, and Honeywell, 53083–53085 deposit reporting cutoff level; annual indexing, Standard instrument approach procedures, 53085–53088 53076–53078 PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Airworthiness directives: Banks and bank holding companies: CFM International, S.A., 53131–53132 Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 53222 Restricted areas, 53132–53134 Permissible nonbanking activities, 53222–53223 NOTICES Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; task Food and Drug Administration assignments, 53281–53282 RULES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Human drugs: Continued airworthiness instructions, 53282–53283 Cold, cough, allergy, bronchodilator, and antiasthmatic products (OTC)— Federal Communications Commission Combination products containing brochodilator; PROPOSED RULES correction, 53088 Frequency allocations and radio treaty matters: NOTICES Mobile satellite service providers; flexible use of assigned Meetings: spectrum over land-based transmitters, 53191–53192 Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 53225 Radio stations; table of assignments: Pharmaceutical Science Advisory Committee, 53225– Georgia, 53192–53193 53226 Texas, 53192 NOTICES Food and Nutrition Service Agency information collection activities: NOTICES Submission for OMB review; comment request, 53220 Agency information collection activities: Proposed collection; comment request, 53200–53201 Federal Crop Insurance Corporation RULES General Services Administration Crop insurance regulations: PROPOSED RULES Forage seeding crop Acquisition regulations: Correction, 53076 Real property leasehold interests; historic preference, 53193–53194 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): NOTICES Architect-engineer contractors selection; new Meetings; Sunshine Act, 53220–53221 consolidated form, 53313–53328
VerDate 11
NOTICES Various countries, 53206 Acquisition regulations: Leave Recipient Application Under Voluntary Leave Labor Department Transfer Program (OF 630); form cancellation, 53223 See Employment and Training Administration See Employment Standards Administration Geological Survey See Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES NOTICES Agency information collection activities: Agency information collection activities: Submission for OMB review; comment request, 53247– Submission for OMB review; comment request, 53248– 53248 53250
Health and Human Services Department Libraries and Information Science, National Commission See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See National Commission on Libraries and Information See Food and Drug Administration Science See Health Resources and Services Administration See National Institutes of Health Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Petitions for safety standard modifications; summary of Genetic Testing Advisory Committee, 53223 affirmative decisions, 53261–53266 Health Resources and Services Administration National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities: PROPOSED RULES Proposed collection; comment request, 53226 Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Meetings: Architect-engineer contractors selection; new Maternal and Child Health Research Grants Review consolidated form, 53313–53328 Committee, 53226–53227 National Commission on Libraries and Information Nurse Education and Practice National Advisory Council, Science 53227 NOTICES Historic Preservation, Advisory Council Meetings; Sunshine Act, 53266 NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Projects involving historic natural gas pipelines; historic NOTICES preservation review process, 53198–53199 Motor vehicle safety standards; exemption petitions, etc.: Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 53283–53284 Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES National Institutes of Health Agency information collection activities: NOTICES Proposed collection; comment request, 53232–53241 Meetings: Grant and cooperative agreement awards: National Eye Institute, 53227 Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 53227 Communities Program, 53241 National Human Genome Research Institute, 53227– Community Outreach Partnership Centers, 53241–53242 53228 Indian Housing Drug Elimination Program, 53242–53244 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Tribal Colleges and Universities Program, 53244–53245 53229 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, Facilities to assist homeless— 53228–53229 Excess and surplus Federal property, 53245–53247 Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, 53229 Scientific Review Center, 53229–53231 Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Agency information collection activities: RULES Proposed collection; comment request, 53248 Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Interior Department Pacific Halibut Donation Program; correction, 53122 See Geological Survey PROPOSED RULES See Indian Affairs Bureau Endangered and threatened species: Harbor porpoise; Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy population; International Trade Administration status review, 53195–53197 NOTICES Sea turtle conservation requirements Antidumping: Correction, 53194–53195 Cold-rolled and corrosion resistant carbon steel flat NOTICES products from— Agency information collection activities: Korea, 53202–53203 Submission for OMB review; comment request, 53209 Greenhouse tomatoes from— Marine mammals: Canada, 53203–53206 Incidental taking; authorization letters, etc.— Silicomanganese from— Washington State; California sea lions; pinniped India, 53207–53209 removal authority, 53210–53211
VerDate 11
Meetings: State Department New England Fishery Management Council, 53209–53210 NOTICES Art objects; importation for exhibition: National Science Foundation Emergence of Jewish Artists in Nineteenth Century NOTICES Europe, 53280 Meetings: Meetings: Biological Sciences Advisory Committee, 53266 North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission, U.S. Education and Human Resources Advisory Committee, Section Advisory Panel, 53280–53281 53266 NSB Public Service Award Committee, 53266–53267 Surface Transportation Board President’s Committee on National Medal of Science, NOTICES 53267 Motor carriers: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Control applications— NOTICES Americanos U.S.A., L.L.C., et al., 53284–53285 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Rail carriers: University of Missouri-Columbia, 53267–53269 Waybill data; release for use, 53285 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., 53269–53270 Railroad operation, acquisition, construction, etc.: Meetings: Kansas City Southern Railway Co. et al., 53285 Nuclear industry consolidation and deregulation issues; workshop, 53270–53271 Transportation Department Regulatory guides; issuance, availability, and withdrawal, See Coast Guard 53271 See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration Patent and Trademark Office See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES See Surface Transportation Board Agency information collection activities: NOTICES Proposed collection; comment request, 53211–53212 Meetings: Hazardous materials transportation; knowledge required Postal Service for civil penalty enforcement proceedings, 53281 RULES International Mail Manual: Treasury Department Global Express Mail; discounted rates for online customers, 53089–53090 See Customs Service Presidential Documents Veterans Affairs Department ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS PROPOSED RULES Colombia; continuation of emergency with respect to Adjudication; pensions, compensation, dependency, etc.: narcotics traffickers (Notice of October 16, 2001), 53073 Acceptable evidence from foreign countries, 53139–53140 Public Health Service See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration Separate Parts In This Issue See Health Resources and Services Administration See National Institutes of Health Part II Department of Transportation; Federal Highway Securities and Exchange Commission Administration, 53287–53311 NOTICES Joint Industry Plan: Part III National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., et al., Department of Defense; General Services Administration; 53271–53273 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Meetings; Sunshine Act, 53273–53274 53313–53328 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 53274–53276 National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 53276– 53280 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for Small Business Administration phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, NOTICES and notice of recently enacted public laws. Meetings: To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents Regulatory Fairness Boards— LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// Wyoming, 53280 listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list Meetngs; district and regional advisory councils: archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change Wisconsin, 53280 settings); then follow the instructions.
VerDate 11
CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE
A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.
3 CFR 73 (2 documents) ...... 53192 Executive Orders: 48 CFR 12978 (See Notice of Proposed Rules: October 16, 2001)...... 53073 1...... 53314 Administrative Orders: 36...... 53314 Notices: 53...... 53314 October 16, 2001...... 53073 552...... 53193 7 CFR 50 CFR 29...... 53075 679...... 53122 457...... 53076 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 222...... 53194 301...... 53123 223 (2 documents) ...... 53194, 1260 (2 documents) ...... 53124, 53195 53127 10 CFR Proposed Rules: 852...... 53130 12 CFR 204...... 53076 13 CFR 400...... 53078 14 CFR 39 (2 documents) ...... 53080, 53083 97 (2 documents) ...... 53085, 53087 Proposed Rules: 39...... 53131 73...... 53132 18 CFR Proposed Rules: 284...... 53134 21 CFR 310...... 53088 23 CFR Proposed Rules: 627...... 53288 635...... 53288 636...... 53288 637...... 53288 710...... 53288 33 CFR 117...... 53088 38 CFR Proposed Rules: 3...... 53139 39 CFR 20...... 53089 40 CFR 52 (2 documents) ...... 53090, 53094 81 (2 documents) ...... 53094, 53106 Proposed Rules: 70 (10 documents) ...... 53140, 53148, 53151, 53155, 53159, 53163, 53167, 53170, 53174, 53178 44 CFR 65 (3 documents) ...... 53112, 53114, 53115 67...... 53117 Proposed Rules: 67 (2 documents) ...... 53182, 53190 47 CFR Proposed Rules: 2...... 53191
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:26 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\19OCLS.LOC pfrm09 PsN: 19OCLS 53073
Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 66, No. 203
Friday, October 19, 2001
Title 3— Notice of October 16, 2001
The President Continuation of Emergency With Respect to Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia
On October 21, 1995, by Executive Order 12978, the President declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia, and the unparalleled violence, corruption, and harm such actions cause in the United States and abroad. The order blocks all property and interests in property that are in the United States or within the possession or control of United States persons or foreign persons listed in an annex to the order, as well as of foreign persons determined to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia. The order similarly blocks all property and interests in property of foreign persons determined to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to the order, or persons determined to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated in or pursuant to the order. The order also prohibits any transaction or dealing by United States persons or within the United States in such property or interests in property. Because the actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and to cause unparalleled violence, corruption, and harm in the United States and abroad, the national emergency declared on October 21, 1995, and the measures adopted pursuant thereto to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond October 21, 2001. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency for 1 year with respect to significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. W THE WHITE HOUSE, October 16, 2001. [FR Doc. 01–26536 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–01–P
VerDate 11
Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 203
Friday, October 19, 2001
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), full contains regulatory documents having general was published in the May 2, 2001, issue consideration has been given to the applicability and legal effect, most of which of the Federal Register (66 FR 21888) potential economic impact upon small are keyed to and codified in the Code of announcing that a referendum would be business. All tobacco warehouses and Federal Regulations, which is published under conducted among active flue-cured producers fall within the confines of 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. producers who sold tobacco on either ‘‘small business’’ which are defined by The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by Fairmont-Fair Bluff or Loris during the the Small Business Administration (13 the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of 2000 season to ascertain if such CFR 121.201) as those having annual new books are listed in the first FEDERAL producers favored the consolidation. receipts of less that $500,000, and small REGISTER issue of each week. The notice of referendum announced agricultural service firms are defined as the determination by the Secretary that those whose annual receipts are less the consolidated market of Fairmont- that $3,500,000. There are DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Fair Bluff and Loris, would be approximately 190 tobacco warehouses designated as a flue-cured tobacco and approximately 30,000 producers. Agricultural Marketing Service auction market and receive mandatory This action will not substantially affect Federal grading of tobacco sold at the normal movement of the commodity 7 CFR Part 29 auction for the 2001 and succeeding in the marketplace. It has been seasons, subject to the results of the determined that this action will not [Docket No. TB–00–23] referendum. The determination was have a significant impact on a based on the evidence and arguments substantial number of small entities. Tobacco Inspection; Growers’ presented at a public hearing held in, It is hereby found and determined Referendum Results Tabor City, North Carolina, on that good cause exists for not AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, November 9, 2000, pursuant to postponing the effective date of this rule USDA. applicable provisions of the regulations until 30 days after publication in the issued under the Tobacco Inspection Federal Register because the 2001 flue- ACTION: Final rule. Act, as amended. The referendum was cured marketing season will begin about SUMMARY: This document contains the held in accordance with the provisions July 24 and this action is needed as soon determination with respect to the of the Tobacco Inspection Act, as as possible to establish the sales referendum on the merger of Fairmont- amended (7 U.S.C. 511d) and the schedule for the season. regulations set forth in 7 CFR 29.74. Fair Bluff, North Carolina and Loris, List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 29 South Carolina, to become the Ballots for the June 4–8, 2001, consolidated market of Fairmont-Fair referendum were mailed to 935 Administrative practices and Bluff-Loris. A mail referendum was producers. Approval required votes in procedures, Advisory committees, conducted during the period of June 4– favor of the proposal by two-thirds of Government publications, Imports, 8, 2001, among tobacco growers who the eligible voters who cast valid Pesticides and pests, Reporting and sold tobacco on these markets in 2000 ballots. The Department received a total recordkeeping procedures, Tobacco. to determine producer approval/ of 213 responses: 168 eligible producers For the reasons set forth in the disapproval of the designation of these voted in favor of the consolidation; 16 preamble, 7 CFR part 29 is amended as markets as one consolidated market. eligible producers voted against the follows: Therefore, for the 2001 and succeeding consolidation; and 29 ballots were flue-cured marketing seasons, the determined to be invalid. PART 29—TOBACCO INSPECTION Fairmont-Fair Bluff, North Carolina and The Department of Agriculture is Subpart D—Order of Designation of Loris, South Carolina, tobacco markets issuing this rule in conformance with Tobacco Markets shall be designated as Fairmont-Fair Executive Order 12866. This final rule has been reviewed Bluff-Loris. The regulations are under Executive Order 12988, Civil 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR amended to reflect this new designated Justice Reform. This action is not part 29, Subpart D, continues to read as market. intended to have retroactive effect. The follows: EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 2001. final rule will not exempt any State or Authority: Sec. 5, 49 Stat, 732, as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: local laws, regulations, or policies, amended, by Sec. 157(a)(1), 95 Stat. 374 (7 William O. Coats, Associate Deputy unless they present an irreconcilable U.S.C. 511d). Administrator, Tobacco Programs, conflict with this rule. There are no 2. In § 29.8001, the table is amended Agricultural Marketing Service, United administrative procedures which must by adding a new entry (qqq) to read as States Department of Agriculture, Stop be exhausted prior to any judicial follows: 0280, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., challenge to the provisions of this rule. Washington, DC 20250–0280; telephone Additionally, in conformance with § 29.8001 Designation of tobacco markets. number (202) 205–0508. the provisions of the Regulatory * * * * *
VerDate 11
DESIGNATED TOBACCO MARKETS
Territory Types of tobacco Auction markets Order of designation Citation
******* (qqq) North Carolina, South Flue-Cured ...... Fairmont-Fair Bluff-Loris ...... October 22, 2001 ...... 66 FR 53076. Carolina.
Dated: October 12, 2001. Correction of Publication 2002, as required by section 19(b)(2)(C) Kenneth C. Clayton, of the Federal Reserve Act, from $42.8 Accordingly, the publication on million to $41.3 million of net Associate Administrator, Agricultural August 15, 2001, of the final regulation Marketing Service. transaction accounts. This adjustment is at 66 FR 42729–42730 is corrected as known as the low reserve tranche [FR Doc. 01–26393 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] follows: BILLING CODE 3410–02–P adjustment. The Board is increasing PART 457—[CORRECTED] from $5.5 million to $5.7 million the amount of reservable liabilities of each DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE § 457.151 [Corrected] depository institution that is subject to On page 42730, in the third column a reserve requirement of zero percent in Federal Crop Insurance Corporation in § 457.151, the crop provisions section 2002. This action is required by section 13(b) is corrected to read as follows: 19(b)(11)(B) of the Federal Reserve Act, 7 CFR Part 457 and the adjustment is known as the * * * * * (b) The acres with an established reservable liabilities exemption Common Crop Insurance Regulations; adjustment. The Board is also increasing Forage Seeding Crop Provisions stand will include: (1) Acreage that has at least 75 percent the deposit cutoff level that is used in of a normal stand; conjunction with the reservable AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance liabilities exemption to determine the Corporation, USDA. (2) Acreage abandoned or put to another use without our prior written frequency of deposit reporting from ACTION: Final rule; correction. consent; $101.0 million to $106.9 million for (3) Acreage damaged solely by an nonexempt depository institutions. SUMMARY: This document contains uninsured cause; or (Nonexempt institutions are those with corrections to the final regulation which (4) Acreage that is harvested and not total reservable liabilities exceeding the was published Wednesday, August 15, reseeded. amount exempted from reserve 2001 (66 FR 42729–42730). The requirements.) Thus, beginning in regulation pertains to the Forage * * * * * September 2002, nonexempt institutions Seeding Crop Provisions for 2003 and Signed in Washington, DC, on October 15, with total deposits of $106.9 million or subsequent crop years. 2001. more will be required to report weekly Phyllis W. Honor, while nonexempt institutions with total EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective deposits less than $106.9 million may upon publication in the Federal Acting Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. report quarterly, in both cases on form Register. [FR Doc. 01–26396 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] FR 2900. Exempt institutions with at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 3410–08–P least $5.7 million in total deposits may Arden Routh, Insurance Management report annually on form FR 2910a. Specialist, Product Development DATES: Effective date: November 19, Division, Federal Crop Insurance FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 2001. Corporation, United States Department Compliance dates: For depository of Agriculture, 6501 Beacon Drive, 12 CFR Part 204 institutions that report weekly, the low reserve tranche adjustment and the Kansas City, MO, 64133, telephone [Regulation D; Docket No. R–1113] (816) 926–7730. reservable liabilities exemption adjustment will apply to the reserve SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions computation period that begins Background Tuesday, November 27, 2001, and the AGENCY: Board of Governors of the corresponding reserve maintenance The final regulation that is the subject Federal Reserve System. period that begins Thursday, December of this correction was to provide policy ACTION: Final rule. 27, 2001. For institutions that report changes to better meet the needs of the quarterly, the low reserve tranche insured. SUMMARY: The Board is amending adjustment and the reservable liabilities Need for Correction Regulation D, Reserve Requirements of exemption adjustment will apply to the Depository Institutions, to reflect the reserve computation period that begins As published, the final regulations annual indexing of the low reserve Tuesday, December 18, 2001, and the contained an error which may prove to tranche and the reserve requirement corresponding reserve maintenance be misleading and is in need of exemption for 2002, and announces the period that begins Thursday, January 17, correcting. The final rule for the Forage annual indexing of the deposit reporting 2002. For all depository institutions, the Seeding Crop Provisions did not contain cutoff level that will be effective deposit cutoff level will be used to language in section 13(b) that ‘‘Acreage beginning in September 2002. The screen institutions in the second quarter that is harvested and not reseeded,’’ will amendments decrease the amount of of 2002 to determine the reporting be included as acreage with an transaction accounts subject to a reserve frequency for the twelve month period established stand. requirement ratio of three percent in that begins in September 2002.
VerDate 11
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for 2002 under section 19(b)(11)(B) will panels will be implemented in Heatherun Allison, Counsel (202/452– be increased by $0.2 million from $5.5 September 2002. 3565), Legal Division, or June O’Brien, million to $5.7 million.1 Thus, effective in September 2002, all Economist (202/452–3790), Division of The effect of the application of section U.S. branches and agencies of foreign Monetary Affairs; for users of 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act to the banks and Edge and agreement Telecommunications Device for the Deaf change in the total net transaction corporations, regardless of size, and (TDD) only, please call 202/263–4869; accounts and the change in the total other institutions with total reservable Board of Governors of the Federal reservable liabilities from June 30, 2000, liabilities exceeding $5.7 million Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, to June 30, 2001, is to decrease the low (nonexempt institutions) and with total NW., Washington, DC 20551. reserve tranche to $41.3 million, to deposits at or above $106.9 million SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section apply a zero percent reserve would be required to file weekly the 19(b)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 requirement on the first $5.7 million of Report of Transaction Accounts, Other U.S.C. 461(b)(2)) requires each net transaction accounts, and to apply a Deposits and Vault Cash (form FR 2900). depository institution to maintain three percent reserve requirement on the Nonexempt institutions with total reserves against its transaction accounts remainder of the low reserve tranche. deposits below $106.9 million could file the FR 2900 quarterly. Institutions that and nonpersonal time deposits, as For institutions that report weekly, obtain funds from non-U.S. sources or prescribed by Board regulations. The the tranche adjustment and the that have foreign branches or IBFs required reserve ratio applicable to reservable liabilities exemption would continue to be required to file the transaction account balances exceeding adjustment will be effective for the Report of Certain Eurocurrency the low reserve tranche is 10 percent. fourteen-day reserve computation Transactions (forms FR 2950/FR 2951) Section 19(b)(2) also provides that, period beginning Tuesday, November at the same frequency as they file the before December 31 of each year, the 27, 2001, and for the corresponding form FR 2900. Institutions with Board shall issue a regulation adjusting fourteen-day reserve maintenance reservable liabilities at or below the the low reserve tranche for the next period beginning Thursday, December exemption amount of $5.7 million calendar year. The adjustment in the 27, 2001. For institutions that report (exempt institutions) and with at least tranche is to be 80 percent of the quarterly, the tranche adjustment and $5.7 million in total deposits would be percentage increase or decrease in net the reservable liabilities exemption required to file the Annual Report of transaction accounts at all depository adjustment will be effective for the Total Deposits and Reservable institutions over the one-year period seven-day computation period Liabilities (form FR 2910a). Institutions that ends on the June 30 prior to the beginning Tuesday, December 18, 2001, with total deposits below the exemption adjustment. and for the corresponding seven-day level of $5.7 million would be excused Currently, the low reserve tranche on reserve maintenance period beginning from reporting if their deposits can be net transaction accounts is $42.8 Thursday, January 17, 2002. estimated from other data sources. million. Net transaction accounts of all In order to reduce the reporting Finally, the Board may require a depository institutions decreased by 4.3 burden for small institutions, the Board depository institution to report on a percent (from $619.3 billion to $592.8 has established deposit reporting cutoff weekly basis, regardless of the cutoff billion) from June 30, 2000, to June 30, levels to determine deposit reporting level, if the institution manipulates its 2001. In accordance with section frequency. In July 2000, the Board total deposits and other reservable 19(b)(2), the Board is amending specified that the annual percentage liabilities in order to qualify for Regulation D (12 CFR part 204) to increase in the nonexempt deposit quarterly reporting. Similarly, any decrease the low reserve tranche for cutoff be set equal to 80 percent of the depository institution that reports transaction accounts for 2002 by $1.5 growth rate of total deposits at all quarterly may be required to report million to $41.3 million. depository institutions over the one-year weekly and to maintain appropriate Section 19(b)(11)(B) of the Federal period ending on the most recent June reserve balances with its Reserve Bank Reserve Act provides that, before 30. if, during its computation period, it December 31 of each year, the Board From June 30, 2000, to June 30, 2001, understates its usual reservable shall issue a regulation adjusting for the total deposits increased 7.3 percent, liabilities or overstates the deductions next calendar year the dollar amount of from $5,216.0 billion to $5,596.6 billion. allowed in computing required reserve reservable liabilities exempt from Accordingly, the nonexempt deposit balances. reserve requirements. Unlike the cutoff level will increase by $5.9 million Notice. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. adjustment for the low reserve tranche from $101.0 million in 2001 to $106.9 553(b) relating to notice of proposed on net transaction accounts, which million in 2002. Based on the rulemaking have not been followed in adjustment can result in a decrease as indexation of the reservable liabilities connection with the adoption of these well as an increase, the change in the exemption, the cutoff level for total amendments. The amendments involve exemption amount is to be made only if deposits above which reports of expected, ministerial adjustments the total reservable liabilities held at all deposits must be filed will rise from prescribed by statute and by the Board’s depository institutions increase from $5.5 million to $5.7 million. Under the policy concerning reporting practices. In one year to the next. The percentage deposit reporting system, institutions addition, the reservable liabilities increase in the exemption is to be 80 are screened during each year to exemption adjustment and the increases percent of the increase in total determine their reporting category for reporting purposes in the deposit reservable liabilities of all depository beginning in the September of that year. cutoff levels reduce regulatory burdens institutions as of the year ending June Hence, the cutoff level would be used in on depository institutions, and the low 30. Total reservable liabilities of all the 2002 deposit report screening reserve tranche adjustment will have a depository institutions increased by 5.1 process and new deposit reporting de minimis effect on depository percent (from $2,200.0 billion to institutions with net transaction $2,313.1 billion) from June 30, 2000, to 1 Consistent with Board practice, the tranche and accounts exceeding $41.3 million. June 30, 2001. Consequently, the exemption amounts have been rounded to the Accordingly, the Board finds good cause reservable liabilities exemption amount nearest $0.1 million. for determining, and so determines, that
VerDate 11
notice in accordance with 12 U.S.C. For the reasons set forth in the 2. Section 204.9 is revised to read as 552(b) is unnecessary. preamble, the Board is amending 12 follows: CFR part 204 as follows: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis § 204.9 Reserve requirement ratios. PART 204—RESERVE The Board certifies that these (a) Reserve percentages. The following amendments will not have a substantial REQUIREMENTS OF DEPOSITORY reserve ratios are prescribed for all economic impact on small depository INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION D) depository institutions, Edge and institutions. 1. The authority citation for part 204 Agreement corporations, and United List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 204 continues to read as follows: States branches and agencies of foreign Banks, banking, Reporting and Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(a), 248(c), 371a, banks: recordkeeping requirements. 461, 601, 611, and 3105.
Category Reserve requirement 1
Net transaction accounts: $0 to $41.3 million ...... 3 percent of amount. Over $41.3 million ...... $1,239,000 plus 10 percent of amount over $41.3 million. Nonpersonal time deposits ...... 0 percent. Eurocurrency liabilities ...... 0 percent. 1 Before deducting the adjustment to be made by the paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Exemption from reserve DATES: This rule is effective October 19, pending application that is not available requirements. Each depository 2001. to other members of the Board. Section institution, Edge or agreement FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 400.205 is being modified to reflect that corporation, and U.S. branch or agency Marguerite S. Owen, General Counsel, the Board has extended the deadline for of a foreign bank is subject to a zero Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Board, applications from April 2, 2001 to percent reserve requirement on an 1099—14th Street, NW., Suite 2600 August 31, 2001. With respect to amount of its transaction accounts East, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 219– increasing lender participation, a new subject to the low reserve tranche in 0584. § 400.215 is added to allow for paragraph (a) of this section not in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On supplemental guarantees by third excess of $5.7 million determined in October 27, 1999, the Board published parties, including state and local accordance with § 204.3(a)(3). a final rule codifying at Chapter 4, Title governments and related provisions are By order of the Board of Governors of the 13, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), being modified to reflect that change. Federal Reserve System, October 12, 2001. regulations implementing the Program, Section 400.210 is being modified to Jennifer J. Johnson, as established in Chapter 1 of Public allow for transfers of interests in Secretary of the Board. Law 106–51, the Emergency Steel Loan guaranteed loans to Eligible Lenders without prior Board approval. Section [FR Doc. 01–26197 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Guarantee Act of 1999 (64 FR 57932). Since those initial regulations were 400.201 is being amended to allow BILLING CODE 6210–01–P published the Board has made a number refinancing of the applicant lender’s of changes to the regulations meant to existing credit if the applicant’s risk conform the regulations to the exposure is at least substantially EMERGENCY STEEL GUARANTEE Guarantee Agreement between the equivalent. LOAN BOARD government and the lender, to allow for Public Law 106–51 has a requirement 13 CFR Part 400 participations in unguaranteed tranches that the Board take into account the of loans guaranteed under the Program, prospective earning power of the RIN 3003–ZA00 to harmonize certain program Borrower together with the nature and requirements with commercial lending character of the security pledged in Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan practices, streamline program operation, making a determination that there is a Program; Third-party Enhancement of open a second period for the submission reasonable assurance of repayment of Guarantees; Refinancing and Transfer of applications and allow for certain the loan sought to be guaranteed. The Restrictions delegations of authority. Today the Program’s regulations, at § 400.207, AGENCY: Emergency Steel Guarantee Board is making additional changes currently describe the Board’s Loan Board. designed to align Program assessment of the nature and character ACTION: Final rule. administration with legal requirements of the security pledged for a loan, but and to increase participation by lenders do not address the Board’s review of the SUMMARY: The Emergency Steel in the Program. Section 400.106 is being prospective earning power of the Guarantee Loan Board (Board) is revised to reflect the fact that the Borrower. However, in compliance with amending the regulations governing the Program’s evaluation process is no the law, the Board has always evaluated Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan longer competitive and hence the the Borrower’s prospective earning Program (Program). These changes are concept of ex parte communications is power in making a determination meant to provide for supplemental no longer applicable. As revised, the whether there is a reasonable assurance guarantees by third parties and to rule prohibits only communications not of repayment of the loan sought to be change restrictions on refinancing on the public record between a member guaranteed. This rule will amend the existing credit and on loan guarantee of the Board and an interested party, in Board’s regulations to make clear that transfers by Lenders. The intent of these order to avoid a situation where one the Board does assess a Borrower’s changes is to increase participation in member of the Board receives or prospective earning power in making the Program by lenders. conveys information concerning a such a determination. In particular, the
VerDate 11
rule makes clear that an essential and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (l) Security means all property, real or necessary criterion of the Board’s This rule contains no Federal personal, required by the provisions of evaluation of the application will be the mandates, as that term is defined in the the Guarantee or by the Loan commitment of the Borrower to Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, on Documents to secure repayment of any undertake steps to eliminate or reduce State, local and tribal governments or indebtedness of the Borrower under the economically unviable capacity. the private sector. Loan Documents or Guarantee. It does On June 5, 2001, President Bush not include a Supplemental Guarantee. announced a three-pronged steel Executive Order 13132 * * * * * initiative aimed at addressing the This rule does not contain policies (n) Supplemental Guarantee means a current problems of the U.S. steel having federalism implications guarantee provided by one or more third industry, eliminating inefficient excess requiring preparation of a Federalism parties, public or private, of part of the capacity globally and restoring market Summary Impact Statement. Unguaranteed Portion of a guaranteed forces to world steel trade. A key loan. component of this initiative is the Executive Order 12630 (o) Unguaranteed Portion means the restructuring and rationalization of the This rule does not contain policies portion of the principal of a loan that is steel industry, both at home and abroad, that have takings implications. not covered by the Guarantee. with a particular focus on reducing or List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 400 2. Section 400.106 is revised to read eliminating economically unviable as follows: steelmaking capacity. The Board’s Administrative practice and evaluation of the prospective earning procedure, Loan programs-steel, § 400.106 Ex parte communications. power of a Borrower is in compliance Reporting and recordkeeping Oral or written communication, not with the President’s initiative and seeks requirements. on the public record, between any to further its goals by reviewing Dated: October 15, 2001. member of the Board and any party or restructuring efforts aimed at the Daniel J. Rooney, parties interested in any matter pending before the Board concerning the reduction or elimination of Executive Secretary, Emergency Steel economically unviable capacity in Guarantee Loan Board. substance of that matter is prohibited. making a determination whether to 3. Section 400.201 is amended by For the reasons set forth in the approve a Loan Guarantee. revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read preamble, 13 CFR part 400 is amended as follows: Administrative Law Requirements as follows: § 400.201 Eligible Lender. Executive Order 12866 PART 400—EMERGENCY STEEL * * * * * This final rule has been determined GUARANTEE LOAN PROGRAM (c) Status as a Lender under paragraph not to be significant for purposes of 1. The authority citation of part 400 (a) of this section does not assure that Executive Order 12866. continues to read as follows: the Board will issue the Guarantee sought, or otherwise preclude the Board Administrative Procedure Act Authority: Pub. L. 106–51, 113 Stat. 252 (15 U.S.C. 1841 note); Pub. L. 106–102, 113 from declining to issue a Guarantee. In This rule is exempt from the addition to evaluating an application rulemaking requirements contained in 5 Stat. 1338. 1a. Section 400.2 is amended by pursuant to § 400.207, in making a U.S.C. 553 pursuant to authority redesignating paragraphs (h) through (l) determination to issue a Guarantee to a contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) as it as paragraphs (i) through (m), adding Lender, the Board will assess: involves a matter relating to loans. As new paragraphs (h), (n) and (o), and (1) The Agent Lender’s level of such, prior notice and an opportunity revising paragraph (a) and newly regulatory capital, in the case of banking for public comment and a delay in redesignated paragraphs (j) and (l), to institutions, or net worth, in the case of effective date otherwise required under read as follows: investment institutions; 5 U.S.C. 553 are inapplicable to this (2) Whether the Agent Lender rule. § 400.2 Definitions. possesses the ability to administer the Regulatory Flexibility Act (a) Act means the Emergency Steel loan, as required by § 400.211(b), Loan Guarantee Act of 1999, Chapter 1 including its experience with loans to Because this rule is not subject to a of Public Law 106–51 (113 Stat. 252), as steel companies; requirement to provide prior notice and amended. (3) The scope, volume and duration of an opportunity for public comment the Agent Lender’s activity in pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other * * * * * (h) Guaranteed Portion means the administering loans; law, the analytical requirements of the portion of the principal of a loan that is (4) The performance of the Agent Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 subject to the Guarantee. Lender’s loan portfolio, including its et seq., are inapplicable. current delinquency rate; * * * * * (5) The Agent Lender’s loss rate as a Congressional Review Act (j) Loan Documents mean the loan percentage of loan amounts for its This rule has been determined to be agreement and all other instruments, current fiscal year; and not major for purposes of the and all documentation between the (6) Any other matter the Board deems Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 Lender and the Borrower evidencing the material to its assessment of the Agent et seq. making, disbursing, securing, collecting, Lender. or otherwise administering of the loan. (d) A proposed loan for the purpose, Intergovernmental Review It includes any agreement and other in whole or in part, of refinancing No intergovernmental consultations documents relating to a Supplemental existing credit provided by the Agent with State and local officials are Guarantee. Loan Documents may not be will not be approved unless the Board required because the rule is not subject modified without the prior written is satisfied that the Agent retains at least to the provisions of Executive Order approval of the Board. a substantially equivalent level of risk as 12372 or Executive Order 12875. * * * * * a result of the refinancing.
VerDate 11
4. Section 400.203 is revised to read Applications will not be accepted via (d) The Agent must hold and may not as follows: facsimile machine transmission or assign or transfer an interest in a loan electronic mail. guaranteed under the Program equal to § 400.203 Guarantee percentage. (b) * * * at least the lesser of $25 million or A guarantee issued by the Board may (12) A description of any fifteen percent of the aggregate amount not exceed 85 percent of the amount of Supplemental Guarantee(s) that will of the loan. In addition, the Agent must the principal of a loan to a Qualified apply to the Unguaranteed Portion of hold and may not assign or transfer an Steel Company. Subject to the the loan. interest the Unguaranteed Portion of the provisions of this part, one or more * * * * * loan equal to at least the minimum third parties, public or private, may 7. Section 400.207 is amended by amount of the loan required to be held guarantee repayment of part of the revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as by the Agent under the preceding Unguaranteed Portion of a loan follows: sentence multiplied by the percentage of guaranteed by the Board. the loan represented by the 5. Section 400.204 is amended by § 400.207 Application evaluation. Unguaranteed Portion. A non-Agent revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(3) to * * * * * Lender must hold and may not assign or read as follows: (b) * * * transfer an interest in the Unguaranteed (1) The ability of the Borrower to Portion of the loan representing no less § 400.204 Loan terms. repay the loan by the date specified in than five percent of such Lender’s total * * * * * the Loan Document, which shall be no interest in the loan; provided, that a (c) * * * later than December 31, 2005. non-Agent Lender may transfer its (2) * * * Evaluation of this factor will consider interest in the Unguaranteed Portion (i) A fully perfected and enforceable the prospective earning power of the after payment of the Guaranteed Portion security interest and/or lien, with first Borrower. An essential and necessary has been made under the Guarantee. priority over conflicting security element of the Board’s evaluation of 10. Section 400.215 is added to read interests or other liens in all property whether this criterion is satisfied is as follows: acquired, improved or derived from the whether the applicant has committed to § 400.215 Supplemental Guarantees. loan funds; undertake significant efforts to eliminate * * * * * or reduce economically unviable The Board will allow the structure of (3) The entire loan will be secured by capacity; a guaranteed loan to include one or the same Security with equal lien more Supplemental Guarantees that * * * * * cover the Unguaranteed Portion of the priority for the Guaranteed Portion and 8. Section 400.208 is amended by the Unguaranteed Portion of the loan. loan; provided that: revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as (a) There shall be no Supplemental The Unguaranteed Portion of the loan follows: Guarantee with respect to the will neither be paid first nor given any Unguaranteed Portion required to be preference over the Guaranteed Portion. § 400.208 Issuance of the Guarantee. held by the Agent pursuant to A Supplemental Guarantor shall not (a) * * * § 400.210(c); have a security interest, direct or (3) The Board’s receipt of the Loan (b) The Loan Documents relating to indirect, in any asset of the Borrower or Documents and any related instruments, any Supplemental Guarantee shall be any affiliate thereof other than the in form and substance satisfactory to the acceptable in form and substance to the Security. Board, and the Guarantee, all properly Board; and * * * * * executed by the Lender, Borrower, and (c) In approving the issuance of a 6. Section 400.205 is amended by any other required party other than the Guarantee, the Board may impose any revising paragraph (a), by removing Board; and conditions with respect to ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (b)(10), by * * * * * Supplemental Guarantee(s) relating to removing the period at the end of 9. Section 400.210 is revised to read the loan that it considers appropriate. paragraph (b)(11) and adding ‘‘; and’’ in as follows: [FR Doc. 01–26337 Filed 10–16–01; 10:41 its place, and by adding a new am] § 400.210 Assignment or transfer of loans. paragraph (b)(12) to read as follows: BILLING CODE 1310–FP–P (a) Neither the Loan Documents nor § 400.205 Application process. the Guarantee of the Board may be (a) Application process. An original modified, in whole or in part, without DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION application and three copies must be the prior written approval of the Board. received by the Board no later than 5 (b) Upon notice to the Board and a Federal Aviation Administration p.m. EST, August 31, 2001 in the certification by the assignor that the Board’s offices at 1099—14th Street, assignee is an Eligible Lender, and 14 CFR Part 39 NW, Suite 2600 East, Washington, DC subject to the provisions of paragraphs 20005. Applications which have been (c) and (d) of this section and other [Docket No. 2001–CE–19–AD; Amendment provided to a delivery service with provisions of this part, a Lender may 39–12471; AD 2001–21–01] ‘‘delivery guaranteed’’ before 5 p.m. on assign or transfer its interest in the loan RIN 2120–AA64 August 31, 2001 will be accepted for including the Loan documents and the review if the Applicant can document Guarantee to a party that qualifies as an Airworthiness Directives; Dornier that the application was provided to the Eligible Lender pursuant to § 400.201. Luftfahrt GmbH Models 228–100, 228– delivery service with delivery to the Any other assignment or transfer will 101, 228–200, 228–201, 228–202, and address listed in this section guaranteed require the prior written approval of the 228–212 Airplanes prior to the closing date and time. A Board. AGENCY: Federal Aviation postmark is not sufficient to meet this (c) The provisions of paragraph (b) of Administration, DOT. deadline as the application must be this section shall not apply to transfers ACTION: Final rule. received by the required date and time. which occur by operation of law.
VerDate 11
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a Discussion would be better assured by design new airworthiness directive (AD) that changes that remove the source of the What Events Have Caused This AD? applies to certain Dornier Luftfahrt problem rather than by repetitive GmbH (Dornier) Models 228–100, 228– The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), inspections or other special procedures. 101, 228–200, 228–201, 228–202, and which is the airworthiness authority for With this in mind, we will continue to 228–212 airplanes. This AD requires Germany, recently notified the FAA that work with Dornier in collecting you to repetitively inspect the an unsafe condition may exist on certain information and in performing fatigue horizontal stabilizer skin and ribs for Dornier Models 228–100, 228–101, 228– analysis to determine whether a future damage and cracks and repair any 200, 228–201, 228–202, and 228–212 design change may be necessary. damaged skin or cracked ribs. This AD airplanes. The LBA reports two is the result of mandatory continuing occurrences of cracks found around the Was the Public Invited To Comment? airworthiness information (MCAI) riveted joints of the leading edge skin The FAA encouraged interested issued by the airworthiness authority for and ribs of the horizontal stabilizer persons to participate in the making of Germany. The actions specified by this during an inspection. The LBA reports this amendment. We did not receive any AD are intended to detect and correct that the cracks are caused by corrosion comments on the proposed rule or on damage and fatigue cracks in the and material fatigue. our determination of the cost to the horizontal stabilizer skin and ribs. This What Is the Potential Impact if FAA public. condition could cause in-flight Took No Action? separation of the horizontal stabilizer FAA’s Determination If this condition is not detected and skin with consequent loss of control of What Is FAA’s Final Determination on corrected, in-flight separation of the the airplane. This Issue? DATES: This AD becomes effective on horizontal stabilizer skin could result November 30, 2001. with consequent loss of control of the After careful review of all available The Director of the Federal Register airplane. information related to the subject approved the incorporation by reference Has FAA Taken Any Action to This presented above, we have determined of certain publications listed in the Point? that air safety and the public interest regulations as of November 30, 2001. require the adoption of the rule as We issued a proposal to amend part ADDRESSES: You may get the service proposed except for minor editorial 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations information referenced in this AD from corrections. We have determined that (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that Fairchild/Dornier, Customer Support, these minor corrections: would apply to certain Dornier Models P.O. Box 1103, D–82230 Wessling, —Provide the intent that was proposed Federal Republic of Germany; 228–100, 228–101, 228–200, 228–201, 228–202, and 228–212 airplanes. This in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe telephone: (011) 49 8153 300; facsimile: condition; and (011) 49 8153 304463. You may view proposal was published in the Federal this information at the Federal Aviation Register as a notice of proposed —Do not add any additional burden Administration (FAA), Central Region, rulemaking (NPRM) on August 21, 2001 upon the public than was already Office of the Regional Counsel, (66 FR 43815). The NPRM proposed to proposed in the NPRM. require you to inspect the horizontal Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–CE– Cost Impact 19–AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas stabilizer ribs for cracks; inspect the City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of horizontal stabilizer skin for cracks and How Many Airplanes Does This AD the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol damage around the riveted joints; repair Impact? Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC. or replace any cracked ribs; and repair any damaged skin. We estimate that this AD affects 14 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl airplanes in the U.S. registry. Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Is There a Modification I Can Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Incorporate Instead of Repetitively What Is the Cost Impact of This AD on Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; Inspecting the Horizontal Stabilizer Owners/Operators of the Affected telephone: (816) 329–4146; facsimile: Structure? Airplanes? (816) 329–4090. The FAA has determined that long- We estimate the following costs to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: term continued operational safety accomplish the inspection:
Total cost Total cost on Labor cost Parts cost per airplane U.S. operators
4 workhours × $60 per hour = $240 ...... No parts required for the inspection ...... $240 $240 × 14 = $3,360
We have no method of determining number of airplanes that may need such ‘‘intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS’’, the number of repetitive inspections repair. The extent of damage may vary and any necessary repairs or each owner/operator will incur over the on each airplane. replacements ‘‘prior to further flight life of each of the affected airplanes so after the inspection.’’ Compliance Time of This AD the cost impact is based on the initial Why Is the Initial Inspection inspection. What Is the Compliance Time of This AD? Compliance Time of the German AD We have no method of determining Different From the Initial Inspection the number of repairs or replacements The compliance time of this AD will Compliance Time in This AD? each owner/operator will incur over the be to accomplish the initial inspection life of each of the affected airplanes ‘‘within the next 100 hours time-in- The German AD requires (on Dornier based on the results of the inspections. service (TIS) after the effective date of Models 228–100, 228–101, 228–200, We have no way of determining the this AD’’, repetitive inspections at 228–201, 228–202, and 228–212
VerDate 11
airplanes registered in Germany) the Does This AD Involve a Significant Rule § 39.13 [Amended] initial inspection within the next 10 or Regulatory Action? 2. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding a flight hours. This is the compliance time For the reasons discussed above, I new AD to read as follows: specified in the service information. We certify that this action (1) is not a do not have justification to require the ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 2001–21–01 Dornier Luftfahrt GMBH: initial inspection within 10 flight hours. Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a Amendment 39–12471; Docket No. We use a compliance time such as this ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 2001–CE–19–AD. when we have identified an urgent Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 (a) What airplanes are affected by this AD? safety of flight situation. We believe that FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) This AD affects the following airplane models and serial numbers that are 100 hours TIS will give the owners/ will not have a significant economic certificated in any category; operators of the affected airplanes impact, positive or negative, on a enough time to have the initial substantial number of small entities Model Serial Nos. inspection and repairs and/or under the criteria of the Regulatory replacements accomplished without Flexibility Act. A copy of the final 228–100 ... 7003 through 7116, 7167 and compromising the safety of the evaluation prepared for this action is 7168. 228–101 ... 7003 through 7116, 7167 and airplanes. contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the 7168. By accomplishing both the initial 228–200 ... All serial numbers beginning Rules Docket at the location provided with 8002. inspection and replacement at the same under the caption ADDRESSES. time, the owners/operators of the 228–201 ... All serial numbers beginning List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 with 8002. affected airplanes only have their 228–202 ... All serial numbers beginning airplanes out of service once instead of Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation with 8002. twice. safety, Incorporation by reference, 228–212 ... All serial numbers beginning Safety. with 8002. Regulatory Impact Adoption of the Amendment Does This AD Impact Various Entities? (b) Who must comply with this AD? Accordingly, under the authority Anyone who wishes to operate any of the The regulations adopted herein will delegated to me by the Administrator, above airplanes must comply with this AD. not have a substantial direct effect on the Federal Aviation Administration (c) What problem does this AD address? the States, on the relationship between The actions specified by this AD are intended amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation to detect and correct damage and fatigue the national government and the States, Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: cracks in the horizontal stabilizer skin and or on the distribution of power and ribs. This condition could cause in-flight responsibilities among the various PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS separation of the horizontal stabilizer skin levels of government. Therefore, it is DIRECTIVES with consequent loss of control of the determined that this final rule does not 1. The authority citation for part 39 airplane. have federalism implications under (d) What actions must I accomplish to continues to read as follows: address this problem? To addreess this Executive Order 13132. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. problem, you must accomplish the following:
Actions Compliance Procedures
Perform the following inspections: ...... Within the next 100 hours time-in-service In accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT (i) Inspect, using a boroscope (or equivalent), (TIS) after November 30, 2001 (the effec- INSTRUCTIONS section of Fairchild/ the horizontal stabilizer ribs for cracks. tive date of this AD), and thereafter at inter- Dornier Service Bulletin No. SB–228–234, (ii) Inspect the horizontal stabilizer skin for vals not-to-exceed 100 hours TIS. dated October 13, 2000, and the applicable damage (cracks and/or loose rivets). aircraft maintenance manual. (2) Repair or replace any cracked rib and repair Prior to further flight after the inspection re- In accordance with the applicable structural any damage to he horizontal stabilizer skin quired in paragraph (d)(1) of this AD. repair manual. found during any inspection required in para- graph (d)(1) of this AD. (3) Report any cracks or damage found during Prior to further flight after the applicable in- In accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT the initial inspections required in paragraph spection required in paragraph (d)(1) of this INSTRUCTIONS section of Fairchild/ (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) of this AD to Fairchild/ AD, or within 10 days after November 30, Dornier Service Bulletin No. SB–228–234, Dornier Customer Support, through the FAA. 2001 (the effective date of this AD), which- dated October 13, 2000. Fill out the compli- Information collection requirements contained ever occurs later. ance form. Send it to Fair/Dornier at the ad- in this regulation have been approved by the dress specified in paragraph (h) of this AD Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and send a copy to FAA at the address in under the provisions of the Paperwork Re- paragraph (f) of this AD. duction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Num- ber 2120–0056.
(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may have been modified, altered, or repaired so way? You may use an alternative method of add comments and then send it to the that the performance of the requirements of compliance or adjust the compliance time if: Manager, Small Airplane Directorate. this AD is affected, the owner/operator must (1) Your alternative method of compliance Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane request approval for an alternative method of provides an equivalent level of safety; and identified in paragraph (a) of this AD, compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) (2) The Manager, Small Airplane regardless of whether it has been modified, of this AD. The request should include an Directorate, approves your alternative. altered, or repaired in the area subject to the assessment of the effect of the modification, Submit your request through an FAA requirements of this AD. For airplanes that alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
VerDate 11
addressed by this AD; and, if you have not Inc. (formerly AlliedSignal Inc. and engine control configurations, and a eliminated the unsafe condition, specific Garrett Turbine Engine Company) review of prior field reports of actions you propose to address it. TPE331–8, –10N, and –12B turboprop uncommanded torque or fuel increases, (f) Where can I get information about any engines with certain electronic engine the FAA has determined that already-approved alternative methods of controls (EEC’s) installed. This AD uncommanded torque may peak to compliance? Contact Karl Schletzbaum, requires revising the Emergency and 150% within 5 seconds of an initial Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas Normal Procedures section of the torque acceleration. In addition, the City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329– applicable Airplane Flight Manual number of uncommanded engine 4146; facsimile: (816) 329–4090. (AFM) until the existing EEC’s are accelerations in service have been (g) What if I need to fly the airplane to replaced. This amendment is prompted gradually increasing. Nine events of another location to comply with this AD? The by a report of an engine experiencing an uncommanded power increases have FAA can issue a special flight permit under uncommanded full power increase occurred, in varying degrees of severity, sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal during an approach while both engine within the past 17 years. This condition, Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and power levers were at the flight idle gate. if not corrected, could result in loss of 21.199) to operate your airplane to a location The actions specified in this AD are control of the airplane due to where you can accomplish the requirements of this AD. intended to minimize exposure to flight asymmetric thrust from an (h) Are any service bulletins incorporated and ground operations that could lead uncommanded power increase. to the loss of control of the airplane due into this AD by reference? Actions required Actions Required by This AD by this AD must be done in accordance with to asymmetric thrust and an Fairchild/Dornier Service Bulletin No. SB– uncommanded torque increase. Since an unsafe condition has been 228–234, dated October 13, 2000. The DATES: Effective November 19, 2001. identified that is likely to exist or Director of the Federal Register approved this Comments for inclusion in the Rules develop on other engines of this same incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. Docket must be received on or before type design, this AD requires a 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You can get copies December 18, 2001. temporary revision to the Emergency from Fairchild/Dornier, Customer Support, and Normal Procedures section of the P.O. Box 1103, D–82230 Wessling, Federal ADDRESSES: Submit comments in Republic of Germany. You can look at copies triplicate to the Federal Aviation applicable FAA Approved AFM for each at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Administration (FAA), New England applicable engine installation in a Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, multi-engine airplane. The temporary Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of the Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NE– AFM revision provides procedures for Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, 39–AD, 12 New England Executive Park, minimizing asymmetric thrust resulting NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. from uncommanded power increases in (i) When does this amendment become Burlington, MA 01803–5299. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using flight and on ground. The temporary effective? This amendment becomes effective AFM revision is effective for an on November 30, 2001. the following address: 9-ane- [email protected]. Comments sent individual multi-engine airplane until Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed the existing EEC for each engine is in German AD Number 2001–045, dated via the Internet must contain the docket January 26, 2001. number in the subject line. replaced with a redesigned and The temporary revisions referenced in reworked EEC. These AFM changes Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on this AD may be obtained from Cessna have been coordinated with the FAA October 9, 2001. Propeller Aircraft Customer Service, Certification Office responsible for the Michael Gallagher, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas, 67277; certification of the airplanes involved. Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft telephone: (316) 517–5800, fax: (316) The rework and testing of the EEC can Certification Service. 517–7271. only be accomplished at Honeywell’s [FR Doc. 01–26001 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Repair Station in Tucson, Arizona, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 4910–13–P whose repair capacity and rate-of-repair Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los is limited. The FAA has determined that Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, the July 23, 2003 date was the earliest FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION date to complete the rework and testing 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA of all 775 existing EEC’s. This 90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5246; Federal Aviation Administration determination assumes that the operator fax (562) 627–5210. Contact Bob act expeditiously and coordinate this Adamson, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita 14 CFR Part 39 EEC repair with the Honeywell Repair Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Station. [Docket No. 2000–NE–39–AD; Amendment Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita KS 39–12472; AD 2001–21–02] 67209; telephone (316) 946–4145; fax Finding That Immediate Adoption Is RIN 2120–AA64 (316) 946–4407 with any questions and Necessary comments regarding AFM procedures Since a situation exists that requires Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell pertaining to this AD. the immediate adoption of this International Inc. (formerly AlliedSignal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In regulation, it is found that notice and Inc. and Garrett Turbine Engine September 1999, a TPE331–10N opportunity for prior public comment Company) TPE331–8, –10N, and –12B turboprop engine experienced an hereon are impracticable, and that good Turboprop Engines uncommanded increase to full power cause exists for making this amendment AGENCY: Federal Aviation during an approach while both engine effective in less than 30 days. power levers were at the flight idle gate. Administration, DOT. Comments Invited ACTION: Final rule; request for The pilot aborted the approach and re- comments. established power symmetry by Although this action is in the form of applying full power to the opposite a final rule that involves requirements SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a engine. After reverting to manual mode, affecting flight safety and, thus, was not new airworthiness directive (AD) that is the pilot made a safe landing. Based on preceded by notice and an opportunity applicable to Honeywell International engine-propeller stand testing of certain for public comment, comments are
VerDate 11
invited on this rule. Interested persons the States, or on the distribution of 2001–21–02 Honeywell International Inc.: are invited to comment on this rule by power and responsibilities among the Amendment 39–12472. Docket 2000– submitting such written data, views, or various levels of government. NE–39–AD. arguments as they may desire. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted Applicability Communications should identify the with state authorities prior to This airworthiness directive (AD) is Rules Docket number and be submitted publication of this rule. The FAA has determined that this applicable to Honeywell International Inc. in triplicate to the address specified (formerly AlliedSignal Inc. and Garrett under the caption ADDRESSES. All regulation is an emergency regulation Turbine Engine Company) TPE331–8, –10N, communications received on or before that must be issued immediately to and –12B turboprop engines with electronic the closing date for comments will be correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, engine controls (EEC’s) part numbers (P/N’s) considered, and this rule may be and is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 2101322–1, –4, –11, –12, –13, –14, –15 or –16 amended in light of the comments action’’ under Executive Order 12866. It installed. These engines are installed on but received. Factual information that has been determined further that this not limited to Cessna Aircraft Company supports the commenter’s ideas and action involves an emergency regulation Model 441 Conquest airplanes. suggestions is extremely helpful in under DOT Regulatory Policies and Note 1: This AD applies to each engine evaluating the effectiveness of the AD Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, identified in the preceding applicability action and determining whether 1979). If it is determined that this provision, regardless of whether it has been additional rulemaking action would be emergency regulation otherwise would modified, altered, or repaired in the area needed. be significant under DOT Regulatory subject to the requirements of this AD. For Comments are specifically invited on Policies and Procedures, a final engines that have been modified, altered, or the overall regulatory, economic, regulatory evaluation will be prepared repaired so that the performance of the environmental, and energy aspects of and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy requirements of this AD is affected, the the rule that might suggest a need to of it, if filed, may be obtained from the owner or operator must request approval for modify the rule. All comments Rules Docket at the location provided an alternative method of compliance in submitted will be available, both before under the caption ADDRESSES. accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of and after the closing date for comments, List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 the effect of the modification, alteration, or in the Rules Docket for examination by repair on the unsafe condition addressed by interested persons. A report that Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not summarizes each FAA-public contact been eliminated, the request should include concerned with the substance of this AD Adoption of the Amendment specific proposed actions to address it. will be filed in the Rules Docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to Accordingly, pursuant to the Compliance authority delegated to me by the acknowledge receipt of their comments Compliance with this AD is required as submitted in response to this notice Administrator, the Federal Aviation indicated, unless already done. must submit a self-addressed, stamped Administration amends part 39 of the To minimize exposure to flight and ground postcard on which the following Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR operations that could lead to the loss of statement is made: ‘‘Comments to part 39) as follows: control of the airplane due to asymmetric Docket Number 2000–NE–39–AD.’’ The thrust and an uncommanded torque increase, PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS do the following: postcard will be date stamped and DIRECTIVES returned to the commenter. Amending of the Airplane Flight Manual 1. The authority citation for part 39 Regulatory Impact (a) Within 30 days after the effective date continues to read as follows: of this AD, amend the applicable FAA This amendment does not have Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Approved Cessna Airplane Flight Manual federalism implications, as defined in (AFM) Emergency Procedures and Normal Executive Order 13132, because it § 39.13 [Amended] Procedures Section to provide interim would not have a substantial direct 2. Section 39.13 is amended by emergency procedures to flight crews, by effect on the States, on the relationship adding the following new airworthiness inserting the Temporary Revisions specified between the national government and directive: in the following table:
TEMPORARY REVISIONS BY AIRPLANE MODEL AND SERIAL NUMBER (SN) AND AFM AFFECTED
Airplane model and serial No. (SN) AFM affected Temporary revision
(1) Cessna Model 441; SN’s 441–0001 through D1561–14–13PH through Revision 14, dated D1561–14TR2 through D1561–14, dated 441–0172. January 9, 1998. 14TR8 dated November 20, 2000 D1561–14TR9 dated April 11, 2001. (2) Cessna Model 441; SN’s 441–0173 and D1586–11–13PH through Revision 11, dated D1586–11TR2 through D1586–11TR5 dated higher. January 9, 1998. November 20, 2000. D1586–11TR7 and D1586–11TR8 dated No- vember 20, 2000. D1586–11TR9 dated March 7, 2001. D1586–11TR10 dated April 11, 2001.
(b) Owners or operators of airplanes that Certification Office (LAACO) to have their –16 with serviceable EECs before August 31, have been modified by supplemental type AFM’s reviewed and approved. 2003. certificate, where the AFM conflicts with the (d) Information regarding the replacement Replacement of Electronic Engine Controls TR’s specified in (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD, of existing EEC’s is available in Honeywell must contact Los Angeles Aircraft (c) Replace all existing EEC’s P/N’s Alert Service Bulletins TPE331–A76–0035 2101322–1, –4, –11, –12, –13, –14, –15 and dated July 23, 2001, TPE331–A76–0036 dated
VerDate 11
July 23, 2001, and TPE331–A76–0037 dated DATES: An effective date for each SIAP airmen do not use the regulatory text of July 23, 2001. is specified in the amendatory this SIAPs, but refer to their graphic Removal of Temporary Revisions provisions. depiction of charts printed by Incorporation by reference-approved publishers of aeronautical materials. (e) When all EEC’s have been replaced in the airplane with serviceable EEC’s, remove by the Director of the Federal Register Thus, the advantages of incorporation the applicable Temporary Revisions, on December 31, 1980, and reapproved by reference are realized and specified in the preceding table, from the as of January 1, 1982. publication of the complete description airplane flight manual. ADDRESSES: Availability of matter of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The Definitions incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: provisions of this amendment state the (f) For the purposes of the AD, a For Examination— affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with serviceable EEC is an EEC with a P/N that is the types and effective dates of the not specified in this AD. 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 SIAPs. This amendment also identifies Alternative Methods of Compliance Independence Avenue, SW., the airport, its location, the procedure (g) An alternative method of compliance or Washington, DC 20591; identification and the amendment adjustment of the compliance time that 2. The FAA Regional Office of the number. provides an acceptable level of safety may be region in which affected airport is The Rule used if approved by the Manager, LAACO. located; or Operators must submit their requests through 3. The Flight Inspection Area Office This amendment to part 97 of the an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance which originated the SIAP. Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Inspector, who may add comments and then part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, send it to the Manager, LAACO. For Purchase—Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from: or revokes SIAPs. For safety and Note 2: Information concerning the timeliness of change considerations, this existence of approved alternative methods of 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA– 200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 amendment incorporates only specific compliance with this airworthiness directive, changes contained in the content of the if any, may be obtained from the LAACO. Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or following FDC/P NOTAMs for each Effective Date of This AD 2. The FAA Regional Office of the SIAP. The SIAP information in some (h) This amendment becomes effective on region in which the affected airport is previously designated FDC/Temporary November 19, 2001. located. (FDC/T) NOTAMs is of such duration as By Subscription—Copies of all SIAPs, to be permanent. With conversion to Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on FDC/P NOTAMs, the respective FDC/T October 12, 2001. mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, NOTAMs have been canceled. Thomas A. Boudreau, The FDC/P NOTAMs for the SIAPs Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. contained in this amendment are based Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. on the criteria contained in the U.S. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [FR Doc. 01–26323 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Standard for Terminal Instrument BILLING CODE 4910–13–U Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Procedures (TERPS). In developing Standards Branch (AMCAFS–420), these chart changes to SIAPs by FDC/P Flight Technologies and Programs NOTAMs, the TERPS criteria were DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Division, Flight Standards Service, applied to only these specific conditions Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Federal Aviation Administration existing at the affected airports. All Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 SIAP amendments in this rule have South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, 14 CFR Part 97 been previously issued by the FAA in a OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box National Flight Data Center (FDC) 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) [Docket No. 30275; Amdt. No. 2075] Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an telephone: (405) 954–4164. emergency action of immediate flight Standard Instrument Approach SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This safety relating directly to published Procedures; Miscellaneous amendment to part 97 of the Federal aeronautical charts. The circumstances Amendments Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) which created the need for all these establishes, amends, suspends, or SIAP amendments requires making AGENCY: Federal Aviation revokes Standard Instrument Approach them effective in less than 30 days. Administration (FAA), DOT. Procedures (SIAPs). The complete Further, the SIAPs contained in this ACTION: Final rule. regulatory description on each SIAP is amendment are based on the criteria contained in the appropriate FAA Form contained in the TERPS. Because of the SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, 8260 and the National Flight Data close and immediate relationship amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Center (FDC)/Permanent (P) Notices to between these SIAPs and safety in air Instrument Approach Procedures Airmen (NOTAM) which are commerce, I find that notice and public (SIAPs) for operations at certain incorporated by reference in the procedure before adopting these SIAPs airports. These regulatory actions are amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 are impracticable and contrary to the needed because of changes occurring in CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal public interest and, where applicable, the National Airspace System, such as Aviation’s Regulations (FAR). Materials that good cause exists for making these the commissioning of new navigational incorporated by reference are available SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. facilities, addition of new obstacles, or for examination or purchase as stated changes in air traffic requirements. above. Conclusion These changes are designed to provide The large number of SIAPs, their The FAA has determined that this safe and efficient use of the navigable complex nature, and the need for a regulation only involves an established airspace and to promote safe flight special format mate their verbatim body of technical regulations for which operations under instrument flight rules publication in the Federal Register frequent and routine amendments are at the affected airports. expensive and impractical. Further, necessary to keep them operationally
VerDate 11
current. It, therefore—(1) is not a Issued in Washington, DC, on October 12, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120, ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 2001. 44701; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a Nicholas A. Sabatini, 11.49(b)(2). ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Director, Flight Standards Service. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Adoption of the Amendment follows: FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Accordingly, pursuant to the §§ 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, regulatory evaluation as the anticipated authority delegated to me, part 97 of the 97.35 [Amended] impact is so minimal. For the same Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/ reason, the FAA certifies that this amending, suspending, or revoking DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME amendment will not have a significant Standard Instrument Approach or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, economic impact on a substantial Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; number of small entities under the the dates specified, as follows: § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS/DME, MLS/ PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 APPROACH PROCEDURES RNAV SIAPs; AND § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows: Air Traffic Control, Airports, 1. The authority citation for part 97 is Navigation (Air). revised to read as follows: * * * Effective Upon Publication
FDC date State City Airport FDC NO. Subject
09/26/01 ...... WA SEATTLE ...... SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL ...... 1/0489 ILS RWY 34L, ORIG... 09/26/01 ...... WA SEATTLE ...... SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL ...... 1/0490 ILS RWY 34R, ORIG... 09/26/01 ...... PA PITTSBURGH ...... PITTSBURGH INTL ...... 1/0493 CONVERGING ILS RWY 28R, AMDT 2 09/26/01 ...... PA PITTSBURGH ...... PITTSBURGH INTL...... 1/0495 CONVERGING ILS RWY 32, AMDT 3A... 09/27/01 ...... WA SEATTLE ...... SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL ...... 1/0553 RNAV (GPS) RWY 34L, ORIG... 09/28/01 ...... FL ST. PETERSBURG- ST. PETERSBURG-CLEARWATER 1/0584 VOR RWY 4, ORIG... CLEARWATER. INTL. 10/01/01 ...... OK HOBART ...... HOBART MUNI ...... 1/0739 GPS RWY 17, ORIG–A... 10/01/01 ...... OK HOBART ...... HOBART MUNI ...... 1/0743 GPS RWY 35, ORIG–A... 10/01/01 ...... OK HOBART ...... HOBART MUNI ...... 1/0753 VOR RWY 35, AMDT 8A... 10/02/01 ...... WA TACOMA ...... TACOMA NARROWS ...... 1/0776 NDB RWY 35, AMDT 7... 10/02/01 ...... FL SARASOTA/BRA- SARASOTA/BRADENTON INTL ...... 1/0786 ILS RWY 32, AMDT 4B... DENTON. 10/02/01 ...... FL SARASOTA/BRA- SARASOTA/BRADENTON INTL ...... 1/0787 ILS RWY 14, AMDT 3A... DENTON. 10/03/01 ...... CT BRIDGEPORT ...... IGOR I SIKORSKY MEMORIAL ...... 1/0855 ILS RWY 6, AMDT 9... 10/03/01 ...... NH KEENE ...... DILLANT-HOPKINS ...... 1/0864 VOR RWY 2, AMDT 12... 10/03/01 ...... NH KEENE ...... DILLANT-HOPKINS ...... 1/0866 ILS RWY 2, AMDT 2A... 10/03/01 ...... AZ PHOENIX ...... PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL ...... 1/0869 ILW RWY 26, ORIG... 10/04/01 ...... PA PHILADELPHIA ...... PHILADELPHIA INTL ...... 1/0887 ILS RWY 26, AMDT 2... 10/04/01 ...... PA PHILADELPHIA ...... PHILADELPHIA INTL ...... 1/0888 ILS PRM RWY 27L, AMDT 1... 10/04/01 ...... PA PHILADELPHIA ...... PHILADELPHIA INTL ...... 1/0889 ILS PRM RWY 26, AMDT 1... 10/04/01 ...... IA DUBUQUE ...... DUBUQUE REGIONAL ...... 1/0895 LOC/DME BC RWY 13, AMDT 5A... 10/04/01 ...... IA DUBUQUE ...... DUBUQUE REGIONAL ...... 1/0896 VOR OR GPS RWY 13, AMDT 9... 10/04/01 ...... IA DUBUQUE ...... DUBUQUE REGIONAL ...... 1/0897 VOR RWY 31, AMDT 11C... 10/04/01 ...... IA DUBUQUE ...... DUBUQUE REGIONAL ...... 1/0898 NDB OR GPS RWY 31, AMDT 8C... 10/04/01 ...... IA DUBUQUE ...... DUBUQUE REGIONAL ...... 1/0899 LOC RWY 31, ORIG... 10/04/01 ...... IA DUBUQUE ...... DUBUQUE REGIONAL ...... 1/0900 ILS RWY 36, ORIG... 10/04/01 ...... TX DALLAS-FORT WORTH DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL ...... 1/0906 CONVERGING ILS RWY 17R, AMDT 6A... 10/04/01 ...... TX DALLAS-FORT WORTH DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL ...... 1/0908 CONVERGING ILS RWY 35L, AMDT 1D... 10/04/01 ...... TX DALLAS-FORT WORTH DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL ...... 1/0909 ILS RWY 17R, AMDT 20A... 10/04/01 ...... TX DALLAS-FORT WORTH DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL ...... 1/0910 ILS RWY 35L, AMDT 2C... 10/04/01 ...... TX FORT WORTH ...... FORT WORTH ALLIANCE ...... 1/0914 ILS RWY 34R, AMDT 4A... 10/04/01 ...... TX FORT WORTH...... FORT WORTH ALLIANCE...... 1/0915 ILS RWY 16L (CAT I, II, III) AMDT 5A... 10/04/01 ...... IL VANDALIA ...... VANDALIA MUNI ...... 1/0938 VOR RWY 18, AMDT 11... 10/04/01 ...... ME BANGOR ...... BANGOR INTL ...... 1/0968 ILS RWY 33, AMDT 10A... 10/04/01 ...... GA ATLANTA ...... FULTON COUNTY AIRPORT-BROWN 1/0969 NDB OR GPS RWY 8, AMDT FIELD. 2A... 10/04/01 ...... GA ATLANTA ...... FULTON COUNTY AIRPORT-BROWN 1/0970 ILS RWY 8, AMDT 15F... FIELD. 10/08/01 ...... MN GRANITE FALLS ...... GRANITE FALLS MUNI/LENZEN-ROE 1/1008 GPS RWY 34, ORIG... MEMORIAL FLD. 10/08/01 ...... MN GRANITE FALLS ...... GRANITE FALLS MUNI/LENZEN-ROE 1/1009 VOR/DME RWY 34, ORIG... MEMORIAL FLD.
VerDate 11
FDC date State City Airport FDC NO. Subject
10/09/01 ...... UT HEBER CITY...... HEBER CITY MUNI-RUSS MCDON- 1/1092 RNAV (GPS)–A, ORIG... ALD FIELD. 10/09/01 ...... MI HANCOCK ...... HOUGHTON COUNTY MEMORIAL ... 1/1095 ILS RWY 31, AMDT 13... 10/09/01 ...... MI HANCOCK ...... HOUGHTON COUNTY MEMORIAL ... 1/1096 NDB OR GPS RWY 31, AMDT 11A... 10/09/01 ...... IA DUBUQUE ...... DUBUQUE REGIONAL ...... 1/1118 VOR OR GPS RWY 36, AMDT 5C...
[FR Doc. 01–26459 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA– the airport, its location, the procedure BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 identification and the amendment Independence Avenue, SW., number. Washington, DC 20591; or DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2. The FAA Regional Office of the The Rule region in which the affected airport is This amendment to part 97 is effective Federal Aviation Administration located. upon publication of each separate SIAP By Subscription—Copies of all SIAPs, as contained in the transmittal. Some 14 CFR Part 97 mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale SIAP amendments may have been [Docket No. 30274; Amdt. No. 2074] by the Superintendent of Documents, previously issued by the FAA in a U.S. Government Printing Office, National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Standard Instrument Approach Washington, DC 20402. Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an Procedures; Miscellaneous FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: emergency action to immediate flight Amendments Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure safety relating directly to published Standards Branch (AMCAFS–420), aeronautical charts. The circumstances AGENCY: Federal Aviation Flight Technologies and Programs which created the need for some SIAP Administration (FAA), DOT. Division, Flight Standards Service, amendments may require making them ACTION: Final rule. Federal Aviation Administration, Mike effective in less than 30 days. For the Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 remaining SIAPs, an effective date at SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, least 30 days after publication is amends, suspends, or revokes Standard OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box provided. Instrument Approach Procedures 25082 Oklahoma City, OK. 73125) Further, the SIAPs contained in this (SIAPs) for operations at certain telephone: (405) 954–4164. amendment are based on the criteria airports. These regulatory actions are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This contained in the U.S. Standard for needed because of the adoption of new amendment to part 97 of the Federal Terminal Instrument Procedures or revised criteria, or because of changes Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the occurring in the National Airspace establishes, amends, suspends, or TERPS criteria were applied to the System, such as the commissioning of revokes Standard Instrument Approach conditions existing or anticipated at the new navigational facilities, addition of Procedures (SIAPs). The complete affected airports. Because of the close new obstacles, or changes in air traffic regulatory description of each SIAP is and immediate relationship between requirements. These changes are contained in official FAA form these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, designed to provide safe and efficient documents which are incorporated by I find that notice and public procedure use of the navigable airspace and to reference in this amendment under 5 before adopting these SIAPs are promote safe flight operations under U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 impracticable and contrary to the public instrument flight rules at the affected of the Federal Aviation Regulations interest and, where applicable, that airports. (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are good cause exists for making some DATES: An effective date for each SIAP identified as FAA Forms 8260–3, 8260– SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. is specified in the amendatory 4 and 8260–5. Materials incorporated by Conclusion provisions. reference are available for examination Incorporation by reference-approved or purchase as stated above. The FAA has determined that this by the Director of the Federal Register The large number of SIAPs, their regulation only involves an established on December 31, 1980, and reapproved complex nature, and the need for a body of technical regulations for which as of January 1, 1982. special format make their verbatim frequent and routine amendments are ADDRESSES: Availability of matters publication in the Federal Register necessary to keep them operationally incorporated by reference in the expensive and impractical. Further, current. It, therefore—(1) is not a amendment is as follows: airmen do not use the regulatory text of ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under For Examination— the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA depiction on charts printed by ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Headquarters Building, 800 publishers of aeronautical materials. Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Independence Avenue, SW., Thus, the advantages of incorporation FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) Washington, DC 20591; by reference are realized and does not warrant preparation of a 2. The FAA Regional Office of the publication of the complete description regulatory evaluation as the anticipated region in which the affected airport is of each SIAP contained in FAA form impact is so minimal. For the same located; or documents is unnecessary. The reason, the FAA certifies that this 3. The Flight Inspection Area Office provisions of this amendment state the amendment will not have a significant which originated the SIAP. affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with economic impact on a substantial For Purchase—Individual SIAP the types and effective dates of the number of small entities under the copies may be obtained from: SIAPs. This amendment also identifies criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
VerDate 11
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 * * * Effective December 27, 2001 49276). The document issued a final Air traffic control, Airports, Sand Point, AK, Sand Point, MLS RWY 13, rule establishing that cough-cold Navigation (air). Orig, CANCELLED combination drug products containing Clearwater, FL, Clearwater Air Park, RNAV any oral bronchodilator active Issued in Washington, DC, on October 12, (GPS) RWY 16, Orig, CANCELLED ingredient in combination with any 2001. Annapolis, MD, Lee, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, analgesic(s) or analgesic-antipyretic(s), Nicholas A. Sabatini, Orig anticholinergic, antihistamine, oral Director, Flight Standards Service. Harbor Springs, MI, Harbor Springs, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1 antitussive, or stimulant active Adoption of the Amendment Poplar, MT, Poplar, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, ingredient are not generally recognized AMDT 1 as safe and effective and are misbranded Accordingly, pursuant to the Amarillo, TX, Amarillo Intl, RNAV (GPS) for over-the-counter (OTC) use. The authority delegated to me, part 97 of the RWY 4, Orig document published with two Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Amarillo, TX, Amarillo Intl, RNAV (GPS) inadvertent errors. This document part 97) is amended by establishing, RWY 22, Orig corrects those errors. Amarillo, TX, Amarillo Intl, GPS RWY 4, amending, suspending, or revoking DATES: Amdt 1, CANCELLED This rule is effective October 19, Standard Instrument Approach 2001. Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on Amarillo, TX, Amarillo Intl, GPS RWY 22, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the dates specified, as follows: Amdt 1, CANCELLED San Antonio, TX, San Antonio Intl, VOR–A, Joyce Strong, Office of Policy, Planning, PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT Amdt 5, CANCELLED and Legislation (HF–27), Food and Drug San Antonio, TX, San Antonio Intl, RADAR– APPROACH PROCEDURES Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 1, Amdt 25, CANCELLED Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827–7010. 1. The authority citation for part 97 is Note: The FAA published the following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. revised to read as follows: procedure in Docket No. 30264, Amdt No. 2065 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation 01–24127, appearing on page 49276 in Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, Regulations (Vol 66, FR No. 164, Page 44302; the Federal Register of Thursday, 40120, 44701; and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2). dated Thursday, August 23, 2001) under September 27, 2001, the following 2. Part 97 is amended to read as section 97.23 effective October 4, 2001, corrections are made: follows: which is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. On page 49276, in the second New York, NY, John F. Kennedy Intl, VOR/ column, in the third line, ‘‘Food and §§ 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, DME RWY 31L, Amdt 13, CANCELLED. 97.35 [Amended] Drug Administration.’’ is corrected to Note: The FAA published the following read ‘‘Food and Drug Administration’’. By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/ procedures in Docket No. 30272, Amdt No. 2. On page 49276, in the second DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME 2072 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation column, in the fourth line, ‘‘21 CFR part or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, Regulations (Vol 66, FR No. 194, Page 50824 341’’ is corrected to read ‘‘21 CFR part LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; dated Friday, October 5, 2001) under sections 310’’. § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, 97.23 and 97.33 effective November 1, 2001 ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME, which are hereby amended to be effective Dated: October 9, 2001. MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; November 29, 2001: Stafford VA, Stafford Margaret M. Dotzel, § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 Regional, VOR RWY 33, Orig. Stafford, VA, Associate Commissioner for Policy Stafford Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, [FR Doc. 01–26315 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] COPTER SIAPs, identified as follows: Orig. BILLING CODE 4160–01–S * * * Effective November 1, 2001 [FR Doc. 01–26458 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Lafayette, GA, Barwick Lafayette, RNAV BILLING CODE 4910–13–M (GPS) RWY 2, Orig DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Lafayette, GA, Barwick Lafayette, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Coast Guard Detroit, MI, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne HUMAN SERVICES County, ILS RWY 4L, Orig 33 CFR Part 117 Detroit, MI, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Food and Drug Administration County, ILS RWY 22R, Orig [CGD08–01–018] Duluth, MN, Duluth Intl, ILS RWY 9, Amdt 21 CFR Part 310 20 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Missoula, MT, Missoula Intl, RNAV (GPS) [Docket No. 76N–052G] Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, LA; RWY 11, Orig Missoula, MT, Missoula Intl, GPS RWY 11, RIN 0910–AA01 Correction Orig, CANCELLED AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. Manchester, NH, Manchester, ILS RWY 6, Cold, Cough, Allergy, Bronchodilator, Orig and Antiasthmatic Drug Products for ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation Waco, TX, McGregor Executive, RNAV (GPS) Over-the-Counter Human Use; Partial from regulations; correction. RWY 17, Orig Final Rule for Combination Drug SUMMARY: Waco, TX, McGregor Executive, RNAV (GPS) Products Containing a Bronchodilator; The Coast Guard published a RWY 35, Orig Correction document in the Federal Register of Waco, TX, McGregor Executive, GPS RWY July 23, 2001, concerning a temporary 17, Orig-A, CANCELLED AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, deviation from the regulation governing Waco, TX, McGregor Executive, GPS RWY HHS. the operation of the Florida Avenue 35, Amdt 1, CANCELLED ACTION: Final rule; correction. bascule span drawbridge across the * * * Effective November 29, 2001 Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 1.7 Indiana, PA, Indiana County/Jimmy Stewart SUMMARY: The Food and Drug at New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Field, GPS RWY 10, Orig, CANCELLED Administration (FDA) is correcting a Louisiana. This temporary deviation Philadelphia, PA, Northeast Philadelphia, final rule that appeared in the Federal was issued to allow for replacement of VOR OR GPS RWY 6, Amdt 11 Register of September 27, 2001 (66 FR the damaged fender system. The work
VerDate 11
has been rescheduled and the dates ADDRESSES: Written comments should Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 401, have changed from those which were be sent to the Manager, International 404, 407, 408 previously published. Marketing, International Business, U.S. 2. The International Mail Manual DATES: The effective date of the notice Postal Service, 1735 N. Lynn Street, (IMM) is amended to incorporate the of temporary deviation from regulations Arlington, VA 22209–6020. following changes: published July 23, 2001 (66 FR 38155) Copies of all written comments will is corrected to be from 6:45 a.m. on be available for public inspection International Mail Manual (IMM) Monday, October 29, 2001, until 6:45 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday * * * * * through Friday, in International p.m. on Monday, November 19, 2001. 2 Conditions for Mailing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Business, 2nd Floor, 1735 N. Lynn Johnson, Bridge Administration Branch, Street, Arlington, VA 22209–6020. * * * * * telephone (504) 589–2965. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 220 Global Express Mail Angus MacInnes, (703) 292–3601 Correction * * * * * SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal In the Federal Register of July 23, Service is establishing changes in 222 Postage 2001, in FR Doc. 01–18245 on page conditions for certain mailing categories * * * * * 38155 in the first column: 1. Correct the to automatically reduce every payment [Add new 222.13 as follows:] second sentence of the SUMMARY caption transaction by 5 percent for all Global to read: Express Mail purchased at basic 222.13 Online Rates—General This deviation allows the draw of the published prices and paid on the Discounted rates apply to Global Florida Avenue bascule span shipping site at www.usps.com. The Express Mail (EMS) customers who drawbridge to remain closed to discount will be deducted from each prepare and pay for Global Express Mail navigation daily from 6:45 a.m. until piece paid for through the Web site. The shipments online using the shipping 12:15 p.m. and from 1:15 p.m. until 6:45 discount will be offered on postage site at www.usps.com. p.m. from October 29, 2001 through only; it does not apply to pickup fees, November 19, 2001. 222.131 Eligibility for Online any special fees, or postage for Discounts 2. In the second column of page shipments made under an International 38155, correct the first sentence of the Customized Mail agreement. To be eligible for discounts for second paragraph of the SUPPLEMENTARY The Postal Service established the purchasing Global Express Mail online, INFORMATION caption to read: shipping site at www.usps.com to offer customers must register via the shipping This deviation allows the draw of the an online capability for customers to be site at www.usps.com. Registration is Florida Avenue bascule span able to prepare, ship, and pay for service accomplished by selecting the drawbridge to remain closed to shipments. Payment will be made using designated icon on the web site and navigation daily from 6:45 a.m. until an online postage capability. Global following the accompanying 12:15 p.m. and from 1:15 p.m. until 6:45 Express Mail will be included in the instructions. This one-time registration p.m. from October 29, 2001 through services that are offered through this will establish a shipping record and a November 19, 2001. Web site. The discount is similar to the customer history. To be eligible for online discounts, customers must Dated: October 5, 2001. ones that are offered for Global Express prepare their shipping labels and pay Roy J. Casto, Guaranteed shipments that are made through the same Web site and for for their shipments online using a credit Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, card. The following credit cards are Eighth Coast Guard District. Global Express Mail shipments that are accepted for payment online: American [FR Doc. 01–26162 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] paid for through an Express Mail Corporate Account. Express, Diner’s Club, Discover, BILLING CODE 4910–15–P MasterCard, and Visa. As required under the Postal Reorganization Act, these changes will 222.132 Online Discounts POSTAL SERVICE result in conditions of mailing that do Global Express Mail published rates not apportion the costs of the service, so will be reduced by 5 percent for all 39 CFR Part 20 the overall value of the service to users payments made through the shipping is fair and reasonable, and not unduly site at www.usps.com. The discount Global Express Mail or unreasonably discriminatory or applies only to the postage portion of preferential. AGENCY: Postal Service. Global Express Mail rates. It does not Although the Postal Service is ACTION: Interim rule. apply to the pickup service charge, exempted by 39 U.S.C. 410(a) from the additional merchandise insurance SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority advanced notice requirements of the coverage fees, or shipments made under under 39 U.S.C. 407, the Postal Service Administrative Procedure Act regarding an International Customized Mail will offer a 5 percent discount off of rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553), interested agreement. parties are invited to submit written regular postage for all Global Express 222.2 Payment of Postage Mail TM shipments paid through the data, views, or comments regarding this shipping site at www.usps.com. The interim rule to the address above. 222.21 Methods of Payment discount will apply only to the basic List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 20 [Revise 222.21 to read as follows:] portion of Global Express Mail Global Express Mail items may be published rates. It would not apply to Foreign relations, international postal paid by postage stamps, postage pick-up service charges, additional services. validation imprinter (PVI) labels, merchandise insurance coverage fees, or PART 20—[AMENDED] postage meter stamps, information shipments made under an International based indicia (IBI), or through the use of Customized Mail agreement. 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR an Express Mail corporate account. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 1, 2001. part 20 continues to read as follows: * * * * *
VerDate 11
224 Preparation Requirements Division, U.S. Environmental Protection A. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Corporations’s Vandergrift Plant 224.1 Preparation by Sender Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the This is a major NOX facility as defined [Revise item a to read as follows:] Air and Radiation Docket and in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 121, section a. Complete the ‘‘From’’ and ‘‘To’’ Information Center, U.S. Environmental 121.1 of Pennsylvania’s SIP approved portion of Label 11–B, Express Mail Post Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., regulations. Therefore the facility is Office to Addressee, or online label for Washington, DC 20460; and the subject to the RACT requirements of each piece of mail and affix the Pennsylvania Department of Chapter 129, section 129.91 of completed label to each piece. Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Pennsylvania’s SIP approved * * * * * Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market regulations. The facility submitted a Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 224.2 Preparation by Acceptance RACT proposal in accordance with the Employee FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SIP-approved requirements section Marcia Spink (215) 814–2104 or by e- 129.92. Boiler’s #1 and #2 are * * * * * mail at [email protected]. combustion units with a rated input [Revise item d to read as follows:] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: equal to or greater than 20MMBtu/hr but d. Give the Customer Receipt copy to less than 50MMBtu/hr. Allegheny the mailer and retain the Finance Copy. I. Background Ludlum elected to comply with the SIP- Peel off the backing of the remaining On April 18, 2000, EPA published a approved presumptive RACT portion and affix it to the item. For direct final rule approving RACT requirements applicable to such size online shipments, customer receipts are determinations submitted by the boilers found at section 129.93(b)(2). not necessary; for non-IRT and POS Pennsylvania Department of The PADEP cited to these requirements offices, record the required Finance Environmental Protection (PADEP) for in Condition 4 of RACT Operating information on the special form twenty-six major sources of NOX and/or Permit No. 65–000–137 issued to provided for this purpose. volatile organic compounds (VOC) and Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporations’s * * * * * a companion notice of proposed Vandergrift Plant. The two remaining Stanley F. Mires, rulemaking (65 FR 20788). We received sources at the facility that require a adverse comments on the direct final RACT analysis are the No. 90 line Chief Counsel, Legislative. rule and a request for an extension of anneal furnace used to anneal stresses [FR Doc. 01–26444 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] the comment period. We had indicated introduced during rolling operations, BILLING CODE 7710–12–P in our April 18, 2001 direct final and the associated pickling line process rulemaking that if we received adverse where steel is submerged in a an acid comments, we would withdraw the bath which dissolves and removes ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION direct final rule and address all public oxidized metal and other materials from AGENCY comments in a subsequent final rule the surface of the steel. Brief based on the proposed rule (65 FR descriptions of the RACT requirements 40 CFR Part 52 20788). On June 19, 2000 (65 FR 38168), imposed by PADEP are provide below. [PA–4154; FRL–7083–4] EPA published a withdrawal notice in The RACT plan proposal submitted by the Federal Register informing the Allegheny County Ludlum on March 17, Approval and Promulgation of Air public that the direct final rule did not 1994 and PADEP’s Review of the RACT Quality Implementation Plans; take effect. On June 19, 2000 (65 FR Application, dated June 22, 1995, detail Pennsylvania; NOX RACT 38169), we also published a notice the technical and economic analyses Determinations for Two Individual providing an extension of the comment performed to rank control technology Sources in the Pittsburgh-Beaver period and making corrections to our options in accordance with 25 Pa Code Valley Area original proposed rule. This final rule 129.92. Those documents, among others pertains to two of the twenty-six sources generated by PADEP, are included in AGENCY: Environmental Protection which were included in the April 18, the docket for this rulemaking. Agency (EPA). 2001 rulemaking, namely Allegheny The 90 line furnace is capable of ACTION: Final rule. Ludlum Steel Corporations’s Vandergrift annealing steel at temperatures ranging Plant located in Westmoreland County from 1350 degrees to 2200 degree F. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection and INDSPEC Chemical Corporation’s Control technology options were Agency (EPA) is approving State Petrolia Plant located in Butler County. analyzed and ranked by Allegheny Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions The remaining twenty-four sources will Ludlum for the 90 line furnace submitted by the Commonwealth of be the subject of separate rulemakings. including: (1) Selective catalytic Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania). The reduction (SCR) and Low NOX Burners revisions impose reasonably available II. Summary of the SIP Revisions (LNB); (2) SCR only; (3) LNB and flue control technology (RACT) on two major On March 21, 1996, December 7, 1998 gas recirculation (FGR); and FGR alone. sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX) located and April 9, 1999, the PADEP submitted The costs per ton of NO removed in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area (the X NOX RACT determinations for calculated to $9285/ton for SCR and Pittsburgh area). EPA is approving these Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporations’s LNB; $8958/ton for SCR; $9160/ton for revisions to establish RACT Vandergrift Plant located in LNB and FGR; and $3349/ton for FGR. requirements in the SIP in accordance Westmoreland County and INDSPEC The pickling line uses a nitric acid/ with the Clean Air Act. Chemical Corporation’s Petrolia Plant hydrofluoric acid bath and is currently EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is located in Butler County to EPA as SIP employing absorption and chemical effective on November 5, 2001. revisions. On April 18, 2001 (65 FR reaction technology. Several control ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents 20788), EPA proposed to approve these options were evaluated for this source. relevant to this action are available for SIP revisions. Brief descriptions of the An oxidation/absorption system with public inspection during normal RACT requirements imposed for these chemical reaction and 85% control business hours at the Air Protection sources are provided at II. A and B. efficiency was evaluated and found to
VerDate 11
have a total cost effectiveness of $4807/ under 25 Pa Code Chapter 127, and had sources. The PADEP has also imposed ton reduced. A hydrogen peroxide installed low NOX burners as Best record-keeping, monitoring, and testing injection system was also investigated. Available Technology (BAT). BAT is the requirements on these sources sufficient This system was found to have a 75% control technology requirement to determine compliance with the control efficiency at a cost effectiveness imposed on new sources and applicable RACT determinations. of $3767/ton. Both SCR an selective modifications not otherwise subject to II. Summary of Public Comments non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) were Best Available Control Technology Received and EPA’s Responses evaluated. These were deemed to be (BACT) or Lowest Achievable Emission technologically infeasible due to the low Rate (LAER) under the SIP-approved EPA received comments on its April operating temperature of the needed new source review program. The PADEP 18, 2000 proposal to approve scrubber. Therefore, the PADEP reaffirmed the 1993 BAT requirement as Pennsylvania’s RACT SIP submittals for concluded no additional controls, RACT. In addition, the PADEP has twenty six—six sources from Citizens beyond those already employed, were imposed the following emission NOX for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture), required as RACT for the 90 anneal line emission limitations under condition 8 and from a concerned citizen. The furnace and the pickling line. The of Permit No. PA 10–021: comments that are germane to the RACT determinations for Allegheny Ludlum PADEP did impose maximum annual Boiler #3—0.51 lbs/MMBtu, 25.5 lbs/hr, NOX emissions from each unit to be met 111.7 tons/year Steel Corporations’s Vandergrift Plant over every consecutive 12 month period Boiler #7—0.14 lbs/MMBtu, 8.4 lbs/hr, 15.6 and INDSPEC Chemical Corporation’s in RACT Permit No. 65–000–137. The tons/year Petrolia Plant are summarized below. No. 90 A& P line furnace is limited to Boiler #8—0.51 lbs/MMBtu, 60.2 lbs/hr, EPA’s responses are provided after each 25.9 tons/year, the No. 90 A&P line 263.6 tons/year comment. scrubber to 103.0 tons/year, Boilers #1 Boiler #9—0.11 lbs/MMBtu, 22 lbs/hr, 96.4 A. Comment: PennFuture comments tons/yr and #2 to 14.3 tons/year each; and the that EPA should require that each RACT Roller Hearth Line to 10.6 tons/year. The ton/yr limits must be met on a 12 submittal include ‘‘effective and RACT Permit No. 65–000–137 also month rolling basis. Boiler #7 shall not enforceable numerical emission limits’’ requires that Allegheny Ludlum comply burn more than 223 mmcf of natural gas as a condition for approval. with the record keeping requirements of per year (also based on a 12 month Additionally, PennFuture requests that SIP-approved 25 Pa Code Chapter 129, rolling total). INDSPEC must install, EPA only approve limits that are no section 129.95. operate and maintain continuous higher than the best emission rate emission monitoring systems in actually achieved after the application B. INDSPEC Chemical Corporation’s accordance with 25 Pa Code Chapter of RACT, adjusted only to reflect legally Petrolia Plant 139 and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Db. and technically valid averaging times On December 7, 1995, PADEP issued INDSPEC must monitor and record the and deviations. PennFuture contends a RACT approval, Permit Number: PA amount of steam produced, the pressure that such an approach will ensure 10–021, to INDSPEC Chemical at which it is produced, the boiler maximum environmental benefits and Corporation’s Petrolia Plant located in efficiency and the heat input to boilers minimize the opportunity for sources to Butler County. On October 19, 1998, #4 and #5 to insure compliance with generate spurious emission reduction PADEP issued an amended RACT their de-rated heat input capacity of credits (ERCs) against limits that exceed approval to this facility retaining the 49.5 MMBtu/hr. emission levels actually achieved same Permit Number: PA 10–021. The As RACT for VOC, the PADEP has following the application of RACT. permit was issued to INDSPEC imposed condition 6 in Permit No. PA Lastly PennFuture comments that EPA Chemical Corporation (INDSPEC) for 10–021 to require that INDSPEC install should describe the RACT achieving compliance with the SIP- combination flame arrester conservation determinations in its rulemaking notices approved provisions of 25 Pa Code vents on its four ether feed tanks, T– published in the Federal Register rather Section 129.91 through 129.95. The 869, T–870, T–1085, and T–1086. than simply citing to technical support facility and PADEP submitted extensive Condition 7 of Permit No. PA 10–021 documents and other materials available RACT analyses in accordance with the requires that the VOC emissions from in docket of the rulemaking. SIP-approved provisions of 129.91 and these tanks shall be reduced by 96.5%. Response: While RACT, as defined for 129.92. These analyses are included in Permit No. PA 10–021 also requires an individual source or source category, docket for this rulemaking. Boiler #3 has that stack tests be performed in often does specify an emission rate, been removed from service completely. accordance with Chapter 139 to of the such is not always the case. EPA has The PADEP has determined that were it approved-SIP regulations to issued Control Technique Guidelines to have remained in service after May demonstrate compliance with the (CTGs) which states are to use as 31, 1995, RACT would have been that emission limits imposed in condition 7 guidance in development of their RACT it be operated and maintained in (for the 96.5% percent reduction in determinations/rules for certain sources accordance with manufacturer’s VOCs) and condition 8 (for the #7 or source categories. Not every CTG recommendations and with good air boiler). The combustion units rated issued by EPA includes an emission pollution control practices. For boilers greater than 100 MMBtu shall be stack rate. There are several examples of CTGs #4, #5, and #7 which by design or by de- tested to comply with the requirements issued by EPA wherein equipment rates imposed in enforceable permit of 129.91. Permit No. PA 10–021 also standards and/or work practice conditions, INDSPEC has elected to requires INDSPEC to comply with the standards alone are provided as RACT comply with the SIP-approved record keeping requirements of 129.95. guidance for all or part of the processes presumptive RACT requirements of On April 18, 2000 EPA proposed to covered. Such examples include the 129.93. The PADEP has determined that approve these RACT determinations (65 CTGs issued for Bulk gasoline plants, RACT for Boiler #8 is that it be operated FR 20788) because the PADEP Gasoline service stations—Stage I, and maintained in accordance with established and imposed these RACT Petroleum Storage in Fixed-roof tanks, manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements in accordance with the Petroleum refinery processes, Solvent with good air pollution control criteria set forth in the SIP-approved metal cleaning, Pharmaceutical practices. Boiler #9 had been permitted RACT regulations applicable to these products, External Floating roof tanks
VerDate 11
and Synthetic Organic Chemical limited approval did not impose any and INDSPEC Chemical Corporation’s Manufacturing (SOCMI)/polymer conditions pertaining to the regulation’s Petrolia Plant in this document. manufacturing. (See http:// procedures for the submittal of RACT B. Comment: A private citizen www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/ctg.txt ). plans and analyses by subject sources expresses concern that the RACT That said, the RACT determinations and approval of case-by case RACT requirements for INDSPEC Chemical made by PADEP for Allegheny Ludlum determinations by the DEP. Rather, EPA Corporation’s #8 and #3 boilers might Steel Corporations’s Vandergrift Plant stated that ‘‘* * *RACT rules may not not be sufficiently stringent. He believes and INDSPEC Chemical Corporation’s merely be procedural rules (emphasis that at if this was the case, the Company Petrolia Plant include both SIP- added) that require the source and the might be able to claim excessive approved presumptive RACT State to later agree to the appropriate amounts of emission reduction credits requirements and numerical emission level of control; rather the rules must (ERCs). With respect to Boiler #8, the rates. identify the appropriate level of control citizen was concerned that the With regard to the criteria EPA uses for source categories or individual Commonwealth had established a RACT to determine whether to approve or sources.’’ emissions limit based upon this boiler disapprove RACT SIP revisions EPA reviews the case-by-case RACT operating as a coal-fired unit and not as submitted by PADEP pursuant to 25 Pa plan approvals and/or permits a gas-fired unit. He points out that the Code Chapter 129.91–129.95, we look to submitted as individual SIP revisions by Company had, in 1994, converted Boiler the provisions of those SIP-approved Commonwealth to verify and determine #8 to gas-firing, resulting in significant if they are consistent with the RACT reductions in NO regulations and to the requirements of X emissions. In requirements of the Act and any particular, he questions the conclusion the Clean Air Act and relevant EPA relevant EPA guidance. EPA first that the cost effectiveness of the guidance. On March 23, 1998 (63 FR reviews a SIP submission to ensure that conversion was $5,500 per ton of NO 13789), EPA granted conditional limited X the source and the Commonwealth removed. He contends that INDSPEC’s approval of Pennsylvania’s generic followed the SIP-approved generic rule motivations for the conversion from coal RACT regulations, 25 PA Code Chapters when applying for and imposing RACT, to gas may have been driven based on 121 and 129, thereby approving the respectively. Then EPA performs a economic considerations citing that definitions, provisions and procedures thorough review of the technical and perhaps the boiler was too costly to contained within those regulations economic analyses conducted by the maintain on coal, or perhaps the under which the Commonwealth would source and the state. If EPA believes company was faced with the prospect of require and impose RACT. Subsection additional information may further adding other emissions controls. He 129.91, Control of major sources of NOX support or would undercut the RACT contends that by converting to gas, the and VOCs, requires subject facilities to analyses submitted by the state, then we company derives savings on personnel, submit a RACT plan proposal to both may add additional EPA-generated maintenance on fuel handling and the Pennsylvania Department of analyses to the record. Thus, EPA does burning equipment, wear and tear on Environmental Protection (DEP) and to not believe it would be appropriate to the boiler and maintenance on air EPA Region III by July 15, 1994 in only approve limits that are no higher pollution control equipment. With accordance with subsection 129.92, than the best emission rate actually respect to Boiler #3, the citizen is also entitled, RACT proposal requirements. achieved after the application of RACT, concerned that the Commonwealth Under subsection 129.92, that proposal adjusted only to reflect legally and might have established a RACT is to include the following information: technically valid averaging times and emissions limit which was too high. He (1) A list each subject source at the deviations. notes the boiler had been shutdown and facility; (2) The size or capacity of each EPA does note that an approved that the Commonwealth had established affected source, and the types of fuel RACT emission limitation alone does a RACT emissions limit for the boiler combusted, and the types and amounts not constitute the baseline against using an emissions factor. He maintains of materials processed or produced at which ERCs may be generated. There that the emissions limit should have each source; (3) A physical description are many other factors that must be been based on CEM or EPA-reference of each source and its operating considered in the calculation of eligible method data. He also maintains that characteristics; (4) Estimates of potential ERCs under Pennsylvania’s approved EPA must assure that ERCs are based on and actual emissions from each affected SIP regulations governing the creation the lower of actual or allowable source with supporting documentation; ERCs. Moreover, the scenario posed in emissions. The citizen concludes by (5) A RACT analysis which meets the PennFuture’s comment would not create saying that the entire steam generating requirements of subsection 129.92 (b), eligible ERC’s under the Commonwealth plant should be capped such that prior including technical and economic approved SIP regulations. Under the actual emissions are discounted for the support documentation for each affected Commonwealth’s regulations pertaining generation of ERCs, after RACT has been source; (6) A schedule for to ERCs, found at 25 Pa. Code Chapter implemented; and that the implementation as expeditiously as 127, sections 127.206 through 127.210 implementation of RACT should not be practicable but not later than May 15, (approved by the EPA at 62 FR 64722 allowed to create ERCs, only reductions 1995; (7) The testing, monitoring, on December 9, 1997), sources cannot beyond RACT are allowed for ERC recordkeeping and reporting procedures obtain ERCs if they find that their RACT creation. proposed to demonstrate compliance controls result in lower emissions than Response: EPA concurs with the with RACT; and (8) any additional allowed by their specified RACT limits. Commonwealth’s analyses that the cost information requested by the DEP While EPA believes that Federal of removing NOX by converting Boiler necessary to evaluate the RACT rulemaking procedures allow for the #8 to gas firing, at $5,500 per ton of NOX proposal. Under subsection 129.91, the format and procedures used in its April removed, is higher than the cost which DEP will approve, deny or modify each 18, 2000 rulemaking notices, we have has typically considered to be RACT proposal, and submit each RACT nonetheless described the RACT reasonable when determining RACT determination to EPA for approval as a determinations made for Allegheny controls. The Commonwealth has set SIP revision. The conditional nature of Ludlum Steel Corporations’s Vandergrift out objective requirements for all EPA’s March 23, 1998 conditional Plant located in Westmoreland County subject facilities to make a case-by-case
VerDate 11
RACT proposals in sections 129.91, therefore is not subject to review by the of a SIP submission that otherwise 129.92, and 129.93 and EPA has Office of Management and Budget. For satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air approved them as part of the SIP. Trying this reason, this action is also not Act. Thus, the requirements of section to ascertain other motives that INDSPEC subject to Executive Order 13211, 12(d) of the National Technology may have had for the conversion and ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 then taking into account the types of Significantly Affect Energy Supply, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This cost savings which the citizen identified Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May rule does not impose an information is not consistent with an objective 22, 2001). This action merely approves collection burden under the provisions approach toward determining RACT. state law as meeting Federal of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Given that Boiler #3 was shutdown in requirements and imposes no additional (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 1992, and the absence of any available requirements beyond those imposed by B. Submission to Congress and the CEM or EPA-reference method state law. Accordingly, the Comptroller General emissions data, EPA believes that the Administrator certifies that this rule Commonwealth’s decision to establish a will not have a significant economic The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small RACT limit for this boiler based on an impact on a substantial number of small Business Regulatory Enforcement emissions factor was reasonable. With entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides respect to the citizen’s concerns Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this that before a rule may take effect, the regarding the possibility of the rule approves pre-existing requirements agency promulgating the rule must Company obtaining excessive ERCs, under state law and does not impose again EPA notes that the submit a rule report, which includes a any additional enforceable duty beyond copy of the rule, to each House of the Commonwealth’s SIP-approved that required by state law, it does not regulations pertaining to ERC generation Congress and to the Comptroller General contain any unfunded mandate or of the United States. Section 804 and creation, found at 25 Pa. Code significantly or uniquely affect small Chapter 127, sections 127.206 through exempts from section 801 the following governments, as described in the types of rules: (1) Rules of particular 127.210, contain provisions which Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 would prevent the granting of excess applicability; (2) rules relating to agency (Public Law 104–4). This rule also does management or personnel; and (3) rules ERCs. The regulations require all ERCs not have tribal implications because it to be surplus, permanent, quantified, of agency organization, procedure, or will not have a substantial direct effect practice that do not substantially affect and Federally enforceable. Moreover, on one or more Indian tribes, on the under the Pennsylvania SIP, ERCs must the rights or obligations of non-agency relationship between the Federal parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not also meet the offset requirements of the Government and Indian tribes, or on the Commonwealth’s new source review required to submit a rule report distribution of power and regarding today’s action under section program. The calculation of eligible responsibilities between the Federal ERCs under the Pennsylvania SIP does 801 because this is a rule of particular Government and Indian tribes, as applicability establishing source- not allow for ‘‘only on paper credits.’’ specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, sections specific requirements for two named FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This sources. 127.206 through 127.210 such action also does not have Federalism calculations take into account the implications because it does not have C. Petitions for Judicial Review generating source’s actual operating substantial direct effects on the States, Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean history and only actual emission on the relationship between the national Air Act, petitions for judicial review of reductions are creditable. government and the States, or on the this action must be filed in the United III. Final Action distribution of power and States Court of Appeals for the responsibilities among the various EPA is approving the revisions to the appropriate circuit by December 18, levels of government, as specified in 2001. Filing a petition for Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, to establish and require VOC and/or reconsideration by the Administrator of August 10, 1999). This action merely this final rule does not affect the finality NOX RACT for Allegheny Ludlum Steel approves a state rule implementing a Corporations’s Vandergrift Plant located of this rule for the purposes of judicial Federal standard, and does not alter the review nor does it extend the time in Westmoreland County and INDSPEC relationship or the distribution of power Chemical Corporation’s Petrolia Plant within which a petition for judicial and responsibilities established in the review may be filed, and shall not located in Butler County. EPA is Clean Air Act. This rule also is not approving these RACT SIP submittals postpone the effectiveness of such rule subject to Executive Order 13045 or action. This action approving because PADEP established and ‘‘Protection of Children from imposed these RACT requirements in revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP Environmental Health Risks and Safety submitted by PADEP to establish and accordance with the criteria set forth in Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), the SIP-approved RACT regulations require VOC and/or NOX RACT for because it is not economically Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporations’s applicable to these sources. The PADEP significant. In reviewing SIP has also imposed record keeping, Vandergrift Plant located in submissions, EPA’s role is to approve Westmoreland County and INDSPEC monitoring, and testing requirements on state choices, provided that they meet these sources sufficient to determine Chemical Corporation’s Petrolia Plant the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this located in Butler County may not be compliance with the applicable RACT context, in the absence of a prior determinations. challenged later in proceedings to existing requirement for the State to use enforce its requirements. (See section IV. Administrative Requirements voluntary consensus standards (VCS), 307(b)(2).) EPA has no authority to disapprove a A. General Requirements SIP submission for failure to use VCS. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR It would thus be inconsistent with Environmental protection, Air 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is applicable law for EPA, when it reviews pollution control, Incorporation by not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and a SIP submission, to use VCS in place reference, Intergovernmental relations,
VerDate 11
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is recordkeeping requirements. AGENCY effective on November 19, 2001. Dated: October 3, 2001. 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents Thomas C. Voltaggio, relevant to this action are available for [PA175–4179; FRL–7079–6] Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: Approval and Promulgation of Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Quality Implementation Plans and Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, PART 52—[AMENDED] Designation of Areas for Air Quality Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; Planning Purposes; Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Department of 1. The authority citation for part 52 Redesignation of Pittsburgh-Beaver Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air continues to read as follows: Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area to Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Attainment and Approval of Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Miscellaneous Revisions FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Subpart NN—Pennsylvania AGENCY: Environmental Protection Webster, (215) 814–2033, or by e-mail at Agency (EPA). [email protected]. 2. Section 52.2020 is amended by ACTION: Final rule. adding paragraph (c)(186) to read as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On SUMMARY: follows: EPA is determining that the January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1925), EPA Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley moderate published a determination of attainment § 52.2020 Identification of plan. ozone nonattainment area (the for the Pittsburgh area. This notice of * * * * * Pittsburgh area) has attained the 1-hour proposed rulemaking (NPR) also ozone National Ambient Air Quality proposed a determination that certain (c) * * * Standard (NAAQS) by its extended requirements of the Act were no longer (186) Revisions to the Pennsylvania attainment date. The Pittsburgh area is applicable. On May 30, 2001 (66 FR Regulations, Chapter 129.91 pertaining comprised of Allegheny, Armstrong, 29270), EPA published another NPR for to NOX RACT, submitted on March 21, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 1996, December 7, 1998 and April 9, and Westmoreland counties. This This May 30, 2001, NPR proposed to 1999. determination is based on three years of redesignate the Pittsburgh area to complete, quality-assured, ambient air attainment of the 1-hour ozone (i) Incorporation by reference. quality monitoring data for the 1998 to standard. EPA also proposed to approve (A) Letters submitted by the 2000 ozone seasons that demonstrate the maintenance plan that the Pennsylvania Department of that the ozone NAAQS has been Commonwealth submitted as a revision Environmental Protection transmitting attained in the area, and the most recent to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA proposed source-specific NOX RACT data which shows that the area is these actions in parallel with the determinations in the form of plan continuing to attain. On the basis of this Commonwealth’s process for amending approvals or operating permits on determination, EPA is also determining the SIP. No substantial changes were March 21, 1996, December 7, 1998 and that certain attainment demonstration made to the plan during the April 9, 1999. requirements along with certain other Commonwealth’s adoption process and related requirements of Part D of Title (B) Plan approvals (PA), and the Commonwealth formally submitted 1 of the Clean Air Act (the Act), are not Operating permits (OP) for the following its adopted SIP on May 21, 2001. applicable to the Pittsburgh area. EPA is sources: On May 30, 2001 (66 FR 29270) EPA also approving the Commonwealth of also proposed approval of the 1990 NO (1) Allegheny Ludlum Steel X Pennsylvania’s Department of base year inventory and, to convert the Corporation, Westmoreland County, OP Environmental Protection (PADEP) limited approval of the Pennsylvania 65–000–137, effective May 17, 1999, request to redesignate the Pittsburgh NSR program to full approval for the except for the expiration date. area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone entire Commonwealth, with the (2) INDSPEC Chemical Corporation, NAAQS. The Commonwealth’s formal exception of the Pennsylvania portion of Butler County, PA 10–021, as amended request was dated May 21, 2001. In the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton and effective on October 19, 1998 except approving this redesignation request, ozone nonattainment area. This EPA is also approving as a revision to for Condition 4. document is organized as follows: the Pennsylvania State Implementation (ii) Additional materials. Other Plan (SIP), the Commonwealth’s plan I. What is the background for these actions? materials submitted by the for maintaining the 1-hour ozone II. What comments did we receive and what Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in are our responses? standard for the next 10 years. EPA is III. What actions are we taking? support of and pertaining to the RACT also approving the 1990 base year IV. Why are we taking this action to determinations submitted for the emission inventory for nitrous oxides redesignate the area? sources listed in paragraph (c)(186)(i)(B) (NOX). EPA is converting the limited V. What are the effects of redesignation to of this section. approval of Pennsylvania’s New Source attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS? VI. Administrative Requirements. [FR Doc. 01–26405 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Review (NSR) program to full approval throughout the Commonwealth with the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P I. What Is the Background for These exception of the 5-county Pennsylvania Actions? portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington- Trenton ozone nonattainment area The history for these actions have where it will retain its limited approval been set forth in the proposed status until that area has an approved rulemakings published May 30, 2001 attainment demonstration for the 1-hour (66 FR 29270) and January 10, 2001 (66 ozone standard. FR 1925).
VerDate 11
II. What Comments Did We Receive and area had attained the standard based on CAA.’’ If an area has, in fact, monitored What Are Our Responses? 1998–2000 monitoring data. With this attainment of the relevant NAAQS, EPA We received letters containing finding, EPA also proposed that certain believes there is no need for an area to adverse comments from 2 commenters requirements, including an attainment make a further submission containing and 1 letter in support of our proposal demonstration, were no longer additional measures to achieve applicable as the area had attained the attainment. This is also consistent with of January 10, 2001. For our May 30, standard. EPA has explained at length the interpretation of certain section 2001 proposal, we received 5 letters in other actions its rationale for the 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in opposed to our actions and 1 letter in reasonableness of this interpretation of the General Preamble to Title I. As EPA support. Comments in support of the the Act and incorporates those stated in the General Preamble, no other rulemaking action are not summarized explanation by reference. See (61 FR measures to provide for attainment below. The adverse comments and 20458) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio would be needed by areas seeking EPA’s response to them are provided May 7, 1996); (60 FR 36723) (July 18, redesignation to attainment since below. 1995) Salt Lake and Davis Counties, ‘‘attainment will have been reached’’ (57 A. Comments Related to Whether the Utah); (60 FR 37366) (July 20, 1995), (61 FR 13564). Upon attainment of the Area Has a Fully Approved Plan FR 31832–31833) (June 21, 1996) (Grand NAAQS, the focus of state planning Rapids, MI), (65 FR 37879) (June 19, efforts shifts to the maintenance of the We received comments from several 2000) Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio and NAAQS and the development of a parties who assert that pursuant to Kentucky. The United States Court of maintenance plan under section 175A. 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the Clean Air Act, appeals for the Tenth Circuit has upheld Similar reasoning applies to other EPA cannot redesignate an area to EPA’s interpretation. Sierra Club v. related provisions of subpart 2. The first attainment unless EPA ‘‘has fully EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996). of these are the contingency measure approved the applicable EPA reiterates the position set forth in requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the implementation plan for the area.’’ They its prior rulemaking actions and in the Act. EPA has previously interpreted the contend that EPA has yet to fully January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1925) proposed contingency measure requirements of approve the applicable implementation rulemaking for the Pittsburgh area. section 172(c)(9) as no longer being plan for the Pittsburgh area. The Subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the Act applicable once an area has attained the commenters maintain that, among other contains various air quality planning standard since those ‘‘contingency things, EPA has yet to fully approve the and SIP submission requirements for measures are directed at ensuring RFP moderate area ozone SIP for this area by ozone nonattainment areas. EPA and attainment by the applicable date’’ failing to have fully approved the believes it is reasonable to interpret the (57 FR 13564). following specific SIP elements required provisions regarding Reasonable Further The state must continue to operate an by the Clean Air Act: Progress (RFP) and attainment appropriate network, in accordance (1) An Attainment Determination and demonstrations, along with other certain with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the Attainment Demonstration other related provisions, not to require attainment status of the area. The air SIP submissions if an ozone quality data relied upon to determine Comment: Several commenters assert nonattainment area subject to those that the area is attaining the ozone that the Act required moderate area SIP requirements is monitoring attainment standard must be consistent with 40 submittals to include an attainment of the ozone standard (i.e., attainment of CFR part 58 requirements and other demonstration based on modeling or the NAAQS demonstrated with three relevant EPA guidance and recorded in other analytical method determined by consecutive years of complete, quality- EPA’s Aerometric Information Retrieval EPA to be at least as effective. The assured, air quality monitoring data). System (AIRS). commenters contend that EPA has not EPA interprets the general provisions of EPA has reviewed the ambient air approved an attainment demonstration subpart 1 of part D of Title I (sections monitoring data for ozone (consistent for Pittsburgh, nor has the state 171 and 172) not to require the with the requirements contained in 40 submitted an approvable attainment submission of SIP revisions concerning CFR part 58 and recorded in EPA’s demonstration. The commenters also RFP, attainment demonstrations or AIRS) for the Pittsburgh moderate ozone claim that EPA’s proposal to waive section 172 (c)(9) contingency measures. nonattainment area from the 1998 to requirements of section 172(c)(1) and As explained in a memorandum from 2000 ozone seasons. Monitoring data for 182(b)(1) of the Act concerning John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air the 2001 ozone season shows that the submission of the ozone attainment Quality Planning and Standards, area continues to attain the 1-hour demonstration, reasonable further entitled ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, ozone NAAQS. On the basis of this progress (RFP) demonstration and Attainment Demonstration, and Related review, EPA had determined that the reasonably available control measures Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment area has attained the 1-hour ozone and section 172(c)(9) concerning Area Meeting the Ozone National standard during the 1998–2000 period contingency measures, is without Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ dated (and has continued to do so, to date, in justification. They also contend that May 10, 1995, EPA believes it is 2001), and therefore is not required to EPA has no authority to waive these appropriate to interpret the more submit an attainment demonstration requirements. One commenter questions specific attainment demonstration and and a section 172(c)(9) contingency why EPA makes no mention of the related provisions of subpart 2 in the measure plan, nor does it need any attainment demonstration adopted same manner. See Sierra Club v. EPA, other measures to attain the 1-hour December 29, 1997 by the 99 F. 3d. 1551 (10th Cir. 1996). ozone standard. Commonwealth and asserts that EPA’s The attainment demonstration EPA does not need to evaluate the proposal to waive the requirements of requirements of section 182(b)(1) attainment demonstration that the section 172(c), section 182(b)(1), and requires that the plan provide for ‘‘such Commonwealth has previously adopted, section 172(c)(9) have no effect since specific annual reductions in emissions because it is not necessary for this EPA has not redesignated the area. * * * as necessary to attain the national action, and is no longer a requirement Response: On January 10, 2001 (66 FR primary ambient air quality standard by for the Pittsburgh area, because the area 1925), EPA proposed that the Pittsburgh the attainment date applicable under the has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
VerDate 11
It is also important to note that the category RACT rules for all CTG approval of the generic RACT regulation Commonwealth has a fully approved 15 categories including: aerospace, to a full approval for the Pittsburgh area. percent plan for the Pittsburgh area. (66 synthetic organic compound Since our proposal, EPA has taken final FR 17634) (April 3, 2001). manufacturing, reactor and distillations action approving the source-specific SIP processes, shipbuilding, wood furniture, revisions submitted by the (2) An ‘‘All Reasonably Available large petroleum dry cleaners, air Commonwealth for all the sources Control Measures’’ (RACM) Analysis oxidation processes in synthetic organic located in Allegheny, Armstrong, Comment: One commenter asserts chemical manufacturing industries, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, that EPA has not approved a equipment leaks from natural/gas and Westmoreland counties. On August demonstration that the SIP provided for gasoline processing plants, and a 24, 2001, EPA proposed to convert the implementation of all reasonably number of others. One commenter limited approval of the available control measures as postulates that EPA will suggest that it Commonwealth’s NOX and VOC RACT expeditiously as practicable, 42 U.S.C. will require source specific RACT for all regulation to full approval in the 7502(c)(1), nor has the state met this sources within each category before Pittsburgh area. EPA has taken final requirement for Pittsburgh. The finalizing the redesignation proposal action on that proposal and converted commenter states that EPA has no and the commenter asserts that this the limited approval of the authority to waive this requirement, approach circumvents the mandate to Commonwealth’s NOX and VOC RACT which is in addition to the requirement adopt RACT for each category of VOC regulation to full approval. The to demonstrate timely attainment. sources covered by CTG documents. Commonwealth has met the Response: No additional RACM This commenter goes on to say the these requirements of the Act’s RACT controls beyond what are already category RACTs were to have been provisions for the Pittsburgh area. required in the SIP are necessary for adopted and complied with years ago The Act requires that states adopt redesignation to attainment. The and EPA cannot retroactively deem the regulations to impose RACT for ‘‘major General Preamble, April 16, 1992 (57 FR SIP to be in compliance with part D. sources of VOC,’’ located within those 13560), explains that section 172 (c)(1) Several commenters assert that if EPA areas of a state where RACT applies requires the plans for all nonattainment intends to grant the state’s redesignation under Part D of the Act [182(b)(2)(C)]. areas to provide for the implementation request based on potential future EPA This requirement, referred to as the non- of RACM as expeditiously as approvals of state RACT determinations, CTG VOC RACT requirement, clearly practicable. EPA interprets this then it will deprive the public of the does not require category-specific RACT requirement to impose a duty on all opportunity to offer fully informed rules. Moreover, EPA disagrees that nonattainment areas to consider all comment as to whether the plan as a there is a statutory mandate that a state available control measures and to adopt whole meets all of the applicable adopt a source category RACT and implement those measures that are requirements of section 110 and part D regulation even for a source category reasonably available and necessary to of the Act, as well as the where EPA has issued a CTG. There are attain as expeditiously as practicable. appropriateness of their inclusion in the two statutory provisions that address Because attainment has been achieved, redesignation. RACT for sources covered by a CTG. no additional measures are needed to Response: The Pittsburgh area has One provides that states must adopt provide for attainment. satisfied all applicable ozone RACT for ‘‘any category of VOC The suspension of the attainment requirements and has a fully approved sources’’ covered by a CTG issued prior demonstration requirements pursuant to ozone SIP. In acting upon a to November 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(A)]. our determination of attainment include redesignation request, EPA may rely on The other provides that states must the section 172(c)(1) RACM any prior SIP approvals plus any adopt VOC RACT for all ‘‘VOC sources’’ requirements as well. The General additional approvals it may perform in covered by a CTG issued after November Preamble treats the RACM requirements conjunction with acting on the 15, 1990 [182(b)(2)(B)]. EPA has long as a ‘‘component’’ of an area’s redesignation. EPA has already taken interpreted the statutory RACT attainment demonstration. Thus, the final action to approve all required SIP requirement (including the suspension of the attainment elements or is approving them in requirements for CTG RACT) to be met demonstration requirement pursuant to conjunction with this final action on the either by adoption of category-specific our determination of attainment applies redesignation. Therefore, the Pittsburgh rules or by source-specific rules for each to the RACM requirement, since it is a area has a fully approved SIP. See source within a category. When initially component of the attainment ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to established, RACT was clearly defined demonstration. Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ John as a case-by-case determination, but Calcagni, Director, Air Quality EPA provided CTG’s to simplify the (3) Reasonably Available Control Management Division, September 4, process for states such that they would Technology (RACT) 1992, page 3. The Calcagni not be required to adopt hundreds or Comment: Several commenters state memorandum allows for approval of SIP thousands of individual rules. See that the Act explicitly requires that the elements and redesignation to occur Strelow Memorandum dated December SIP mandate RACT for all VOC sources simultaneously, and EPA has frequently 9, 1976 and 44 FR 53761, September 17, within the nonattainment area, taken this approach in its redesignation 1979. EPA does not believe that including each category of VOC sources actions. See (61 FR 20458) (Cleveland- Congress’ use of ‘‘source category’’ in covered by Control Technique Akron-Lorain, Ohio May 7, 1996); (60 one provision of section 182(b)(2) was Guideline (CTG) documents. 42 U.S.C. FR 37366) (July 20, 1995), (61 FR intended to preclude the adoption of 7502(c), 7511a (b)(2). The commenters 31832–31833( (June 21, 1996) (Grand source-specific rules. point out that EPA concedes that the Rapids, MI). Thus, where CTG-subject sources are requirement to fully approve the RACT In our proposed redesignation on May located within those areas of a state SIP has not been met as of the date of 30, 2001, we stated that we would not where RACT applies under Part D of the the redesignation proposal. take final action to redesignate Act, the state is obligated to impose Several commenters state that the Pittsburgh until it had taken all actions RACT for the same universe of sources Commonwealth has not adopted source necessary for EPA to convert the limited covered by the CTG. However, that
VerDate 11
obligation is not required to be met by rely on these previously-approved rules Response: As indicated, pursuant to the adoption and submittal of a source in determining that the State has a SIP EPA’s issuance of an attainment category RACT rule. A state may, that meets those applicable determination for the Pittsburgh area, an instead, opt to impose RACT for requirements. See Southwestern approved attainment demonstration is individual sources in permits, plan Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. no longer an applicable requirement. approvals, consent orders or in any Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989 (6th Cir. EPA has, however, now fully approved other state enforceable document and 1998). the NSR program for the Pittsburgh area. submit those documents to EPA for EPA disagrees with the commenter On May 2, 1997, EPA proposed to grant approval as source-specific SIP that it is ‘‘retroactively’’ deeming that limited approval of Pennsylvania’s NSR revisions. This option has been the State has complied with the RACT program (62 FR 24060). On December 9, exercised by many states, and happens requirements of the Act. With respect to 1997 (62 FR 64722) EPA published its most commonly when only a few CTG- many of these source-specific rules, the final rule granting limited approval of subject sources are located in the state. source has been subject to and Pennsylvania’s NSR program and The source-specific approach is complying with the requirements for an incorporated 25 Pa. Code of Regulations, generally employed to avoid what can extended period of time. Simply Chapter 127, Subchapter E, Subsections be a lengthy and resource-intensive state because EPA is only now taking action 127.201 through 127.217, inclusive, by rule adoption process for only a few on those rules does not mean that the reference into the Pennsylvania SIP. sources that may have different needs State or the source failed to meet the (See 40 CFR part 52 at 52.2020(c)(107).) and considerations that must be taken statutory RACT obligation. Finally, to The proposed and final actions into account. the extent that the State and/or the provided a detailed description of how While EPA believes that the source is late in meeting the statutory the Commonwealth’s NSR regulations Commonwealth was not obligated to RACT obligation, EPA does not believe satisfy the requirements of sections 172, impose RACT via the adoption of VOC that Congress intended that such an area 173, 182 and 184 of the Act. As source category rules for the reasons could never be redesignated to explained in section I. C. of the May 2, provided above, nonetheless, EPA has attainment, as the commenter appears to 1997 notice of proposed rulemaking (62 approved the Commonwealth’s VOC suggest. At this point, the best such an FR 24061), under section 184 of the Act, source category rules for aerospace (June area can do is to meet the requirement the preconstruction permitting 25, 2001, 66 FR 33645) and for wood as quickly as possible—the area cannot requirements applicable to moderate furniture (July 20, 2001, 66 FR 37908). retroactively comply. Thus, EPA ozone nonattainment areas apply to In a letter from the PADEP (then the believes that Congress intended that ozone attainment areas and to marginal Pennsylvania Department of once such an area complied with the and moderate ozone nonattainment Environmental Resources), dated April statutory requirements—as is the case areas in the Commonwealth because 19, 1993, the Commonwealth made with Pittsburgh—the area may be Pennsylvania is located in the Ozone negative declarations for the CTG source redesignated. Transport Region (OTR). Section II. A. categories of large petroleum dry of the May 2, 1997 proposal (62 FR cleaners, and equipment leaks from (4) New Source Review (NSR) 24062) explicitly states that natural gas/gasoline processing plants. Comment: We received several Pennsylvania’s NSR requirements for The Commonwealth made a negative comments regarding NSR and its moderate ozone nonattainment areas declaration on September 28, 2001 for approval into the SIP. The commenters apply throughout Pennsylvania with the point source shipbuilding emissions in assert that the Act explicitly requires the exception of the Philadelphia severe the counties of Armstrong, Butler, SIP to include a preconstruction permit ozone nonattainment area. Subsections Beaver, Fayette, Washington, and program for new sources and Westmoreland. The Allegheny County modifications within the nonattainment 127.203, 127.208, and 127. 210 of the Health Department (ACHD) made a area. (42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2)(C), Commonwealth’s SIP-approved negative declaration on September 27, 7502(c)(4)&(5), 7503, 7511a(a)(2)(C), regulations, in particular, satisfy section 2001, for subject shipbuilding sources in (b)(5)). The commenters assert that the 184 of the Act by imposing the same Allegheny County. NSR program should not be approved offset-related requirements to The public has had opportunity to without an approved attainment attainment, and marginal nonattainment comment on three occasions on the demonstration in the Pittsburgh area. areas of the Commonwealth as those generic RACT rule. In addition, EPA One commenter also asserts that EPA applicable to moderate ozone provided comment periods for its cannot approve the Commonwealth’s nonattainment areas. approval of each source specific rule, as rule without first promulgating On December 9, 1997, when EPA well as for each of the category rules. ‘‘Alternative 2’’ of the federal NSR rule approved Pennsylvania’s NSR Furthermore, EPA recently published revision. This commenter also asserts regulations into the SIP, its sole reason approval notices for all remaining case that approval of the Commonwealth’s for granting limited approval, rather specific RACT determinations for NSR program is in conflict with section than full approval, of Pennsylvania’s sources located in the Pittsburgh area 184 of the Act, because the NSR regulations was that they do not and the public did indeed exercise their Commonwealth’s NSR rule does not contain certain restrictions on the use of right to comment on those proposed require the same offset credit emission reductions from the shutdown actions. EPA disagrees that the public restrictions in the marginal and and curtailment of existing sources or has not had adequate opportunity to attainment areas as required by section units as NSR offsets. These restrictions offer fully informed comment as to 184 of the Act. One of the commenters apply in nonattainment areas without whether the plan submitted by the also contends that the NSR program’s an approved attainment demonstration Commonwealth meets all of the conditional approval status has expired (see 40 CFR part 51.165(a)(ii)(C)). (The applicable requirements of section 110 and should already have been converted submittal and approval of an attainment and part D of the Act. The public has to a disapproval. This commenter also demonstration is not required by the Act had ample opportunity to comment on asserts that the EPA-required for ozone nonattainment areas classified the RACT regulations adopted by the restrictions on shutdown credit are as marginal, nor is it required in areas Commonwealth, and EPA is entitled to lacking in the program. designated as attainment for ozone.) As
VerDate 11
EPA is, by this action, approving the EPA did not grant the Transportation Conformity Rule attainment determination for the Commonwealth’s NSR program a Amendments: Flexibility and Pittsburgh area proposed on January 10, conditional approval, and, therefore Streamlining). Conformity regulations 2001 (66 FR 1925), approval of an disagrees with the comment that any needed to be revised again, due to the attainment demonstration is not a conditional approval has expired and March 2, 1999 court decision, requirement for the Pittsburgh area. should have been converted to a Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, Pursuant to EPA’s determination of disapproval. 167 F. 3d 641 (D.C. Cir. 1999). attainment, an attainment Even if the NSR program for Pennsylvania submitted transportation demonstration is no longer required, Pittsburgh were not fully approved the conformity rules on November 21, 1994, and thus similarly, an approved ozone area would still qualify for but EPA has not acted upon the rules redesignation, since EPA has previously attainment demonstration is no longer and the rules must be revised to be interpreted the Clean Air Act as not required under the NSR provisions for consistent with the amendments EPA ozone. Since the premise of 40 CFR requiring a fully approved NSR program made consistent with the court rulings 51.165(a)(ii)(C)(1), that an attainment for redesignation of an area subject to in EDF. v. EPA, supra. demonstration is required, does not the section 184 transport requirements. exist, EPA concludes that the regulation EPA has set forth its rationale for its EPA believes, however, that it is should be interpreted so as not to interpretation that NSR and other reasonable to interpret the conformity require an approved attainment section 184 ozone transport requirements as not applying for demonstration where no attainment requirements are inapplicable for purposes of evaluating the redesignation demonstration is required. Therefore, redesignation purposes in its proposed request under section 107(d). The EPA has determined that it is and final rulemakings on Reading, rationale for this is two-fold. First, the appropriate, at this time, to grant full Pennsylvania. See 61 FR 53174–53176 requirement to submit SIP revisions to approval of the Commonwealth’s NSR (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826– comply with the conformity provisions regulations as they apply throughout the 24834 (May 7, 1997), which are of the Clean Air Act continues to apply Commonwealth with the exception of incorporated herein by reference. to areas after redesignation to the five-county Pennsylvania portion of (5) Conformity attainment, since these areas would be the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton subject to a Section 175A maintenance Comment: Several commenters ozone nonattainment area. That area is plan. Second, EPA’s Federal conformity the only portion of the Commonwealth asserted that the SIP does not include fully approved transportation rules require the performance of where the approval of an attainment conformity analyses in the absence of demonstration is still required. EPA conformity procedures that comply with federally approved State rules. intends to take rulemaking action to Part D of the Act under section 176, and Therefore, because areas are subject to grant full approval of the that EPA has no authority to waive this the conformity requirements regardless Commonwealth’s NSR regulations in the requirement for SIPs. One commenter five-county Pennsylvania portion of the argues that the Commonwealth is still of whether they are redesignated to Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton obligated to submit such procedures and attainment and must implement ozone nonattainment area at such time the fact that federal procedures apply conformity under Federal rules if State as that area has an approved attainment does not excuse failure to adopt rules are not yet approved, EPA believes demonstration. conformity procedures as required by it is reasonable to view these It should be noted that when EPA the statute. The commenter contends requirements as not applying for proposed to remove the limited nature that the Act allows redesignation to purposes of evaluating a redesignation of its approval of the Commonwealth’s attainment only when EPA has fully request. See, for example, Grand Rapids NSR program on May 30, 2001, it clearly approved the SIP and the state has met redesignation at 61 FR 31835–31836 was not taking action to re-approve all requirements applicable to the area (June 21, 1996) and the Cincinnati Pennsylvania’s entire NSR program. under section 110 and Part D. redesignation at 65 FR 37879, 37885– Therefore, not only does EPA disagree Response: The Commonwealth of 37886 (June 19, 2000). EPA has with the comments that the Pennsylvania has met the statutory explained its rationale and applied this Commonwealth’s NSR regulations fail to requirement for submitting approvable interpretation in numerous satisfy the Act and the current Federal general conformity procedures. EPA redesignation actions. See, Tampa, NSR-related requirements for approved the Pennsylvania general Florida and Cleveland-Akron-Lorain nonattainment areas found at 40 CFR conformity rules effective September 29, redesignations (60 FR 52748) (December Subpart I, EPA does not believe that 1997 (62 FR 50870). 7, 1995), and (61 FR 20458) (May 7, Section 176(c) provides that state such comments are timely. 1996), respectively. Consequently, EPA Because Pennsylvania’s NSR conformity revisions must be consistent may approve the ozone redesignation regulations satisfy the current federal with Federal conformity regulations that request for the Pittsburgh area NSR-related requirements for the CAA requires EPA to promulgate. nonattainment areas found at 40 CFR The Federal general conformity notwithstanding the lack of a fully Subpart I, EPA disagrees with the regulations were finalized on November approved conformity SIP. The United comment that it cannot grant approval 30, 1993, and the Federal transportation States Court of Appeals for the sixth of the Commonwealth’s NSR without conformity regulations were finalized Circuit has recently upheld EPA’s first promulgating ‘‘Alternative 2’’ of the on November 24, 1993. The Federal interpretation in Wall v. Environmental proposed revisions to the federal NSR general conformity regulations have Protection Agency, no. 00–4010, slip. rules. The commenter’s reference to remained the same since that time, but op. at 21–24 (6th Cir. Sept. 11, 2001). Alternative 2 refers to language in the the Federal transportation conformity The Court upheld EPA’s determination July 23, 1996 NSR rulemaking proposal regulations have been amended several that ‘‘failure to submit a revision * * * which has not been finalized, and times since 1993. that meets the part D transportation- therefore the Agency believes that it is The Federal transportation conformity conformity submissions requirements is not currently an applicable NSR regulations were amended on August not a basis to deny’’ redesignation to requirement. 15, 1997 (40 CFR parts 51 and 93 attainment. Id. at 24.
VerDate 11
(6) Approval of the NOX SIP Call (7) Photochemical Grid Modeling and Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone Favorable Meteorology and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’ D. Kent Comment: A commenter states that Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality the SIP must include provisions to Comment: The commenter asserts that neither the states nor EPA have shown Management Division, November 30, prohibit emissions that will contribute 1993. Our policies provide that an area significantly to nonattainment in, or that air quality improvements are due to permanent and enforceable emission may meet this requirement by showing interfere with maintenance by any other how its ozone precursor emissions State under 42 U.S.C. section reductions, as required by 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E)(iii). The commenter takes changed due to permanent and 7410(a)(2)(D)(I). The commenter asserts enforceable emissions reductions from that EPA has specifically determined issue with the finding that this criteria is met because, although the when the area was not monitoring that emissions from Pennsylvania attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS contribute significantly to ozone Commonwealth has adopted measures that have produced some emission to when it reached attainment. See the nonattainment in downwind states and rational set forth in the Cincinnati reductions, the commenter believes that has issued a SIP call to require redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37886– EPA has not demonstrated that these additional NOX controls in the 37889) (June 19, 2000). The sixth Circuit reductions are responsible for the area’s Pennsylvania SIP to address this has recently upheld EPA’s improved air quality or the absence of problem. The commenter asserts that interpretation in Wall v. EPA, supra, violations. The commenter claims that EPA has not fully approved the state’s slip. op at 16–20. rule to meet the SIP call requirements, the only way to reliably make such a Reductions in ozone precursor (VOC thus the SIP is not yet fully approved. showing would be through and NO ) emissions have brought many photochemical grid modeling. The X Response: EPA believes that areas across the country into attainment. commenter states that no such modeling submissions under the NO SIP call EPA has approved many ozone X is presented or discussed in this should not be considered applicable redesignations showing decreases in proposal and that given the complex requirements for purposes of evaluating ozone precursor emissions resulting in chemistry and meteorology of ozone a redesignation request. That said, EPA attainment of the ozone standard. See formation, the combination of NO and has fully approved the Commonwealth’s X redesignations for Charleston (59 FR VOC emission reductions that might be NO SIP call rule on August 21, 2001 30326, June 13, 1994; 59 FR 45985, X attributable to the cited measures could (66 FR 43795) as meeting the portion of September 6, 1994), Greenbrier County just as easily lead to increases in ozone the SIP call rule that were not remanded (60 FR 39857, August 4, 1995), concentrations. The lack of violations in by the Court in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F. Parkersburg (59 FR 29977, June 10, 1998–2000, the commenter states, could 3d. 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 1994); (59 FR 45978, September 6, just as well be due to weather patterns 1994), Jacksonville/Duval County (60 FR The NOX SIP call requirements are or changes in transport of ozone not linked with a particular 41, January 3, 1995), Miami/Southeast precursors. Without modeling to Florida (60 FR 10325, February 24, nonattainment area’s designation and determine the actual impact of adopted classification. EPA believes that the 1995), Tampa (60 FR 62748, December and enforceable controls, the 7, 1995), Lexington (60 FR 47089, requirements linked with a particular commenter finds EPA’s claim that the nonattainment area’s designation and September 11, 1995), Owensboro (58 FR area has attained the NAAQS, to be 47391, September 9, 1993), Indianapolis classification are the requirements that speculative. are the relevant measures to evaluate in (59 FR 35044, July 8, 1994; 59 FR 54391, Another commenter asserted the area October 31, 1994), South Bend-Elkhart reviewing a redesignation request. The was aided in attainment by a 2000 (59 FR 35044, July 8, 1994; 59 FR 54391, NO SIP call submittal requirements X ozone season in which there were no October 31, 1994), Evansville (62 FR continue to apply to the States temperatures which exceeded 90 12137, March 14, 1997; 62 FR 64725, regardless of the designation of any one degrees Fahrenheit. December 9, 1997), Canton (61 FR 3319, particular area in these States. Response: As provided in January 31, 1996), Youngstown-Warren Thus, we do not agree that the NOX longstanding EPA policies, we believe (61 FR 3319, January 31, 1996), SIP call submission should be construed that photochemical grid modeling is not Cleveland-Akron-Lorain (60 FR 31433, to be an applicable requirement for necessary to show that the improvement June 15, 1995; 61 FR 20458, May 7, purposes of redesignation. The section in air quality is due to permanent and 1996), Clinton County (60 FR 22337, 110 and part D requirements, which are enforceable emissions reductions. See May 5, 1995; 61 FR 11560, March 21, linked with a particular area’s General Preamble for the Interpretation 1996), Columbus (61 FR 3591, February designation and classification, are the of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1, 1996), Kewaunee County (61 FR relevant measures to evaluate in 1990, (57 FR 13496) (April 16, 1992), 29508, June 11, 1996; 61 FR 43668, reviewing a redesignation request. This supplemented at 57 FR 18070 (April 28, August 26, 1996), Walworth County (61 policy is consistent with EPA’s existing 1992); ‘‘Procedures for Processing FR 28541, June 5, 1996; 61 FR 43668, conformity and oxygenated fuels Requests to Redesignate Areas to August 26, 1996), Point Coupee Parish requirements, as well as with section Attainment,’’ John Calcagni, Director, (61 FR 37833, July 22, 1996; 62 FR 648, 184 ozone transport requirements. See Air Quality Management Division, January 6, 1997), and Monterey Bay (62 Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and September 4, 1992; ‘‘State FR 2597, January 7, 1997). Most of the final rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176) Implementation Plan (SIP) areas that have been redesignated to (October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826) (May Requirements for Areas Submitting attainment for the 1-hour ozone 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio Requests for Redesignation to standard have continued to attain it. final rulemaking (61 FR 20458) (May 7, Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Areas that are not maintaining the 1- 1996); and Tampa, Florida final Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air hour ozone standard have a rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, 62741) Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after maintenance plan to bring them back (December 7, 1995). See also the November 15, 1992,’’ Michael H. into attainment. discussion on this issue in the Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator Reductions in ozone precursor Cincinnati redesignation (65 FR 37890) for Air and Radiation, September 17, emissions have been shown in (June 19, 2000). 1993; and ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in photochemical grid modeling to reduce
VerDate 11
ambient ozone concentrations in areas not point to any evidence to support EPA proposes to find maintenance not across the country. Between 1990 and this conclusion. We use a three year on the basis of modeling, as required by 1999 area-wide VOC and NOX emissions period of air quality to account for the CAA, but on the presumption that in the Pittsburgh area decreased by 16% changes in weather conditions that can the area will always be in attainment if and 30%, respectively. These emissions occur from year to year. Weather emissions remain at or below estimated reductions are due to point source condition may have a substantial effect 1999 levels. The commenter asserts that reductions such as RACT, additional on ozone concentrations, both in terms such a presumption is not rationally NOX controls, 111(d) plans and National of increasing ozone and decreasing supportable, pointing out that the area Emission Standards for Hazardous Air ozone. However, this effect is not violated the NAAQS in the 1997–1999 Pollutants (NESHAPS) which reduce controllable and EPA uses a three year period. Therefore, the commenter VOCs, Prevention of Significant average to account for changes in reasons, holding emissions to 1999 Deterioration (PSD), and NSR. meteorology. In the case of the levels does not assure attainment. The Additional controls are implemented for Pittsburgh area, the fact that from 1999 commenter states that, even assuming the following categories: Automobile to today the area continues to be in the emission reductions predicted by refinish coatings, consumer products, attainment of the ozone standard the states for 1999 and subsequent architectural and industrial increases our confidence that weather is years, there is no technical analysis in maintenance coatings, wood furniture not a controlling factor in the area’s the record demonstrating that those coatings, aircraft surface coating, marine attainment. Furthermore, during the emission levels will assure surface coatings, metal furniture weeks of August 5th and August 12th of maintenance. The commenter contends coatings, municipal solid waste 2001, the Pittsburgh area experienced that such a demonstration requires landfills, treatment storage and disposal multi-day meteorological episodes in photochemical grid modeling that facilities, and Stage II vapor recovery. which the temperatures exceeded 90 accounts for the kinds of weather Several programs are implemented to degrees, and the ambient ozone levels conditions and transport impacts reduce highway vehicle emissions, such stayed well below the standard at each experienced on appropriately chosen as the Federal Motor Vehicle Control monitor. design days. According to the Program (FMVCP), a Pittsburgh-specific (8) Use of Accurate and Current commenter, until EPA approves such a summertime gasoline 7.8 psi volatility Emission Inventory modeling demonstration, it cannot limit, and enhanced Inspection and approve the maintenance plan. Maintenance (I/M). Nonroad source Comment: One Commenter questions whether the Commonwealth used The commenter states that the history programs include Federal rules for large of this nonattainment area shows that and small compression-ignition engines, current and accurate emissions inventories in the analysis to determine EPA cannot rationally assume that small spark-ignition engines, and emission levels correlate with ozone recreation spark-ignition marine maintenance of the 1-hour NAAQS. Response: The Commonwealth used levels in a linear or consistent fashion; engines. the area has gone in and out of Ozone air quality monitoring data current and accurate emissions attainment over the past 10 years while show that the design value changed inventories. The Commonwealth uses local emission were supposedly from 0.149 parts per million (during the the 1999 emissions inventory as a base declining. The commenter asserts that 1987–1989 time period) to 0.123 parts year emissions inventory for there is no reason to believe that the per million (during the 1998–2000 time demonstrating that emissions during the period). The number of expected 10 year maintenance period will stay state’s attainment inventory approach exceedances declined from 7.0 days per below attainment year levels. The 1999 toward projecting future maintenance is year during 1987–1989 to 1.0 days per inventory is the appropriate inventory any more reliable now than it was in year during 1998–2000. This shows that to be used to demonstrate maintenance 1993. The commenter states that the reductions in ozone concentrations of the NAAQS, because the 1999 state itself asserts that the area cannot correspond to the reduction in ozone inventory is a representation of maintain compliance with the standard precursors emissions in the area. emission levels during the time the area solely through local reductions and will The commenter claims that the has attained the NAAQS. EPA converted only be able to maintain the NAAQS through reductions from Ohio and West combination of NOX and VOC emissions the conditional approval of the reductions could just as easily have led Commonwealth’s 1990 base year VOC Virginia. to increases in ozone. However, the inventory to full approval on April 3, Response: We believe that the actual monitoring data collected in the 2001 (66 FR 17634). On May 30, 2001 monitoring shows that the current level area shows that ambient ozone EPA proposed to approve the 1990 NOX of emissions is adequate to keep the area concentrations have dropped when this base year inventory. EPA did not in attainment. The following table combination of ozone precursor received comments specific to the 1990 summarizes the number of expected reductions occurred. In other NOX base year inventory and today is exceedances at each monitor in the area metropolitan areas, other levels of VOC fully approving the Commonwealth’s for 1974 to 2000 for each three year and NOX reductions have also resulted base year NOX inventory. These 1990 period. A monitor has to measure more in attainment. See areas listed above in base year NOX and VOC emissions than 1.0 average expected exceedances first part of this response. The inventories are approved for use in over a three year period to cause a Pittsburgh area’s decrease in ozone projecting current inventories and out violation of the 1-hour ozone standard levels is consistent with what other year inventories. (Expected exceedances take into areas have experienced. The commenter account actual monitored exceedances has not provided data showing that B. Comments Related to the and account for days where there is decreases in ozone precursor emissions Maintenance Plan missing data or the data was have led to higher levels of ozone. Comment: A commenter asserts that invalidated.) See 40 CFR 50.9 and The commenter claims that the lack of the plan does not demonstrate Appendix H. The table shows that the violations during 1998–2000 could be maintenance for ten years as required by number of exceedances have decreased due to weather patterns or changes in sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A of the from what was monitored in the late transport of ozone precursors, but does Clean Air Act. The commenter says that 1970’s.
VerDate 11
TABLE 1.—1-HOUR OZONE NAAQS which is within the 1998–2000 time guidance, the modeling would be EXPECTED EXCEEDANCES IN THE period of attainment. Emissions are allowed to use episode days from the PITTSBURGH AREA FROM 1974 TO projected to remain below this level for 1998–2000 period, not 1997. It is highly 2000 the next 10 years. likely, if not certain, that the outcome Holding emissions at or below the would be a conclusion that attainment Average level of the attainment inventory is will be preserved through the required adequate to reasonably assure continued 10-year period. EPA believes this Year Design expected monitor exceedances maintenance of the 1-hour ozone modeling guidance is reasonable and per year standard. Reductions in ozone precursor appropriate. emissions have been shown in In response to the commenter’s 1974–1976 .. Baden ...... 6.5 1975–1977 .. Beaver Falls ... 5.7 photochemical grid modeling to reduce assertion that the Commonwealth does 1976–1978 .. Beaver Falls ... 13.2 ambient ozone concentrations in areas not believe that it can maintain the 1977–1979 .. Beaver Falls ... 11.7 across the country. Photochemical grid NAAQS without reductions from 1978–1980 .. Lawrenceville 9.2 modeling is not needed to show that the upwind states such as Ohio and West 1979–1981 .. Lawrenceville 6.1 area has attained or will maintain the Virginia, both EPA and the 1980–1982 .. Lawrenceville 3.4 standard. The air quality will be Commonwealth recognize the 1981–1983 .. Brackenridge .. 4.4 maintained by keeping below the importance of the full implementation 1982–1984 .. Brackenridge .. 2.9 attainment emissions level, continuing of the NOX SIP call to provide 1983–1985 .. Brackenridge .. 2.4 to monitor ozone levels, and having additional air quality benefit to the 1984–1986 .. Midland ...... 0.8 1985–1987 .. Brackenridge .. 1.7 maintenance plan contingency measures Pittsburgh area. Furthermore, as the D.C. 1986–1988 .. Brackenridge .. 6.6 available. Reductions in ozone Circuit has largely upheld the NOX SIP 1987–1989 .. Brackenridge .. 7.0 precursor emissions have brought many call, it is eminently reasonable to expect 1988–1990 .. Brackenridge .. 5.6 areas across the country into attainment. that the reductions in states upwind of 1989–1991 .. Lawrenceville 0.7 Many of the ozone areas for which Pittsburgh will occur. 1990–1992 .. Lawrenceville 0.3 EPA has approved ozone redesignations 1991–1993 .. Harrison 0.7 have used an emissions inventory C. Comments Related to the Township. approach to demonstrate maintenance. Enforceability and Permanence of 1992–1994 .. Harrison 0.7 The majority of areas have continued to Control Measures Township. maintain the 1-hour ozone standard (1) Comment: Several commenters 1993–1995 .. Harrison 3.0 using that approach. See redesignations express doubts that certain of the Township. programs relied upon in the 1994–1996 .. Harrison 2.7 cited in the response provided at II. A Township. (7) of this document. See also maintenance plan will remain 1995–1997 .. Harrison 3.3 discussion at (65 FR 37887–37889) (June permanent and enforceable in the Township. 19, 2000) Cincinnati-Hamilton, and Wall Commonwealth and asserts that EPA 1996–1998 .. Charleroi ...... 1.0 v. EPA, supra, at 16–20. Emissions simply assumes that the measures relied 1997–1999 .. Penn Hills ...... 1.3 inventories can be used to project on for continued and future emissions 1998–2000 .. Charleroi ...... 1.0 maintenance of the 1-hour ozone reductions will continue to be standard. As previously stated, if the implemented. Related comments The area has monitored attainment for attainment level of emissions is not express concerns over the permanence the three year period from 1998–2000 adequate to protect against a violation of the enhanced I/M and NSR programs. and continues to monitor attainment in and the area monitors a violation, then Response: The Act requires the area to 2001. This demonstrates that the current the contingency measures in the have a fully approved SIP and to have level of emissions is adequate to keep maintenance plan would be triggered to met all of the applicable requirements of the area in attainment during weather bring the area back into attainment. the Act. The area’s SIP satisfies these conditions as in past years associated There are ozone monitors located in the requirements as described in EPA’s with higher levels of ozone. In addition, Pittsburgh area to ensure that the area’s proposed rulemaking published on May the Act does not presume that the area air quality remains below the level set 30, 2001 (66 FR 29270). The measures will always be in attainment. The Act by the 1-hour ozone standard. that the Commonwealth is relying on to provides that if the area were to violate The comment that EPA should not maintain the 1-hour ozone standard the 1-hour ozone standard, then the assume that ‘‘emission levels correlate have been approved into the SIP and are contingency measures in the with ozone levels in some sort of linear state and Federally enforceable. The maintenance plan would be triggered. or consistent fashion’’ is in effect a state must continue to implement these This would reduce the ozone precursor recommendation that future measures as provided for in the emissions and bring the area back into maintenance be tested assuming Federally approved SIP. Furthermore, attainment. meteorological conditions that are more the Act does not require a separate level Our policy allows areas to prepare an conducive to ozone formation than the of enforcement for a maintenance plan attainment emissions inventory conditions that have prevailed in 1998 as a prerequisite to redesignation. The corresponding to the period when the to 2000. No factor other than enforcement program approved for and area monitored attainment. It also meteorological conditions is known to applicable to the SIP as a whole also allows areas to project maintenance by introduce an inconsistency between applies to the maintenance plan. See showing that future emissions will stay ozone and emissions. The commenter discussion in the Cincinnati below the attainment emissions protests that the area has not submitted redesignation (65 FR 37879, 37881– inventory. See ‘‘Use of Actual Emission a maintenance demonstration based on 37882), and sixth Circuit decision in in Maintenance Demonstrations for ozone modeling, and implicitly urges Wall v. EPA, supra, at 20–21, upholding Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’ that the modeling assume 1997-type EPA’s interpretation of the requirement. D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air conditions, or worse. However, if a All of the control measures which the Quality Management Division, prospective maintenance demonstration Commonwealth relied upon to generate November 30, 1993. The attainment were performed with an ozone the 1999 and future emission levels, inventory estimates 1999 emissions, photochemical model following EPA inventories are SIP-approved measures,
VerDate 11
including the enhanced I/M and NSR provide such information with each SIP no showing that the model VOC rules programs. These programs have been revision. See Wall v. EPA, supra. currently under consideration for the legally adopted by the Commonwealth Although Clean Air Act sections Philadelphia nonattainment area will and EPA has approved them into the 110(a)(2)(E) and 110(a)(2)(C) do contain assure correction of any violations in Pennsylvania SIP. EPA cannot withhold these provisions, section 110(a)(2)(H) is the Pittsburgh area and that these its approval of the maintenance plan the statutory provision which governs measures are only under consideration. submitted by the Commonwealth requirements for individual plan One commenter states that the VOC because of concerns that Pennsylvania revisions which States may be required measures referenced by the may, at some future time, either submit to submit from time to time. There are Commonwealth provide no estimation a SIP revision to amend or remove a no cross-references in section of reductions that would be achieved in program, or that the Commonwealth 7410(a)(2)(H) to either 7410(a)(2)(E) or Pittsburgh should these measures be may fail to implement these programs in 7410(a)(2)(C). Therefore, EPA concludes adopted and that adoption of these the Pittsburgh area. The Federally that Congress did not intend to require measure could take up to two years. approved SIP requirements remain in States to submit an analysis of adequate One commenter asserts that the place, and enforceable until such time funding and enforcement with each maintenance plan submitted by the as EPA takes action to approve SIP subsequent and individual SIP revision Commonwealth does not contain a revisions to amend or remove them. submitted under the authority of section mandatory commitment to implement This can only be done via Federal 110(a)(2)(H). Once EPA approves a all ozone-control measures in the SIP rulemaking, which includes procedures State’s SIP as meeting section 110(a)(2), prior to redesignation. The commenter for public comment and review. In EPA is not required to reevaluate that contends that this commitment is addition, if the state fails to implement SIP for each new revision to the plan to required, regardless of whether or not the approved SIP, Section 179 provides meet additional requirements in later the state is currently implementing all for EPA to impose sanctions. sections of the Act. The Commonwealth measures and EPA does not have the EPA has recently promulgated rules of Pennsylvania had previously received discretion to approve the maintenance for On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) testing approval of its 110(a)(2) SIPs. See plan without this commitment. provisions for 1996 and newer vehicles discussion in the Cincinnati Response: EPA disagrees that the in existing I/M programs. The redesignation of this issue (65 FR 37879, Commonwealth’s maintenance plan for Commonwealth’s currently approved 37881–37882) (June 19, 2000). The sixth the Pittsburgh area lacks adequate enhanced I/M SIP requires Pennsylvania circuit has upheld EPA’s interpretation contingency provisions should the area to implement OBD as part of its I/M in Wall v. EPA, supra, at 20–21. violate the standard. Page 43 of the program in the Pittsburgh area in In a final rulemaking action published maintenance plan specifically states that accordance with the Federal rule. Any on February 26, 1985 (50 FR 7772, if a violation occurs, the Commonwealth changes the Commonwealth makes with 7776), EPA approved Pennsylvania’s will adopt additional emission respect to the I/M program must ensure financial and manpower resource reductions, as expeditiously as an equivalent level of emission commitments, after having proposed practicable, in accordance with the reductions as is currently credited. approval of these commitments on Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act Again, any changes made to the February 3, 1983 (48 FR 5096, 5101). to return the area to attainment with the Federally approved and enforceable This approval action reaffirmed EPA’s health-based one-hour ozone standard. program would need to go through May 20, 1980 (45 FR 33607) approval of Page 44 of the maintenance plan clearly Pennsylvania’s formal regulatory these resource commitments for the states that its contingency plan adoption process and EPA’s SIP Pittsburgh area portion of the measures include four of the model approval process, ensuring ample public Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment SIP. rules currently being considered as participation opportunity. Neither this commenter nor any other additional measures for the Likewise, any changes to the person has submitted substantive Philadelphia ozone nonattainment area. Commonwealth’s SIP-approved NSR comments that would lead EPA to The plan specifically states that these program would need to go through separately analyze whether it should VOC model rules have the potential to Pennsylvania’s formal regulatory call on Pennsylvania to revise its section reduce emissions from specific types of adoption process and EPA’s SIP 110(a)(2) SIPs regarding enforcement sources and source operations, namely approval process, ensuring ample public and funding. consumer products, portable fuel containers, Architectural and Industrial participation opportunity. In order to be D. Comments Related to Contingency Maintenance (AIM) coatings and solvent approvable, any such changes would Measures have to ensure that the construction of cleaning operations. The major new sources and major (1) Comment: Several commenters Commonwealth has provided to EPA modifications in the Pittsburgh area assert that the maintenance plan lacks estimations of reductions in VOC would not interfere with the approved adequate contingency provisions emissions that would be achieved by maintenance plan. including a plan for the schedule of adoption of these contingency measures Furthermore, any changes made by adoption, description of measures, or in the seven-county Pittsburgh area. the Commonwealth to SIP approved quantification of reductions of the This information has been added to the measures would require EPA approval measures to be implemented should the docket for this final rule. in accordance with section 110 (l) of the area violate the standard. One The Commonwealth has also supplied Act. commenter also asserts that the plan information that sets forth the schedule (2) Comment: We received a comment does not contain adequate provisions to for adoption of regulations under the asserting that the maintenance plan is adopt additional measures should Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act, not approvable because it lacks inventory tracking indicate that a future and that information has been placed in enforcement programs and violation is possible. The commenter the docket of this final action. The commitments of resources as required states that future inventory analyses schedule indicates that Pennsylvania by the Act 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(E). indicating possible violations should would move to adopt and implement Response: EPA disagrees with the trigger the contingency measures. contingency measures within 12 to 24 commenter’s assertion that states must Commenters state that the plan makes months of a violation. The
VerDate 11
Commonwealth has also stated that the evaluate the current air quality status bringing the area into attainment and contingency measures would be and control status of the area, and will continue help the area maintain the implemented in accordance with the determine if, and what level of, action ozone NAAQS and are not listed as or requirement of section 175A(d) of the should be implemented to prevent considered to be contingency measures. Clean Air Act that they ‘‘promptly further air quality deterioration. There is no ‘‘double counting’’. correct any violation.’’ As stated in the As to the comment regarding implementation of SIP measures as E. Comments Related to the Monitoring September 4, 1992 Calcagni Data and the Monitoring Network memorandum, ‘‘For purposes of section contingency measures, EPA does not 175A, a State is not required to have believe that a further commitment is (1) Comment: We received comments fully adopted contingency measures that needed from the Commonwealth to asserting that the three years of data that will take effect without further action by implement as contingency measures all should be analyzed for demonstration of the State in order for the maintenance ozone control measures in the SIP prior attainment are 1994–1996. We also plan to be approved. However, the to redesignation. Section 175(A)(d) received a comment asking if the contingency plan is considered to be an requires that ‘‘[s]uch provisions shall Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 1999 and 2000 enforceable part of the SIP and should include a requirement that the State will ozone data had been quality assured. ensure that the contingency measures implement all measures with respect to Response: EPA is taking action to are adopted expediently once they are the control of the air pollutant approve a determination of attainment triggered.’’ In light of the language of the concerned which were contained in the and a redesignation request and maintenance plan, the supplemental State Implementation plan for the area maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh information supplied by the before redesignation of the area as an area. The three years of violation free Commonwealth, existing EPA guidance attainment area.’’ There are no measures data upon which the determination of attainment is based, which the and actions regarding contingency in the Pennsylvania SIP to which the Commonwealth submitted to satisfy the measures in other redesignations, and section 7505(d) commitment language applicable criteria for its redesignation the absence of any suggestion to the could apply since the Commonwealth request, is the ozone data for the 1998, contrary from the Commonwealth, EPA has not sought to drop any measures 1999, and 2000 ozone seasons. EPA is construing the Pittsburgh from the portion of the SIP that is being policy is to consider at the most recent maintenance plan as embodying a implemented. All measures that are 3 year period to determine attainment. commitment to adopt and implement either already implemented or The ozone data for the 1998, 1999, and contingency measures within 12 to 24 scheduled to be implemented, e.g., the 2000 ozone seasons from the 14 ozone months of a violation. The provisions NOX SIP call, are still in the SIP and are monitoring stations in the Pittsburgh- regarding the study and possible choice required to be implemented. There is thus no need for the state to commit to Beaver Valley Area have been quality of contingency measures in the event of assured. All data were contained in the an exceedance or increase in the further implementation in light of the fact that it is required to continue to EPA AIRS Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) emissions inventory provide further by December 4, 2000. All data in AIRS assurance that air quality problems that implement all measures contained in its SIP. Since the section 7505(d) is quality assured prior to submittal to might occur after redesignation will be AIRS, as required by 40 CFR 58.35(d). promptly corrected. requirement to implement all measure is being satisfied, there is no requirement (2) Comment: We received comments In the event of a monitored for an additional commitment. The State expressing concern about the removal exceedance or if periodic emission could not make any change in from service of the Penn Hills station inventory updates reveal a greater than implementation of these control during June 2001. The comments assign 10-percent increase in ozone precursor measures after redesignation without significance to the two exceedances that emissions, the maintenance plan EPA approval of a SIP revision. Such a this station detected in 1999. One requires the Commonwealth to evaluate revision would have to meet the comment points out that the station had whether additional emission controls requirements of section 110(l) which previously had monitored violations of are needed to prevent a future 1-hour requires that the revision could not the one hour NAAQS. Related ozone NAAQS violation. EPA views this interfere with any applicable comments express concern about the commitment to be adequate and requirement. Under these circumstances adequacy of the ozone network operated enforceable. This approach is consistent EPA considers that the requirement of by PADEP and the Allegheny County with the September 4, 1992 Calcagni section 7505(d) is satisfied. Health Department (ACHD) in the memorandum, which states that the With respect to the NOX SIP call, Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area and state maintenance plan should ‘‘identify which has an implementation deadline that there should not be a change or specific indicators, or triggers, which in the Commonwealth in 2003, EPA substitution of any monitor until will be used to determine when the disagrees that this SIP element is attainment has been achieved. contingency measure need to be necessary for redesignation (see Response: Since the early 1980’s the implemented. * * * The indicators comment(6)), and therefore no network in the area has satisfied the would allow the State to take early additional commitment is needed from minimum federal requirements for the action to address potential violations of the Commonwealth regarding this SIP number of stations and types of stations the NAAQS before they occur.’’ See element. as set forth at 40 CFR part 58. At a September 4, 1992, Calcagni memo, p. (2) Comment: A commenter asserts minimum, a network must have two 12. Pennsylvania’s plan addresses this that Stage II vapor recovery, auto stations in each urban area with requirement by identifying two refinishing, consumer products, and population greater than 200,000. 40 CFR occurrences that trigger a study to AIM are listed as contingency measures part 58, Appendix D, § 3.4. The original evaluate whether further emission and this is double counting. Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley network control measures should be Response: Stage II, auto refinishing, consisted of four stations in Allegheny implemented. This will allow the consumer products and AIM are state County and two stations each in Commonwealth to take early action to and Federal programs currently Washington County and Beaver County. address future potential violations. It implemented in the Pittsburgh area. EPA regulations contemplate that the requires the Commonwealth to fully These programs have assisted in monitoring network may change over
VerDate 11
time, regardless of whether or not an that station was taken out of service in 1-hour ozone standard and we are area is currently designated as June 2001. (See the comment and approving the section 175A attainment. In an effort to improve the response provided at E.(2)) The maintenance plan as a revision to the overall quality of data from the commenter found no data for South Pennsylvania SIP. By approving the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area, the Fayette, because no exceedances were Pittsburgh area maintenance plan, EPA network has grown over time from the detected at this operating station as of is also approving the Motor Vehicle original eight to thirteen stations. This the date of the commenter’s letter. There Emissions Budgets contained in the growth was carried out in accordance are no statutory or regulatory plan as adequate for maintenance of the with state and federal law through a requirements that PADEP make its ozone NAAQS and for transportation process of annual network reviews by ozone data available on the Internet. conformity purposes. These Motor the PADEP and the Allegheny County However, in service to the citizens of Vehicle Emissions Budgets are 109.65 Health Department (ACHD) as required the Commonwealth, it is PADEP’s by 40 CFR 58.20(d). EPA participated in practice to provide daily information on tons/day of VOC for 1999, 98.22 tons/ these reviews and network changes, as its web page indicating those day of VOC for 2007, and 102 tons/day required by 40 CFR 58.21. EPA also monitoring locations where exceedances of VOC for 2011; for NOX the Motor approved the annual network designs in of the 1-hour and/or 8-hour ozone Vehicle emissions budgets are 171.05 accordance 40 CFR 58.25. Past annual standards have occurred (cautioning tons/day for 1999, 129.12 tons/day for reviews identified potential data needs that this information is not based upon 2007, and 115.02 tons/day for 2011. of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley network. data that has been validated). If PADEP We are converting the limited In order to address these potential data continues with its current practice, approval of the NSR program in the needs, the network has expanded to its ozone data from the South Fayette Commonwealth to full approval current size of thirteen stations. During monitor will be reported on the PADEP everywhere in the Commonwealth with this time, one of the original monitoring web site if this monitor ever exceeds the the exception of the Pennsylvania stations, Penn Hills, was retired from ozone standards. portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington- (4) Comment: Several commenters service, and six new stations were Trenton ozone nonattainment area. added, for a net growth of five stations expressed doubt that the area had during the 1990’s. attained the standard and suggested that We are approving the 1990 NOX base The Penn Hills station was removed violations in 2001 were imminent. One year emissions inventory for the from service because of the limited commenter asserts that the fact that the Pittsburgh area. value of the data collected there since it area had violated the 8-hour standard IV. Why Are We Taking This Action To was established in the early 1980’s. does not speak well of its being Redesignate the Area? Significantly, this station has not shown redesignated. a violation of the ozone standard since Response: The quality assured ozone We are making a determination that 1982. Furthermore, the net addition of data for 1998, 1999 and 2000 indicate the area has attained the 1-hour ozone five monitors to the Pittsburgh-Beaver that the Pittsburgh area has attained of standard. EPA is basing this Valley network during the 1990’s the 1-hour NAAQS. Moreover, the determination upon three years of preliminary data for the 2001 ozone provides monitoring coverage over an complete, quality-assured, ambient air area than is inclusive of the area season indicate, to date, continued monitoring data for the 1998–2000 previously monitored by Penn Hills. attainment of the 1-hour standard. EPA ozone seasons that demonstrate that the This resulted in the Penn Hills site does not believe that violations of the 1- ozone NAAQS has been attained in the capturing data redundant of data hour standard are imminent in the collected at other monitors. Specifically, Pittsburgh area. entire Pittsburgh area. Preliminary data exceedances at the Penn Hills monitor The Pittsburgh area’s status with for the 2001 ozone season also indicates were captured at other stations. For respect to the 8-hour ozone standard is that the area continues in attainment. example, since 1987, all unhealthy days not germane to the approval of the EPA believes that it is reasonable to detected at Penn Hills, except for June redesignation request and maintenance interpret provisions regarding 19, 1995, were captured by the plan for the 1-hour ozone standard. attainment demonstrations, along with Brackenridge station (or the Harrison certain other related provisions, not to III. What Actions Are We Taking? station which replaced Brackenridge in require SIP submissions if an ozone 1990). On June 19, 1995, when the Penn We are determining that the nonattainment area subject to those Hills station identified ozone Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley moderate requirements is monitoring attainment exceedances, the Lawrenceville station, ozone nonattainment area has attained of the ozone standard (i.e., attainment of and the Murryville station, also showed the NAAQS for ozone. The Pittsburgh the NAAQS is demonstrated with three exceedances. The two days of area includes the Pennsylvania counties consecutive years of complete, quality exceedances in 1999 detected at Penn of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, assured, air quality monitoring data). Hills were captured by three other Fayette, Washington, and See May 10, 1995, memorandum from stations, Harrison, Lawrenceville, and Westmoreland. On the basis of this John Seitz, and Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 Greensburg. Therefore, the closing of the determination, EPA is also determining F.3.d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996). Penn Hills station will result in no loss that certain attainment demonstration of data. requirements (section 172(c)(1)), along We are approving the maintenance (3) Comment: We received a comment with certain other related requirements, plan as a revision to the SIP because it expressing concern that the Penn Hills of part D of Title 1 of the Act, meets the requirements of section 175A station ozone data and the South Fayette specifically the section 172(c)(9) and 107(d). We are also redesignating station ozone data are no longer contingency measure requirement, the the area because three years of ambient reported on the Pennsylvania section 182(b)(1) attainment air monitoring data demonstrate that the Department of Environmental Protection demonstration requirement are not ozone NAAQS has been attained, the (PADEP) web page. applicable to the Pittsburgh area. area has continued in attainment and Response: The PADEP web site does We are approving the redesignation of the area has satisfied all other not list the Penn Hills station because the Pittsburgh area to attainment of the requirements for redesignation.
VerDate 11
V. What Are the Effects of Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Redesignation to Attainment of the 1- (Public Law 104–4). This rule also does U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Hour NAAQS? not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect B. Submission to Congress and the These actions determine that the area Comptroller General attained the 1-hour ozone standard and on one or more Indian tribes, on the that the requirements of section relationship between the Federal The Congressional Review Act, 5 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(1) concerning the Government and Indian tribes, or on the U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the submission of the ozone attainment distribution of power and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement demonstration and the requirements of responsibilities between the Federal Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides section 172(c)(9) concerning Government and Indian tribes, as that before a rule may take effect, the contingency measures for reasonable specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 agency promulgating the rule must further progress (RFP) or attainment are FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This submit a rule report, which includes a not applicable to the area. action also does not have Federalism copy of the rule, to each House of the The redesignation changes the official implications because it does not have Congress and to the Comptroller General designation of the Pennsylvania substantial direct effects on the States, of the United States. EPA will submit a counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, on the relationship between the national report containing this rule and other Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, government and the States, or on the required information to the U.S. Senate, and Westmoreland from nonattainment distribution of power and the U.S. House of Representatives, and to attainment for the 1-hour ozone responsibilities among the various the Comptroller General of the United standard. It also approves a SIP revision levels of government, as specified in States prior to publication of the rule in that puts into place a plan for Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, maintaining the 1-hour ozone standard August 10, 1999). This action merely the Federal Register. A major rule for the next 10 years. This plan includes approves a state rule implementing a cannot take effect until 60 days after it contingency measures to correct any federal standard, and does not alter the is published in the Federal Register. future violations of the 1-hour ozone relationship or the distribution of power This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as standard. By approving the maintenance and responsibilities established in the defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). plan, EPA is also approving the mobile CAA. This action also redesignates an source emissions budgets included in C. Petitions for Judicial Review the plan for purposes of transportation area to attainment. The redesignation Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, conformity. merely affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any petitions for judicial review of this VI. Administrative Requirements new requirements on sources, or allows action must be filed in the United States A. General Requirements a state to avoid adopting or Court of Appeals for the appropriate implementing other requirements, and circuit by December 18, 2001. Filing a Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR does not alter the relationship or the petition for reconsideration by the 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is distribution of power and Administrator of this final rule does not not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and responsibilities established in the CAA. affect the finality of this rule for the therefore is not subject to review by the Thus, the requirements of section 6 of purposes of judicial review nor does it Office of Management and Budget. For the Executive Order do not apply to this this reason, this action is also not extend the time within which a petition subject to Executive Order 13211, rule. This rule also is not subject to for judicial review may be filed, and ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of shall not postpone the effectiveness of Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Children from Environmental Health such rule or action. This action, to Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, redesignate the Pittsburgh area to 22, 2001). This action merely approves April 23, 1997), because it is not attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, state law as meeting federal economically significant. In reviewing approve a 10-year maintenance plan, requirements and imposes no additional SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to convert the New Source Review requirements beyond those imposed by approve state choices, provided that program to full approval, approve the state law. This action also redesignates they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this NOX base year inventory, and approve an area to attainment, an action that context, in the absence of a prior Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets, may affects the status of a geographical area existing requirement for the State to use not be challenged later in proceedings to and does not impose any new regulatory voluntary consensus standards (VCS), enforce its requirements. (See 42 U.S.C. requirements on sources. Redesignation EPA has no authority to disapprove a 7607 (b)(2)). of an area to attainment under section SIP submission for failure to use VCS. 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does It would thus be inconsistent with List of Subjects not impose any new requirements on applicable law for EPA, when it reviews 40 CFR Part 52 small entities. Accordingly, the a SIP submission, to use VCS in place Administrator certifies that this rule of a SIP submission that otherwise Environmental protection, Air will not have a significant economic satisfies the provisions of the CAA. pollution control, Incorporation by impact on a substantial number of small Additionally, redesignation is an action reference, Intergovernmental relations, entities under the Regulatory Flexibility that affects the status of a geographical Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.). Because this area but does not impose any new Reporting and recordkeeping rule approves pre-existing requirements requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements. under state law and does not impose requirements of section 12(d) of the any additional enforceable duty beyond National Technology Transfer and 40 CFR Part 81 that required by state law, it does not Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Environmental protection, Air contain any unfunded mandate or 272 note) do not apply. This rule does pollution control, National parks, significantly or uniquely affect small not impose an information collection governments, as described in the burden under the provisions of the Wilderness areas.
VerDate 11
Dated: October 3, 2001. Department of Environmental § 52.2036 1990 base year emission Thomas C. Voltaggio, Protection. inventory. Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. (i) Incorporation by reference. * * * * * (A) Letter dated May 21, 2001 (m) EPA approves the 1990 NOX base 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended submitted by the Pennsylvania year emission inventory for the as follows: Department of Environmental Protection Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area, transmitting the maintenance plan for submitted by the Pennsylvania PART 52—[AMENDED] Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area. Department of Environmental Protection (B) The Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area 1. The authority citation for part 52 on March 22, 1996 and supplemented ozone maintenance plan submitted by on February 18, 1997. continues to read as follows: the Pennsylvania Department of Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Environmental Protection, effective May § 52.2037 [Amended] 15, 2001. This plan establishes motor 4. In § 52.2037 remove and reserve Subpart NN—Pennsylvania vehicle emissions budgets for VOCs of paragraph (b)(1). 109.65 tons/day for 1999, 98.22 tons/ 2. Section 52.2020 is amended by day for 2007, and 102 tons/day for 2011. PART 81—[AMENDED] adding paragraph (c)(188) to read as This plan also establishes motor vehicle follows: emissions budgets for NOX of 171.05 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: § 52.2020 Identification of plan. tons/day for 1999, 129.12 tons/day for 2007, and 115.02 tons/day for 2011. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. * * * * * (ii) Additional material. Remainder of 2. In § 81.339, the table for Ozone (1- (c) * * * State Submittal pertaining to the Hour Standard) is amended by revising (188) Revisions to the Pennsylvania revision listed in paragraph (c)(188)(i) of the entry for the ‘‘Pittsburgh-Beaver Regulations including a 10-year ozone this action. Valley Area’’ to read as follows: maintenance plan for the Pittsburgh- 3. Section 52.2036 is amended by Beaver Valley area, submitted on May revising the section heading and by § 81.339 Pennsylvania. 21, 2001 by the Pennsylvania adding paragraph (m) to read as follows: * * * * *
PENNSYLVANIA—OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)
Designation Classification Designated area Date 1 Type Date 1 Type
******* Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Area: Allegheny County ...... October 19, 2001 ...... Attainment Armstrong County ...... October 19, 2001 ...... Attainment Beaver County ...... October 19, 2001 ...... Attainment Butler County ...... October 19, 2001 ...... Attainment Fayette County ...... October 19, 2001 ...... Attainment Washington County ...... October 19, 2001 ...... Attainment Westmoreland County ...... October 19, 2001 ...... Attainment
******* 1 This date is November 15, 1990 unless otherwise noted.
* * * * * established to EPA’s satisfaction that the business hours. U.S. Environmental [FR Doc. 01–26093 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Imperial Valley Planning Area (Imperial Protection Agency, Region 9, Air BILLING CODE 6560–50–P County), a PM–10 moderate Division, Planning Office (AIR–2), 75 nonattainment area, would have Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, attained the national ambient air quality California 94105. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION standards (NAAQS) for particulate Electronic Availability: This AGENCY matter of ten microns or less (PM–10) by document is also available as an the applicable Clean Air Act (CAA or electronic file on EPA’s Region 9 Web 40 CFR PART 81 the Act) attainment date, December 31, Page at http://www.epa.gov/region09/ [CA058–FOA; FRL–7087–1] 1994, but for emissions emanating from air. outside the United States, i.e., Mexico. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clean Air Act Finding of Attainment; As a result of this final action, Imperial Doris Lo, U.S. Environmental Protection California-Imperial Valley Planning County will not be subject to a finding Agency, Region 9, Air Division, Area; Particulate Matter of 10 Microns of failure to attain and reclassification to Planning Office (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne or Less (PM–10) serious at this time and will remain a Street, San Francisco, California 94105, moderate PM–10 nonattainment area. AGENCY: Environmental Protection (415) 744–1287, [email protected]. Agency (EPA). EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: on November 19, 2001. ACTION: Final rule. ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of I. Background SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to the administrative record for this action Imperial County is a moderate PM–10 find that the State of California has at EPA’s Region 9 office during normal nonattainment area located on the
VerDate 11
California border with Mexico, with a • Sierra Club/EarthJustice Legal Defense 1. CAA Requires Modeling December 31, 1994 attainment deadline. Fund (David S. Baron, Attorney) • The Sierra Club’s first group of Under CAA section 188(b)(2)(A), Imperial County Air Pollution Control comments address the need for a moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas District (Stephen L. Birdsall, Air modeling demonstration. The Sierra must be reclassified as serious by Pollution Control Officer) • Club asserts that air quality modeling is operation of law after the statutory Congressman Duncan Hunter, U.S. a requirement under CAA Section attainment date if the Administrator House of Representatives, 179B(d) and that in order to qualify for finds that the area has failed to attain Washington, D.C. 20515–0552 a 179B(d) waiver, the state must make • Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers the NAAQS. However, CAA section a showing that is the equivalent of an Association (Lauren S. Grizzle, 179(B)(d) provides that any area that attainment demonstration which the Act Executive Director) establishes to the satisfaction of EPA and EPA’s own regulations and • Imperial County Farm Bureau (Lauren that it would have attained the PM–10 guidelines require to be based on air S. Grizzle, Executive Director) NAAQS by the applicable attainment quality modeling. The Sierra Club then • California Farm Bureau Federation date but for emissions emanating from discusses how the State’s air quality (Cynthia L. Cory, Director, outside the United States shall not be modeling does not adequately subject to the provisions of CAA section Environmental Affairs) • Mar Vista Farms, Inc. (Michael B. demonstrate attainment of the 24-hour 182(b). and annual PM–10 NAAQS due to Imperial County and the California Cox, President) • Nisei Farmers League (Manuel Cunha, deficiencies with the modeling Air Resources Board submitted evidence inventory and modeling assumptions that the County would have attained the Jr., President) • which are summarized in EPA’s PM–10 NAAQS but for transport from California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association (Roger A. Isom, responses below. Mexico. The primary information EPA’s response: EPA disagrees with prepared by the Imperial County Air Vice President & Director of Technical Services) the Sierra Club that a CAA Section Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) is • 179(B)(d) waiver must be based on air ‘‘Imperial County PM–10 Attainment Granite Construction Company (Jeff Mercer, Area manager) quality modeling. CAA section 179B(d) Demonstration’’ (hereafter referred to as does not require air quality modeling for the ‘‘179B(d) demonstration’’) which All of the commenters supported EPA’s PM–10 nonattainment areas at was transmitted to EPA by the proposed finding of attainment pursuant international borders, and EPA’s California Air Resources Board (CARB) to section 179B(d) of the CAA, except guidance relating to serious PM–10 on July 18, 2001 letter from Michael P. for the Sierra Club/EarthJustice Legal nonattainment areas suggests modeling Kenny, Executive Officer, CARB, to Ms. Defense Fund (Sierra Club). as one of five methods that may be used While the Sierra Club raises some Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional to determine attainment but for important issues, EPA was aware of Administrator, EPA Region 9). international transport.1 In issuing these issues prior to the proposed Pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(2)(B) guidance on CAA section 179(B), EPA rulemaking and has not been convinced of the Act, EPA must publish a notice considered it appropriate to grant states by Sierra Club that the State’s 179B(d) in the Federal Register identifying those more flexibility in making the ‘‘but-for’’ demonstration is inadequate and that areas that failed to attain the standard attainment determination for border the finding of nonattainment and and reclassifying the areas to serious. areas due to the special difficulties that reclassification to serious should be On August 6, 2001, EPA issued two can be encountered at these areas. alternative proposals: finalized. Thus, EPA is finalizing its For example, it may be particularly (1) To find that the State of California action to find that the State of California difficult for States to acquire the had established to EPA’s satisfaction has established that Imperial County necessary input data for a valid that Imperial County, a PM–10 moderate would have attained the NAAQS for modeling analysis, including monitored nonattainment area, would have PM–10 by the applicable CAA meteorological and air quality data, attained the NAAQS PM–10 by the attainment date, December 31, 1994, but accurate speciated emissions applicable Clean Air Act attainment for emissions emanating from Mexico. inventories with temporal and spatial date, December 31, 1994, but for Today’s rulemaking provides EPA’s breakdown, and information on day- emissions emanating from outside the responses to public comments and specific emissions, when such data United States, i.e., Mexico. finalizes EPA’s proposed action. must be collected in areas outside of the (2) Alternatively, to find that Imperial II. Public Comments and EPA U.S. The acquisition of such data is County did not attain the PM–10 Responses NAAQS by its CAA mandated 1 EPA’s guidance appears in ‘‘State attainment date. This proposed finding A. Sierra Club/EarthJustice Legal Implementation Plans for Serious PM–10 was based on monitored air quality data Defense Fund (David S. Baron, Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers Attorney) for PM–10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; for the PM–10 NAAQS during the years Addendum to the General Preamble for the 1992–1994. A final action would result Comments were submitted by the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act in a reclassification to serious PM–10 EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund on Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998, August 16, nonattainment for Imperial County. 1994. The guidance lists 5 types of information that behalf of the Sierra Club. In general, the could be used to qualify for treatment under section These proposed alternative actions Sierra Club opposes our proposed 179B, and provides that ‘‘States may use one or were published in a Federal Register finding of attainment and asserts that more of these types of information or other notice (66 FR 42187) on August 10, 2001 the 179B(d) demonstration does not techniques, depending on their feasibility and applicability, to evaluate the impact of emissions (proposed rule or notice of proposed adequately demonstrate attainment but emanating from outside the U.S. on the rulemaking, NPR). The 30-day public for the emissions emananting from nonattainment area.’’ The General Preamble goes on comment period ended on September Mexico. The Sierra Club believes we to note that ‘‘the first 3 examples do not require the 10, 2001. EPA requested public must finalize our proposed finding of State to obtain information from a foreign country.’’ Only the fifth method employs modeling. 59 FR comments on both proposals and nonattainment and reclassification to 42001. As discussed in the proposed action, the received ten comment letters from the serious PM–10 nonattainment for State submitted information addressing each of the following: Imperial County. 5 methods. 66 FR 42189–90.
VerDate 11
resource intensive both in terms of 2. Adequacy of the State’s Emissions population since the ‘‘vast majority of money and expert staff time, and the Inventory Input to the Modeling PM–10 emission in Imperial County are exercise may consume years of The Sierra Club comments that the from area sources such as unpaved 2 preparatory work and then require State’s modeling inventory is roads, paved roads and agriculture.’’ additional time and expense for quality insufficient because it was not While these may not be the most precise assurance and data preparation and developed for PM–10 modeling, does adjustment techniques for the Imperial analysis. In cases where the critical not reflect peak PM–10 levels, is not a County PM–10 modeling inventory, modeling input data are not available or ‘‘current’’ and ‘‘accurate’’ inventory, and EPA believes these adjustments are are incomplete or inaccurate, EPA does not contain data on actual PM–10 reasonable for the annual PM–10 believes that Congress could not have emissions, but is based on the SCOS NAAQS. intended to disallow areas from inventory which is adjusted with In general, there are many presenting, and EPA from approving, invalid assumptions (i.e., percentage of uncertainties in developing PM–10 non-modeling evidence of ‘‘attainment TSP that is PM–10 and correlation of inventories. This is partly due to but for transport.’’ PM–10 emissions to population). intrinsic variability, but also because Although modeling input data were EPA Response: While the modeling socioeconomic surrogate data and recognized to be sparse, the State’s inventory for Imperial County was not location-specific data needed to build a 179B(d) demonstration did attempt to developed specifically for PM–10 spatially and temporally resolved address each of the 5 allowable modeling, it does include PM–10 inventory is sometimes not available. approaches specified in the General emissions and represents the best However, EPA believes that the fugitive Preamble, including an air quality available inventory at this time. As PM–10 emission estimates and the modeling ‘‘but-for’’ attainment discussed in EPA’s Technical Support modeling that uses them are an demonstration for both the annual and Document (TSD) for the proposed rule, adequate basis for this action. The State 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS. the modeling inventory was derived is continuously improving and updating As discussed in the proposed rule, from the Southern California Ozone inventory information. The inventory EPA did not base the proposed finding Study (SCOS) modeling inventory for a used in the State’s demonstration of attainment for the 24-hour PM–10 typical summer day. Seasonal represents the best available PM–10 NAAQS on the State’s air quality adjustments were made to the inventory for the 1992–1994 timeframe. modeling demonstration. The sensitivity inventory, and the inventory was scaled, 3. Background Concentration in the of the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS to the based on population changes, for the Model modeling inputs, coupled with the lack years 1992 to 1994. The use of this The Sierra Club comments that there of model validation, led EPA to modeling inventory to represent average is no basis for using the annual conclude that, unlike the annual PM–10 annual PM–10 concentrations is an background concentration of 25 µg/m3 NAAQS, the air quality modeling could acceptable approach, but the use of this and that it is ‘‘the product of pure not be relied upon for the 24-hour PM– modeling inventory to represent peak 10 NAAQS attainment demonstration. speculation.’’ PM–10 days is less reliable because EPA Response: The background Instead, EPA based its finding of emissions of PM–10 are likely to be concentration level was based on a attainment for the 24-hour PM–10 higher than the seasonal average on frequency distribution analysis of NAAQS on the State’s analysis of peak days. In other words, this measured PM–10 concentrations at monitoring sites, meteorological inventory is more reliable for the monitors in the Imperial County and conditions (which involves an analysis determining attainment of the annual Mexicali from 1992 to 2000.3 EPA of spatial plots, wind roses and back PM–10 NAAQS than for the 24-hour believes the 25 µg/m3 background trajectories) and inventory estimates for PM–10 NAAQS. concentration level is a conservative both sides of the border. EPA believes EPA does not agree that the modeling level. that these are valid alternative methods inventory is insufficient because it is for determining attainment but for based on the SCOS inventory and 4. Secondary Particles in the Model international transport (see General adjustments made to that inventory (i.e., The Sierra Club comments that the Preamble at 59 FR 42001). percentage of TSP that is PM–10 and State’s modeling demonstration For the annual PM–10 NAAQS, model correlation of PM–10 emissions to includes no analysis for secondary performance assessment also raises population). As discussed above, the particle formation. issues, although these concerns are less modeling inventory developed is the EPA Response: While there is no than for the 24-hour NAAQS because best available inventory and information specific discussion of secondary day-specific modeling inputs and at this time. In order to develop a particulates in EPA’s proposed rule (66 predictions are not needed. Moreover, to modeling inventory for Imperial County, FR 42187), the analysis provided by the determine whether or not Imperial the State took the SCOS modeling state did account for the formation of County would have attained the annual inventory and made adjustments to secondary particulates. See Imperial PM–10 NAAQS but for international reflect the PM–10 emissions in Imperial County PM10 Attainment transport does not require modeling county. For example, the SCOS Demonstration, Chapter III.B, page 4. In precision, due to the fact that the annual inventory included emissions of total addition the Imperial Valley/Mexicali arithmetic mean concentrations for suspended particulates (TSP). PM–10 is Cross Border PM–10 Transport Study 1992–1994 are only slightly above the a subset of TSP. In order to to adjust for (Transport Study) provides a filter annual PM–10 NAAQS (51 µg/m3 at the SCOS inventory for PM–10 analysis which indicates that secondary Brawley and 56 µg/m3 at Calexico emissions, the State used an adjustment Dichot-Grant Street). All that is required factor of 1.93 which is based on a 2 See the State’s 179B(d) demonstration (Chapter of the model in support of a ‘‘but for’’ comparison of the 1997 SCOS inventory III.B. Modeling Emissions Inventory) for more demonstration is evidence that at least to Imperial County’s 1995 PM–10 detailed information on the how the State’s modeling inventory was developed. a small portion of the monitored emissions inventory (best available PM– 3 See the State’s 179B(d) demonstration (Chapter concentrations was due to transport of 10 inventory). The State also adjusted III.D. Background Concentrations) for more pollution from Mexico. the inventory for changes in the information.
VerDate 11
particulates are measured in the range of The Sierra Club suggests that the Mexico likely contributed to the 2 to 4 µg/m3 for secondary ammonium analyses found in the State’s 179B(d) concentrations measured at Brawley. sulfates and 2 to 3 µg/m3 for secondary demonstration prove nothing about Based on this additional information ammonium nitrates (Transport Study, whether or not emissions from Mexico and the further analyses, the State Summary and Conclusion, page 9–5) are impacting U.S. monitors. EPA concluded that Imperial County would and are thus a small portion of the believes that given the available not have violated the PM–10 NAAQS particulate matter in Imperial County. information, the State has made a good but for transport from Mexico. In argument that Imperial County is being weighing the ‘‘but-for’’ evidence, EPA 5. Proof That Mexico Emissions Impact impacted by Mexico emissions. also considered it important to consider U.S. Monitors and Adequacy of Additional activities (tracer studies, air the relatively low level of the 24-hour Alternative Demonstration monitoring studies, establishment of exceedances (162 µg/m3), 175 µg/m3, The Sierra Club asserts that the state more meteorology stations at border) 165 µg/m3, 159 µg/m3, and 153 µg/m3). has failed to demonstrate that PM–10 could have been conducted, but it is not EPA concedes that information is not violations in Imperial County are now possible to create information from available to determine with confidence actually being caused by emissions from new studies for the 1992–1994 the exact quantity of PM–10 coming Mexico and that, even if air quality timeframe. Thus, EPA believes that the from Mexico, but EPA continues to modeling was not required, the state’s State’s 179B(d) analysis of spatial plots, believe that the State has diligently ‘‘alternative’’ 179B(d) demonstration wind roses and back trajectories collected and analyzed available (i.e., based on analysis of wind patterns provides the best determination of PM– evidence and has successfully and population densities) is grossly 10 emissions transport from Mexico. demonstrated for each of the exceedance inadequate. The Sierra Club believes EPA does not have to refute the days the probability that Imperial that the State’s analysis of wind patterns Transport Study results in order to make County would not have violated the and population densities does not show this finding of attainment but for NAAQS but for the emissions emanating that any quantifiable amount of international transport. As discussed in from Mexico. particulates traveled to the U.S. the proposed rule, the additional Finally, EPA believes that there were monitors, let alone any amount that windfield analyses (Attachment 2 to insufficient data to support a modeling would contribute to nonattainment and EPA’s TSD, Additional windroses and assessment of the potential for long that there is nothing in the record windfields for January 25, 1993) range transport from the South coast or relating to an actual amount of PM–10 provided a more detailed analysis, other California areas to Mexico and emissions traveling from Mexico to supplementing information from the back again to Imperial. The Sierra Club Imperial County. Also, the Sierra Club Transport Study.5 The Transport Study presents no evidence that there is states that the Imperial Valley/Mexicali is simply an effort to collect air quality transport from U.S. sources outside of Cross Border PM–10 Transport Study data on exceedance days and analyze Imperial County. Even if evidence (Transport Study), which indicates that the data based on wind direction and existed that the Imperial County international transport is not always the speed, and the study is thus very similar monitors were being impacted by long cause of PM–10 violations, were not to the analyses found in the State’s range transport from within the U.S., refuted and are more reliable than the demonstration. The Transport Study such evidence would not invalidate the more recent analysis by the state which indicates that several of the exceedance State’s demonstration that Imperial the Sierra Club claims to be speculative. days appear to have stagnant wind County would have attained the Finally, the Sierra Club asserts that conditions (1/19/93, 1/25/93, 7/7/94, NAAQS but for emissions emanating there is no analysis of the PM–10 10/17/94 and 12/16/94), but the State’s from Mexico. demonstration uses more meteorological transport to Imperial County’s border 6. Emissions Inventories from places other than Mexico (i.e., on data and finds evidence that transport the U.S. side). from Mexico is likely even with the The Sierra Club asserts that the EPA’s response: The State’s 179B(d) stagnant conditions at the surface. For comparison of emissions inventories demonstration, which includes a each of the exceedances, the State’s between Imperial and Mexicali is detailed analysis of spatial plots, wind analysis took into account additional inadequate due to the uncertainty in the roses and back trajectories for each of information not included in the Mexicali inventory, that the Mexicali the PM–10 exceedance days during Transport Study. This information inventory has not been analyzed for 1992–1994, provides the best qualitative included: (a) The number of hours with transportability of particles and that the analysis of the emissions from Mexico southerly wind directions that have the emissions inventory for Imperial County possible for the Imperial County area for potential to carry emissions from has never been approved by EPA, and the period in question. Filter analyses Mexico into Imperial County; (b) the thus cannot be used to support a ‘‘but- often can provide more specificity on back trajectories and back trajectories for’’ finding. EPA’s response: The comparison of where the monitoring emissions are based on upper-air synoptic wind data, Imperial and Mexicali emissions was coming from but, since the types of PM– which show the existence of much intended to provide support for the 10 sources are similar on both sides of higher winds from the south that are de- attainment finding. EPA agrees that the border, analysis of the Imperial coupled from the surface stagnant there is uncertainty in the Mexicali County samples would not show what conditions, and (c) the windroses inventory, however, EPA also believes it portion of the catch originated on the developed for all meteorological is useful to examine all available data Mexican side of the border.4 stations, suggesting that emissions from for this attainment finding. Even if the 4 As discussed in the proposed rule, the 1992– account for the highest contribution to PM–10 Mexicali emissions were one-half of 1993 Imperial Valley/Mexicali Cross Border PM–10 concentrations. These are the predominant 257, as suggested by the Sierra Club, the Transport Study (Final Report, January 30, 1997) emissions sources on both sides of the border. Thus, emissions in the city of Mexicali (200 includes an analysis of the particles collected in the filter analysis by itself could not be used to square miles) would be about half of the areas within Imperial County where violations have determine the extent to which violations might been recorded. This sample analysis determined result from international transport. emissions in all of Imperial County that geological dust (70–90%), motor vehicle 5 See Attachment 2 to EPA’s TSD, Additional (4060 square miles), but the emissions exhaust (10–15%) and vegetative burning (10%) windroses and windfields for January 25, 1993. density in Mexicali would still be much
VerDate 11
greater than in Imperial County. As far determining attainment. The question of demonstration is based on a as determining the transportability of whether an area should be reclassified competently collected and examined set emissions from Mexicali, as discussed is considered along with whether an of the relevant available information, above and in the proposed rule, filter area has achieved attainment by the and reaches a reasoned conclusion that analyses have been examined for the attainment date. Thus, the air quality each of the 1992–94 exceedances, which border area and provided some data from the years 1992–1994 are the are only slightly above the NAAQS, information on the particles relevant data for determining whether would likely not have occurred without characteristics. Finally, as discussed Imperial County should be reclassified pollutant transport from Mexico. above, the emission inventories used in to serious. In summary, EPA continues to believe the State’s 179B(d) demonstration are 8. SIP Requirements that CAA section 179B(d) does not the most current and best available. EPA mandate a modeling demonstration, and Finally, the Sierra Club asserts that a plans to take action on the inventories that the State has provided evidence 179B(d) waiver cannot be granted unless when they are submitted as part of the sufficient to show that, but for all moderate area SIP requirements (e.g., State Implementation Plan (SIP) for international transport of PM–10, RACM, RACT, New Source Review, etc.) Imperial County. Imperial County would have attained are being met. 7. Post-1994 Exceedances EPA’s response: As discussed in the the annual and 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS The Sierra Club asserts that the EPA’s proposal, this rulemaking does by the December 31, 1994 deadline. 179B(d) determination is inadequate not address the SIP requirements for IV. Administrative Requirements because it fails to consider the post-1994 Imperial County but only the question exceedances. The Sierra Club states that of whether or not the State has A. Executive Order 12866 the post-1994 exceedances are established that Imperial County Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 numerous, in some cases extreme, and attained the NAAQS by December 31, (October 4, 1993), EPA is required to relevant to the attainment but for 1994, but for international transport. determine whether regulatory actions international transport determination. CAA section 179B(d) states that ‘‘any are significant and therefore should be EPA’s response: EPA believes that the State that establishes to the satisfaction subject to OMB review, economic post-1994 exceedances are irrelevant to of the Administrator * * * that such analysis, and the requirements of the the determinations at issue. The State has attained the national ambient Executive Order. The Executive Order statutory attainment date for the air quality standard for [PM–10] by the defines a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ Imperial County PM–10 moderate applicable attainment date, but for as one that is likely to result in a rule nonattainment area is December 31, emissions emanating from outside of the that may meet at least one of the four 1994. EPA believes the State’s 179B(d) United States, shall not be submit to the criteria identified in section 3(f), demonstration adequately demonstrates provisions of section 7512(b)(2) * * *’’ including, (1) have an annual effect on attainment by examining the air quality which requires reclassification upon the economy of $100 million or more or data from 1992–1994. If this failure to attain. This provision does not adversely affect, in a material way, the demonstration is adequate, require a SIP submittal in order for the economy, a sector of the economy, reclassification to serious is not waiver to be granted. EPA is currently productivity, competition, jobs, the required. Section 188(b)(2) provides working with the Imperial County Air environment, public health or safety, or that: ‘‘Within 6 months following the Pollution Control District and the State, local, or tribal governments or applicable attainment date for a PM–10 California Air Resources Board on communities; (2) create a serious nonattainment area, the Administrator developing an approvable State inconsistency or otherwise interfere shall determine whether the area Implementation Plan for Imperial with an action taken or planned by attained the standard by that date. If the County. A draft of this plan was issued another agency; (3) materially alter the Administrator finds that any Moderate for public review in July 2001. budgetary impact of entitlements, Area is not in attainment after the grants, user fees, or loan programs or the applicable attainment date * * *’’ the B. Other Comments Supporting EPA’s area shall be reclassified. While the Final Action rights and obligations of recipients therof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy second sentence of section 188(b)(2) Besides the Sierra Club, all of the issues arising out of legal mandates, the contains the language quoted by the commentors support EPA’s finding of President’s priorities, or the principles commentor ‘‘is not in attainment after attainment but for international set forth in the Executive Order. the applicable attainment date,’’ it is transport and are extremely opposed to clear that in the context of the first the finding of nonattainment and EPA has determined that the final sentence of the provision, which is the reclassification to a serious PM–10 finding of attainment pursuant to CAA sentence that establishes the duty to nonattainment area. Commentors section 179B(d) would result in none of make an attainment determination, the discussed the overwhelming pollution the effects identified in section 3(f). A duty is to ‘‘determine whether the area problem coming from Mexico, the finding of attainment under section attained the standard by that date measures their industries have taken to 179B(d) of the CAA does not impose [referring to the phrase ‘‘applicable reduce pollution and that it would be any additional requirements on an area. attainment date’’ in the opening clause unfair to impose additional controls on This actions does not, in-and-of-itself, of the sentence].’’ Thus, EPA’s duty is sources in Imperial County. The impose any new requirements on any to determine whether the area attained Imperial County Air Pollution Control sectors of the economy. by its attainment date and the language District also provided additional B. Executive Order 13211 in the second sentence regarding a technical analysis supporting the finding after the attainment date may methods used in the State’s 179B(d) The final finding of attainment under reasonably be interpreted as referring to demonstration. CAA 179B(d) is not subject to Executive the date the finding is made, which Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning would necessarily be after the III. Summary of Final Action Regulations That Significantly Affect attainment date, not to the date used in EPA’s proposed rule (66 FR 42187) Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 the determination as the benchmark for discusses how the State’s 179B(d) Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because
VerDate 11
it is not a significant regulatory actions The final finding of attainment will significant economic impact on a under Executive Order 12866. not have substantial direct effects on substantial number of small entities. California, on the relationship between C. Executive Order 13045 G. Unfunded Mandates the national government and California, Executive Order 13045, entitled or on the distribution of power and Under section 202 of the Unfunded Protection of Children from responsibilities among the various Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Environmental Health Risks and Safety levels of government, as specified in (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), Executive Order 13132. As stated above, into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must applies to any rule that: (1) Is a finding of attainment under section prepare a budgetary impact statement to determined to be ‘‘economically 179B(d) of the CAA does not impose accompany any proposed or final rule significant’’ as defined under Executive any additional requirements on an area. that includes a Federal mandate that Order 12866, and (2) concerns an This action does not, in-and-of-itself, may result in estimated costs to State, environmental health or safety risk that impose any new requirements on any local, or tribal governments in the EPA has reason to believe may have a sectors of the economy. Thus, the aggregate; or to the private sector, of disproportionate effect on children. If requirements of section 6 of the $100 million or more. Under section the regulatory action meets both criteria, Executive Order do not apply to this 205, EPA must select the most cost- the Agency must evaluate the final action. effective and least burdensome environmental health or safety effects of alternative that achieves the objectives E. Executive Order 13175 the planned rule on children, and of the rule and is consistent with explain why the planned regulation is Executive Order 13175, entitled statutory requirements. Section 203 preferable to other potentially effective ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with requires EPA to establish a plan for and reasonably feasible alternatives Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR informing and advising any small considered by the Agency. 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA governments that may be significantly The final finding of attainment under to develop an accountable process to or uniquely impacted by the rule. With respect to EPA’s final finding of CAA 179B(d) is not subject to Executive ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by attainment under CAA 179B(d), EPA Order 13045 because it does not involve tribal officials in the development of notes that this actions in-and-of itself decisions intended to mitigate regulatory policies that have tribal establishes no new requirements. environmental health or safety risks. implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal implications’’ is defined in the Furthermore, EPA is not directly D. Executive Order 13132 Executive Order to include regulations establishing any regulatory requirements that may significantly Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on impact or uniquely affect small (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes one or more Indian tribes, on the governments, including tribal and replaces Executive Orders 12612, relationship between the Federal governments. Thus, EPA is not obligated ‘‘Federalism,’’ and 12875, ‘‘Enhancing government and the Indian tribes, or on to develop under section 203 of UMRA the Intergovernmental Partnership.’’ the distribution of power and a small government agency plan. Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to responsibilities between the Federal develop an accountable process to government and Indian tribes.’’ H. National Technology Transfer and ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by The final finding of attainment under Advancement Act State and local officials in the CAA 179B(d) does not have tribal Section 12 of the National Technology development of regulatory policies that implications. For the reasons discussed Transfer and Advancement Act have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies above, the final action will not have (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal that have federalism implications’’ is substantial direct effects on tribal agencies to evaluate existing technical defined in the Executive Order to governments, on the relationship standards when developing a new include regulations that have between the Federal government and regulation. To comply with NTTAA, ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, Indian tribes, or on the distribution of EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary on the relationship between the national power and responsibilities between the consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available government and the States, or on the Federal government and Indian tribes, and applicable when developing distribution of power and as specified in Executive Order 13175. programs and policies unless doing so responsibilities among the various Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not would be inconsistent with applicable levels of government.’’ Under Executive apply to this rule. law or otherwise impractical. Order 13132, EPA may not issue a F. Regulatory Flexibility Act EPA believes that VCS are regulation that has federalism inapplicable to today’s final action implications, that imposes substantial The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because they do not require the public direct compliance costs, and that is not generally requires an agency to conduct to perform activities conducive to the required by statute, unless the Federal a regulatory flexibility analysis of any use of VCS. government provides the funds rule subject to notice and comment necessary to pay the direct compliance rulemaking requirements unless the I. Submission to Congress and the costs incurred by State and local agency certifies that the rule will not Comptroller General governments, or EPA consults with have a significant economic impact on The Congressional Review Act, 5 State and local officials early in the a substantial number of small entities. U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small process of developing the proposed Small entities include small businesses, Business Regulatory Enforcement regulation. EPA also may not issue a small not-for-profit enterprises, and Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides regulation that has federalism small governmental jurisdictions. that before a rule may take effect, the implications and that preempts State As discussed above, the final finding agency promulgating the rule must law unless the Agency consults with of attainment under CAA 179B(d) does submit a rule report, which includes a State and local officials early in the not impose additional requirements on copy of the rule, to each House of the process of developing the proposed small entities. Therefore, I certify that Congress and to the Comptroller General regulation. this final action will not have a of the United States. EPA will submit a
VerDate 11
report containing this rule and other Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) (FIRMs) in community may at any time enact required information to the U.S. Senate, effect prior to this determination for stricter requirements of its own, or the U.S. House of Representatives, and each listed community. pursuant to policies established by other the Comptroller General of the United From the date of the second Federal, state or regional entities. States prior to publication of the rule in publication of these changes in a The changes in base flood elevations the Federal Register. A major rule newspaper of local circulation, any are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. cannot take effect until 60 days after it person has ninety (90) days in which to is published in the Federal Register. request through the community that the National Environmental Policy Act This rule is not a ‘‘major’’ rule as Acting Administrator for Federal This rule is categorically excluded defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Insurance and Mitigation from the requirements of 44 CFR Part Administration reconsider the changes. J. Petitions for Judicial Review 10, Environmental Consideration. No The modified elevations may be environmental impact assessment has Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean changed during the 90-day period. been prepared. Air Act, petitions for judicial review of ADDRESSES: The modified base flood Regulatory Flexibility Act this action must be filed in the United elevations for each community are States Court of Appeals for the available for inspection at the office of The Acting Administrator for Federal appropriate circuit by December 18, the Chief Executive Officer of each Insurance and Mitigation 2001. Filing a petition for community. The respective addresses Administration, certifies that this rule is reconsideration by the Administrator of are listed in the following table. exempt from the requirements of the this final rule does not affect the finality FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Flexibility Act because of this rule for the purposes of judicial Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards modified base flood elevations are review nor does it extend the time Study Branch, Federal Insurance and required by the Flood Disaster within which a petition for judicial Mitigation Administration, Federal Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, review may be filed, and shall not Emergency Management Agency, 500 C and are required to maintain community postpone the effectiveness of such rule Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, eligibility in the National Flood or action. This action may not be (202) 646–3461, or (email) Insurance Program. No regulatory challenged later in proceedings to [email protected]. flexibility analysis has been prepared. enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regulatory Classification modified base flood elevations are not List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 listed for each community in this This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Environmental protection, Air interim rule. However, the address of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of pollution control, National parks, the Chief Executive Officer of the September 30, 1993, Regulatory Wilderness areas. community where the modified base Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. flood elevation determinations are available for inspection is provided. Executive Order 12612, Federalism Dated: October 9, 2001. Any request for reconsideration must Sally Seymour, be based upon knowledge of changed This rule involves no policies that Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. conditions, or upon new scientific or have federalism implications under [FR Doc. 01–26406 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] technical data. Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P The modifications are made pursuant to Section 201 of the Flood Disaster Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, Reform FEDERAL EMERGENCY and are in accordance with the National This rule meets the applicable MANAGEMENT AGENCY Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR Part 65. standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive 44 CFR Part 65 For rating purposes, the currently Order 12778. effective community number is shown [Docket No. FEMA–D–7515] List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 and must be used for all new policies Flood insurance, Floodplains, Changes in Flood Elevation and renewals. Reporting and recordkeeping Determinations The modified base flood elevations are the basis for the floodplain requirements. AGENCY: Federal Emergency management measures that the Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 65 is Management Agency, FEMA. community is required to either adopt amended to read as follows: ACTION: Interim rule. or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain PART 65—[AMENDED] SUMMARY: This interim rule lists qualified for participation in the communities where modification of the National Flood Insurance Program 1. The authority citation for Part 65 base (1% annual chance) flood (NFIP). continues to read as follows: elevations is appropriate because of new These modified elevations, together Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; scientific or technical data. New flood with the floodplain management criteria Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, insurance premium rates will be required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, calculated from the modified base flood minimum that are required. They 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. elevations for new buildings and their should not be construed to mean that § 65.4 [Amended] contents. the community must change any DATES: These modified base flood existing ordinances that are more 2. The tables published under the elevations are currently in effect on the stringent in their floodplain authority of § 65.4 are amended as dates listed in the table and revise the management requirements. The follows:
VerDate 11
Dates and name of news- State and county Location paper where notice was Chief executive officer Effective date of Community published of community modification number
Florida: Duval ...... City of Jackson- August 8, 2001; August The Honorable John A. Delaney, August 1, 2001 ...... 120077D&E ville. 15, 2001; Financial Mayor of the City of Jackson- News and Daily Record. ville, 117 West Duval Street, Suite 400, Jacksonville, Florida 32202. Georgia: Gwinnett Unincorporated August 23, 2001; August Mr. Wayne Hill, Chairman of the November 29, 2001 ... 130322D Areas. 30, 2001; Gwinnett Gwinnett County Board of Com- Daily Post. missioners, Justice and Adminis- tration Center, 75 Langley Drive, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045. Kentucky: Whitley City of Williams- August 17, 2001; August The Honorable Bill Nighbert, August 10, 2001 ...... 210228D burg. 24, 2001; Times Trib- Mayor of the City of Williams- une. burg, P.O. Box 119, Williams- burg, Kentucky 40769. Maine: York ...... Town of Alfred ... September 27, 2001; Oc- Mr. Perley Yeaton, Chairperson of September 19, 2001 .. 230191C tober 4, 2001; The San- the Board of Selectmen for the ford News. Town of Alfred, P.O. Box 667, Alfred, Maine 04001. Mississippi: Madi- City of Ridgeland May 17, 2001; May 24, The Honorable Gene F. McGee, May 10, 2001 ...... 280110 D son. 2001; Madison County Mayor of the City of Ridgeland, Journal. P.O. Box 217, Ridgeland, Mis- sissippi 39158. North Carolina: Wake ...... Town of Cary ..... August 2, 2001; August 9, The Honorable Glenn D. Lang, July 26, 2001 ...... 370238D 2001; The Cary News. Mayor of the Town of Cary, 318 North Academy Street, P.O. Box 8005, Cary, North Carolina 27512. Dare ...... Unincorporated August 23, 2001; August Mr. Moncie L. Daniels, Chairman August 16, 2001 ...... 375348E Areas. 30, 2001; Coastland of the Board of Commissioners, Times. P.O. Box 1000, Manteo, North Carolina 27954. Wake ...... Town of Garner July 18, 2001; July 25, Ms. Mary Lou Rand, Town Man- July 11, 2001 ...... 370240 D 2001; The News and ager, P.O. Box 446, 900 Sev- Observer. enth Avenue, Garner, North Carolina 27529. Gaston ...... City of Gastonia August 29, 2001; Sep- Mayor of the City of Gastonia, December 5, 2001 ..... 370100D tember 5, 2001; The P.O. Box 1748, 181 South Gaston Gazette. Street, Gastonia, North Carolina 28053–1748. Wake ...... City of Raleigh ... July 18, 2001; July 25, The Honorable Paul Y. Coble, July 11, 2001 ...... 370243 D 2001; The News and Mayor of the City of Raleigh, Observer. P.O. Box 590, 222 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. Wake ...... Unincorporated July 18, 2001; July 25, Mr. David Cooke, Wake County July 11, 2001 ...... 370368 D Areas. 2001; The News and Manager, Suite 1100, 337 South Observer. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. Ohio: Warren ...... City of Mason .... September 5, 2001; Sep- The Honorable John McCurley, August 30, 2001 ...... 390559C tember 12, 2001; Pulse- Mayor of the City of Mason, 202 Journal. West Main Street, Mason, Ohio 45040. South Carolina: Lexington ..... City of Columbia August 20, 2001; August The Honorable Robert D. Cole, August 13, 2001 ...... 450172D 27, 2001; The State. Mayor of the City of Columbia, P.O. Box 147, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. Lexington ..... Unincorporated August 20, 2001; August Mr. Bruce Rucker, Lexington August 13, 2001 ...... 450129D Areas. 27, 2001; The State. County Council Chairman, 212 South Lake Drive, Lexington, South Carolina 29072. Tennessee: Sul- Town of Kings- August 23, 2001; August The Honorable Jeanette Blazier, August 16, 2001 ...... 470184D livan. port. 30, 2001; Kingsport Mayor of the City of Kingsport, Times. 225 West Center Street, City Hall, Kingsport, Tennessee 37660–4237. Virginia: Rocking- Unincorporated September 21, 2001; Mr. Pablo Cuevas, Chairman of October 12, 2001 ...... 510133B ham. Areas. Daily News Record. the Board of Supervisors, Rock- ingham County P.O. Box 1252 Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801.
VerDate 11
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance 10, Environmental Consideration. No No. 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’) and Mitigation Administration, has environmental impact assessment has Dated: October 9, 2001. resolved any appeals resulting from this been prepared. Robert F. Shea, notification. Regulatory Flexibility Act Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and The modified BFEs are not listed for Mitigation Administration. each community in this notice. The Acting Administrator, Federal [FR Doc. 01–26424 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] However, this rule includes the address Insurance and Mitigation BILLING CODE 6718–04–P of the Chief Executive Officer of the Administration, certifies that this rule is community where the modified BFE exempt from the requirements of the determinations are available for Regulatory Flexibility Act because FEDERAL EMERGENCY inspection. modified base flood elevations are MANAGEMENT AGENCY The modifications are made pursuant required by the Flood Disaster to Section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, 44 CFR Part 65 Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to maintain community and are in accordance with the National eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory Changes in Flood Elevation Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. flexibility analysis has been prepared. Determinations 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR Part 65. Regulatory Classification AGENCY: Federal Emergency For rating purposes, the currently Management Agency, (FEMA). effective community number is shown This final rule is not a significant ACTION: Final rule. and must be used for all new policies regulatory action under the criteria of and renewals. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of SUMMARY: Modified Base (1–percent- The modified BFEs are the basis for September 30, 1993, Regulatory annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) the floodplain management measures Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. are finalized for the communities listed that the community is required to either Executive Order 12612 Federalism below. These modified elevations will adopt or to show evidence of being be used to calculate flood insurance already in effect in order to qualify or This rule involves no policies that premium rates for new buildings and to remain qualified for participation in have federalism implications under their contents. the National Flood Insurance Program Executive Order 12612, Federalism, EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective dates for (NFIP). dated October 26, 1987. these modified BFEs are indicated on These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice the table below and revise the Flood Reform Insurance Rate Maps ((FIRMs) in effect required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the for the listed communities prior to this minimum that are required. They This rule meets the applicable date. should not be construed to mean that standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each the community must change any Order 12778. existing ordinances that are more community are available for inspection List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 at the office of the Chief Executive stringent in their floodplain Officer of each community. The management requirements. The Flood insurance, Floodplains, respective addresses are listed in the community may at any time enact Reporting and recordkeeping table below. stricter requirements of its own, or requirements. pursuant to policies established by other FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 65 is Federal, State, or regional entities. Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards amended to read as follows: These modified BFEs are used to meet Study Branch, Hazard Mapping and the floodplain management PART 65—[AMENDED] Risk Assessment Division, FEMA, 500 C requirements of the NFIP and are also Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, used to calculate the appropriate flood 1. The authority citation for Part 65 (202) 646–3461 or (e-mail) insurance premium rates for new continues to read as follows: [email protected]. buildings built after these elevations are Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA made final, and for the contents in these Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, makes the final determinations listed buildings. 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, below of the final determinations of The changes in BFEs are in 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. modified BFEs for each community accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. § 65.4 [Amended] listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local National Environmental Policy Act 2. The tables published under the circulation and ninety (90) days have This rule is categorically excluded authority of § 65.4 are amended as elapsed since that publication. The from the requirements of 44 CFR Part follows:
Dates and names of State and county Location newspaper where notice Chief executive officer Effective date of Community was published of community modification number
Arkansas: Wash- City of Springdale April 20, 2001, April 27, The Honorable Jerre Van Hoose, July 27, 2001 ...... 050219 ington (FEMA 2001, The Morning Mayor, City of Springdale, 201 Docket No. News of Northwest Ar- Spring Street, Springdale, Arkansas 7602). kansas. 72764. Oklahoma: (FEMA City of Edmond .... May 17, 2001, May 24, The Honorable Bob Rudkin, Mayor, August 23, 2001 .. 400252 Docket No. 2001, The Edmond Sun. City of Edmond, P. O. Box 202, 7602). Edmond, Oklahoma 73083.
VerDate 11
Dates and names of State and county Location newspaper where notice Chief executive officer Effective date of Community was published of community modification number
Oklahoma: City of Shawnee ... April 20, 2001, April 27, The Honorable Chris Harden, Mayor, July 27, 2001 ...... 400178 Pottawatomie 2001, The Shawnee City of Shawnee, P.O. Box 1448, (FEMA Docket News-Star. Shawnee, Oklahoma 74802. No. 7602). Texas: Dallas and City of Garland ..... April 12, 2001, April 19, The Honorable Jim Spence, Mayor, July 19, 2001 ...... 485471 Collin (FEMA 2001, Garland News. City of Garland, 200 North 5th Docket No. Street, P.O. Box 469002, Garland, 7602). Texas 76042–9002. Texas: Tarrant and City of Grand Prai- April 19, 2001, April 26, The Honorable Charles England, March 29, 2001 .... 485472 Ellis (FEMA rie. 2001, Arlington Morning Mayor, City of Grand Prairie, 317 Docket No. News,. College Street, P.O. Box 534045, 7602). Grand Prairie, Texas 75053–4045. Texas: Harris Unincorporated May 18, 2001, May 25, The Honorable Robert Eckels, Harris August 9, 2001 .... 480287 (FEMA Docket Areas. 2001, Houston Chron- County Judge, 1001 Preston No. 7604). icle. Street, Suite 911, Houston, Texas 77002.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each existing ordinances that are more 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’) community are available for inspection stringent in their floodplain Dated: October 3, 2001. at the office of the Chief Executive management requirements. The Robert F. Shea, Officer of each community. The community may at any time enact Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and respective addresses are listed in the stricter requirements of its own, or Mitigation Administration. table below. pursuant to policies established by other [FR Doc. 01–26426 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal, State, or regional entities. BILLING CODE 6718–04–P Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards The changes in BFEs are in Study Branch, Hazard Mapping and accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. Risk Assessment Division, FEMA, 500 C National Environmental Policy Act FEDERAL EMERGENCY Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, MANAGEMENT AGENCY (202) 646–3461 or (e-mail) This rule is categorically excluded [email protected]. from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 44 CFR Part 65 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 10, Environmental Consideration. No modified BFEs are not listed for each environmental impact assessment has [Docket No. FEMA–P–7606] community in this interim rule. been prepared. Changes in Flood Elevation However, the address of the Chief Regulatory Flexibility Act Determinations Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations The Acting Administrator for Federal AGENCY: Federal Emergency are available for inspection is provided. Insurance and Mitigation Management Agency, (FEMA). Any request for reconsideration must Administration certifies that this rule is be based on knowledge of changed exempt from the requirements of the ACTION: Interim rule. conditions or new scientific or technical Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified BFEs are required by the Flood SUMMARY: This interim rule lists data. Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 communities where modification of the The modifications are made pursuant U.S.C. 4105, and are required to Base (1-percent-annual-chance) Flood to Section 201 of the Flood Disaster maintain community eligibility in the Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis of new scientific or technical data. New and are in accordance with the National has been prepared. flood insurance premium rates will be Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. calculated from the modified BFEs for 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR Part 65. Regulatory Classification new buildings and their contents. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown This interim rule is not a significant DATES: These modified BFEs are and must be used for all new policies regulatory action under the criteria of currently in effect on the dates listed in and renewals. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of the table below and revise the Flood The modified BFEs are the basis for September 30, 1993, Regulatory Insurance Rate Map(s) in effect prior to the floodplain management measures Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. this determination for the listed that the community is required to either Executive Order 12612, Federalism communities. adopt or to show evidence of being From the date of the second already in effect in order to qualify or This rule involves no policies that publication of these changes in a to remain qualified for participation in have federalism implications under newspaper of local circulation, any the National Flood Insurance Program Executive Order 12612, Federalism, person has ninety (90) days in which to (NFIP). dated October 26, 1987. request through the community that the These modified BFEs, together with Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Acting Administrator for Federal the floodplain management criteria Reform. Insurance and Mitigation required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the Administration reconsider the changes. minimum that are required. They This rule meets the applicable The modified BFEs may be changed should not be construed to mean that standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive during the 90-day period. the community must change any Order 12778.
VerDate 11
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 PART 65—[AMENDED] 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and record keeping 1. The authority citation for Part 65 § 65.4 [Amended] continues to read as follows: requirements. 2. The tables published under the Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 65 is Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. authority of § 65.4 are amended as amended to read as follows: Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, follows:
Dates and name of news- State and county Location paper where notice was Chief executive officer Effective date of Community published of community modification No.
Arkansas: Pope .... City of Russellville August 21, 2001, August The Honorable Raye Turner, Mayor, July 30, 2001 ...... 050178 28, 2001, The Courier. City of Russellville, P. O. Box 428, Russellville, Arkansas 72801. Illinois: Lake ...... Village of Lake Zu- August 16, 2001, August The Honorable James Krischke, July 18, 2001 ...... 170376 rich. 23, 2001, Lake Zurich Mayor, Village of Lake Zurich, 70 Courier. East Main Street, Lake Zurich, Illi- nois 60047. Will ...... Unincorporated July 24, 2001, July 31, Mr. Joseph L. Mikan, County Execu- October 30, 2001 170695 Areas. 2001, The Chicago tive, Will County, 302 North Chi- Sun-Times. cago Street, Joliet, Illinois 60432. Indiana: Howard ... Unincorporated July 20, 2001, July 27, Mr. John Harbaugh, President, How- June 27, 2001 ...... 180414 Areas. 2001, Kokomo Tribune. ard County, Board of Commis- sioners, 230 North Main, Kokomo, Indiana 46901. Iowa: Black Hawk City of Cedar Falls July 24, 2001, July 31, The Honorable Jon Crews, Mayor, June 22, 2001 ...... 190017 2001, Waterloo Cedar City of Cedar Falls, 220 Clay Falls Courier. Street, Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613. Missouri: Marion ... Unincorporated August 1, 2001, August 8, Mr. Lyndon Bode, Presiding Commis- July 9, 2001 ...... 290222 Areas. 2001, Palmyra Spec- sioner, Marion County, 100 South tator. Main Street, Palmyra, Missouri 63461. Nebraska: Lan- City of Lincoln ...... April 19, 2001, April 26, The Honorable Don Wesely, Mayor, March 13, 2001 .... 315273 caster. 2001, Lincoln Journal City of Lincoln, 555 South 10th Star. Street, Room 208, Lincoln, Ne- braska 68508. Ohio: Summit ...... City of Twinsburg August 9, 2001, August The Honorable Katherine Procop, November 15, 390534 16, 2001, The Mayor, City of Twinsburg, 10075 2001. Twinsburg Bulletin. Ravenna Road, Twinsburg, Ohio 44087. Oklahoma: Jeffer- City of Waurika .... July 5, 2001, July 12, The Honorable Biff Eck, Mayor, City October 11, 2001 400076 son. 2001, Waurika News- of Waurika, 122 South Main, Democrat. Waurika, Oklahoma 73573. Texas: Tarrant ...... City of Haltom City July 24, 2001, July 31, Mr. Joel A. Guerrero, Floodplain Ad- October 30, 2001 480599 2001, Fort Worth Star- ministrator, City of Haltom City, Telegram. 5024 Broadway Avenue, Haltom City, Texas 76117. Harris ...... Unincorporated August 16, 2001, August The Honorable Robert Eckels, Harris November 22, 480287 Areas. 23, 2001, Houston County Judge, 1001 Preston 2001. Chronicle. Street, Suite 911, Houston, Texas 77002. Harris ...... Unincorporated August 21, 2001, August The Honorable Robert Eckels, Harris November 27, 480287 Areas. 28, 2001, Houston County Judge, 1001 Preston 2001. Chronicle. Street, Suite 911, Houston, Texas 77002. Harris ...... City of Houston .... August 21, 2001, August The Honorable Lee P. Brown, Mayor, November 27, 480296 28, 2001, Houston City of Houston, P. O. Box 1562, 2001. Chronicle. Houston, Texas 77251–1562. Denton ...... Town of Little Elm July 12, 2001, July 19, The Honorable Jim Pelley, Mayor, October 18, 2001 481152 2001, Deonton Record- Town of Little Elm, P. O. Box 129, Chronicle. Little Elm, Texas 75068. Tarrant ...... City of North Rich- July 24, 2001, July 31, The Honorable Charles Scoma, October 30, 2001 480607 land Hills. 2001, Fort Worth Star- Mayor, City of North Richland Hills, Telegram. P. O. Box 820609, North Richland Hills, Texas 76182. Tarrant ...... City of North Rich- August 23, 2001, August The Honorable Charles Scoma, July 31, 2001 ...... 480607 land Hills. 30, 2001, Fort Worth Mayor, City of North Richland Hills, Star-Telegram. P. O. Box 820609, North Richland Hills, Texas 76182.
VerDate 11
Dates and name of news- State and county Location paper where notice was Chief executive officer Effective date of Community published of community modification No.
Tarrant ...... City of Richland July 24, 2001, July 31, Mr. John W. Cherry, P.E., Director, October 30, 2001 480608 Hills. 2001, Fort Worth Star- Dept. of Public Works, City of Rich- Telegram. land Hills, 6700 Rena Drive, Rich- land Hills, Texas 76118. Tarrant ...... City of Southlake .. August 3, 2001, August The Honorable Rick Stacy, Mayor, November 9, 2001 480612 10, 2001, Fort Worth City of Southlake, 1400 Main Star-Telegram. Street, Suite 270, Southlake, Texas 76092. Harris ...... City of Tomball ..... July 25, 2001, August 1, The Honorable Hap Harrington, October 31, 2001 480315 2001, Tomball Magnolia Mayor, City of Tomball, 401 West Tribune. Market Street, Tomball, Texas 77375–4645.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Administration certifies that this rule is 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’) Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, exempt from the requirements of the Dated: October 3, 2001. (202) 646–3461, or (email) Regulatory Flexibility Act because final Robert F. Shea, [email protected]. or modified base flood elevations are Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The required by the Flood Disaster Mitigation Administration. Federal Emergency Management Agency Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, [FR Doc. 01–26425 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] (FEMA or Agency) makes final and are required to establish and BILLING CODE 6718–04–P determinations listed below of base maintain community eligibility in the flood elevations and modified base NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis flood elevations for each community has been prepared. FEDERAL EMERGENCY listed. The proposed base flood Regulatory Classification MANAGEMENT AGENCY elevations and proposed modified base flood elevations were published in This final rule is not a significant 44 CFR Part 67 newspapers of local circulation and an regulatory action under the criteria of Final Flood Elevation Determinations opportunity for the community or Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of individuals to appeal the proposed September 30, 1993, Regulatory AGENCY: Federal Emergency determinations to or through the Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. Management Agency (FEMA). community was provided for a period of Executive Order 12612, Federalism ACTION: Final rule. ninety (90) days. The proposed base flood elevations and proposed modified This rule involves no policies that SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) base flood elevations were also have federalism implications under flood elevations and modified base published in the Federal Register. Executive Order 12612, Federalism, flood elevations are made final for the This final rule is issued in accordance dated October 26, 1987. communities listed below. The base with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster flood elevations and modified base Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice flood elevations are the basis for the and 44 CFR Part 67. Reform. floodplain management measures that The Agency has developed criteria for each community is required either to floodplain management in floodprone This rule meets the applicable adopt or to show evidence of being areas in accordance with 44 CFR Part standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive already in effect in order to qualify or 60. Order 12778. remain qualified for participation in the Interested lessees and owners of real List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 National Flood Insurance Program property are encouraged to review the (NFIP). proof Flood Insurance Study and Flood Administrative practice and EFFECTIVE DATES: The date of issuance of Insurance Rate Map available at the procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) address cited below for each and recordkeeping requirements. showing base flood elevations and community. The base flood elevations and Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is modified base flood elevations for each amended as follows: community. This date may be obtained modified base flood elevations are made by contacting the office where the maps final in the communities listed below. PART 67—[AMENDED] are available for inspection as indicated Elevations at selected locations in each on the table below. community are shown. 1. The authority citation for Part 67 ADDRESSES: The final base flood National Environmental Policy Act continues to read as follows: elevations for each community are This rule is categorically excluded Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; available for inspection at the office of from the requirements of 44 CFR Part Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, the Chief Executive Officer of each 10, Environmental Consideration. No 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. community. The respective addresses environmental impact assessment has are listed in the table below. been prepared. § 67.11 [Amended] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards Regulatory Flexibility Act 2. The tables published under the Study Branch, Federal Insurance and The Acting Administrator for Federal authority of § 67.11 are amended as Mitigation Administration, Federal Insurance and Mitigation follows:
VerDate 11
#Depth in #Depth in #Depth in feet above feet above feet above ground. ground. ground. Source of flooding and location *Elevation Source of flooding and location *Elevation Source of flooding and location *Elevation in feet in feet in feet (NGVD) (NGVD) (NGVD)
FLORIDA Approximately 500 feet from Edgewater (City), Volusia the southern Volusia Coun- Daytona Beach (City), County (FEMA Docket No. ty/Oak Hill corporate limits Volusia County (FEMA 7311) along State Route A1A Docket No. 7311) north, then approximately Indian River North/Intracoastal 350 feet east ...... *12 Atlantic Ocean: Waterway: Indian River North/Intracoastal Approximately 450 feet north- Just on the Easterly side of Waterway: east of the intersection of the intersection of Boston Approximately 1,500 feet Harvey Avenue and Ocean Road and Riverside Drive *7 southwest of the intersec- Avenue South ...... *10 Approximately 100 feet east tion of South Street and Approximately 300 feet east of the intersection of State Route A1A in Volusia of the intersection of Hart- Knapp Avenue and River- County ...... *6 ford Avenue and Atlantic side Drive South ...... *9 Approximately 500 feet east Avenue North ...... *13 of the intersection of Chey- Intracoastal Waterway: Maps available for inspection enne Drive and Golden at the City of Edgewater Bay Boulevard ...... *8 Approximately 500 feet west Planning Department, 104 of the intersection of Glen- North Riverside Drive, Maps available for inspection view Boulevard and Halifax Edgewater, Florida. at the Oak Hill City Hall, 234 Avenue North ...... *5 South U.S. Highway 1, Oak Approximately 700 feet east Hill, Florida. of the intersection of San Holly Hill (City), Volusia ——— Juan Avenue and North County (FEMA Docket No. Beach Street ...... *8 7311) Ormond Beach (City), B–19 Canal Tributary No. 7: Volusia County (FEMA Docket No. 7311) At confluence with B–19 Intracoastal Waterway: Canal ...... *30 At the intersection of High Atlantic Ocean: Approximately 150 feet up- Street and Burleigh Ave- Approximately 350 feet east stream of Beville Road/ nue ...... *6 of the intersection of Ann State Route 400 ...... *30 Approximately 100 feet east Rustin Drive and Ocean B–19 Canal: of the intersection of 15th Shore Boulevard ...... *10 Approximately 1,100 feet up- Place and Riverside Drive *7 Approximately 600 feet east stream of the confluence of Maps available for inspection of the intersection of Har- B–19 Canal Tributary No. at the Holly Hill City Hall, vard Drive and Florence 3 with B–19 Canal ...... *29 1065 Ridgewood Avenue, Street ...... *12 Approximately 100 feet up- Holly Hill, Florida. Halifax River/Intracoastal Wa- stream of State Route 400 *30 ——— terway: Tomoka River: New Smyrna Beach (City), At the intersection of John Approximately 0.8 mile down- Volusia County (FEMA Anderson Drive and St. stream of Eleventh Street *14 Docket No. 7311) Mark Circle ...... *4 Approximately 400 feet Approximately 100 feet east downstream of Interstate 4 *25 Atlantic Ocean: of the intersection of Se- Approximately 400 feet east ville Street and Beach Maps available for inspection of the intersection of 3rd Street South ...... *7 at Daytona Beach Public Avenue East and Atlantic Approximately 200 feet west Works Complex, Engineering of intersection of John An- Department, 950 Bellevue Avenue South ...... *10 Approximately 0.8 mile north derson Drive and Bucking- Avenue, Daytona Beach, ham Drive ...... *4 Florida. of the intersection of Pe- ninsula Avenue North and Tomoka River: Ocean Drive ...... *12 Approximately 1.1 miles Daytona Beach Shores Indian River North/Intracoastal downstream of confluence (City), Volusia County Waterway: of Thompson Creek ...... *5 (FEMA Docket No. 7311) At the intersection of Ocean Approximately 1,500 feet up- stream of State Route 40 .. *10 Atlantic Ocean: Drive and Peninsula Ave- nue North ...... *7 Misner Branch: Approximately 400 feet east At confluence with Tomoka of the intersection of Ridge Approximately 1,500 feet east of the intersection of River ...... *8 Road and Atlantic Avenue Approximately 100 feet up- South ...... *10 Conrad Drive and Redland Drive ...... *9 stream of Handy Avenue .. *15 Approximately 500 feet east Little Tomoka River: of the intersection of Van Maps available for inspection at the New Smyrna City Hall, At confluence with Tomoka Avenue and Atlantic Ave- River ...... *10 nue South ...... *12 210 Sams Avenue, New Smyrna Beach, Florida. At State Route 40 ...... *28 Intracoastal Waterway: Groover Branch: Approximately 400 feet west ——— At confluence with Tomoka of the intersection of Rich- Oak Hill (City), Volusia River approximately 1,300 ards Lane and Peninsula County (FEMA Docket No. feet downstream of Drive South ...... *6 7311) Tymber Run Road ...... *20 At the intersection of Demott Approximately 340 feet up- Street and Peninsula Drive Atlantic Ocean: stream of Tymber Creek South ...... *6 Approximately 120 feet east Road North ...... *10 Maps available for inspection of the intersection of State Thompson Creek: at the City of Daytona Beach Route A1A and Volusia Approximately 470 feet Shores City Hall, Building Di- County/Oak Hill corporate downstream of U.S. Route vision, 3050 South Atlantic limits ...... *11 1 North ...... *7 Avenue, Daytona Beach, Approximately 0.45 mile up- Florida. stream of Tomoka Avenue *8
VerDate 11
#Depth in #Depth in #Depth in feet above feet above feet above ground. ground. ground. Source of flooding and location *Elevation Source of flooding and location *Elevation Source of flooding and location *Elevation in feet in feet in feet (NGVD) (NGVD) (NGVD) Maps available for inspection Approximately 125 feet B–19 Canal Tributary No. 2: at Ormond Beach City Hall, southwest of the intersec- Approximately 50 feet up- Planning Department, 22 tion of Reed Canal Road stream of confluence with South Beach Street, Room and Ridgewood Avenue B–19 Canal ...... *28 104, Ormond Beach Florida. South/U.S. Route 1 ...... *6 Approximately 650 feet up- ——— ——— stream of confluence with Ponce Inlet (Town), Volusia Volusia County (Unincor- B–19 Canal ...... *28 County (FEMA Docket No. porated Areas) (FEMA Maps available for inspection 7311) Docket No. 7311) at the Volusia County Emer- Atlantic Ocean: gency Operations Center, 49 Atlantic Ocean: Approximately 350 feet east Keyton Drive, Daytona, Flor- Approximately 300 feet east of the intersection of Plaza ida. of the intersection of Old Drive and Ocean Shore Carriage Road and Atlantic Boulevard ...... *10 MAINE Avenue South ...... *10 Approximately 300 feet Approximately 750 feet east southeast of the intersec- Bangor (City), Penobscot of the Beach Street and tion of Kingfish Avenue County (FEMA Docket No. Atlantic Avenue South and Atlantic Avenue South *12 D–7510) intersection ...... *12 Approximately 500 feet Intracoastal Waterway: southeast of intersection of Penobscot River: At the intersection of Maura Ocean Shore Boulevard At downstream corporate lim- Court and Peninsula Drive and northern county its ...... *16 South ...... *7 boundary ...... *12 At upstream corporate limits *25 Approximately 2,500 feet Halifax River/Intracoastal Wa- Penjajawoc Stream: terway: south of the intersection of Approximately 100 feet At Mount Hope Avenue ...... *45 Beach and Sailfish Drive ... *9 southwest of the intersec- Approximately 0.31 mile up- Maps available for inspection tion of John Anderson stream of Stillwater Ave- at the Ponce Inlet Town Hall, Drive and Highridge Road *4 nue ...... *107 4680 South Peninsula Drive, Approximately 2,750 feet Kenduskeag Stream: Ponce Inlet, Florida. west of intersection of Car- At confluence with Penobscot ——— dinal Boulevard and Major River ...... *18 Street ...... *9 Approximately 0.64 mile up- Port Orange (City), Volusia Indian River North/Intracoastal stream of confluence with County (FEMA Docket No. Waterway: Penobscot River ...... *18 7311) Approximately 1,000 feet Maps available for inspection B–19 Canal: east of intersection of Peli- at the Bangor City Hall, 73 can Place and Riverside Approximately 300 feet up- Harlow Street, Bangor, Drive ...... *7 Maine. stream of confluence with Approximately 50 feet west Spruce Creek ...... *5 of the intersection of Trout Approximately 150 feet Avenue and Atlantic Ave- NEW JERSEY downstream of the con- nue ...... *6 fluence of B–19 Canal Groover Branch: Bernards (Township), Som- Tributary No. 5 with B–19 Approximately 1,250 feet up- erset County (FEMA Dock- Canal ...... *29 stream of Tymber Run ...... *10 et No. D–7504) B–19 Canal Tributary No. 2: Approximately 340 feet up- At the confluence with B–19 stream of Tymber Creek Passaic River: Canal ...... *28 Road North ...... *20 Approximately 1.6 miles Approximately 1,500 feet up- Tomoka River: downstream of Passaic stream of confluence with Approximately 1.17 miles Valley Road ...... *214 B–19 Canal ...... *28 downstream of confluence Approximately 100 feet Intracoastal Waterway: of Thompson Creek ...... *5 downstream of the up- At the intersection of River- Approximately 0.96 mile up- stream corporate limits ...... *303 view Lane and Simpson stream of U.S. Route 92 ... *25 Dead River: Avenue ...... *6 Little Tomoka River: At the downstream corporate At the intersection of At confluence with Tomoka limits ...... *214 Portobello Drive and River- River, approximately 1,850 Approximately 0.78 mile up- side Drive ...... *9 feet downstream of Main stream of the downstream Trail Road ...... *10 corporate limits ...... *216 Maps available for inspection Approximately 200 feet up- at the Port Orange City Hall, Maps available for inspection stream of State Route 40 .. *30 at the Bernards Township 1000 City Center Circle, Port B–19 Canal: Orange, Florida. At the confluence of B–19 Hall, Engineer’s Office, 277 ——— South Maple Avenue, Ber- Canal Tributary No. 2 ...... *28 nards, New Jersey. South Daytona (City), Approximately 550 feet north- Volusia County (FEMA east of the confluence of ——— Docket No. 7311) B–19 Canal Tributary No. Millburn (Township), Essex Intracoastal Waterway: 3 with B–19 Canal ...... *29 County (FEMA Docket No. At the intersection of Sea Isle Crescent Lake: D–7506) Circle and Palmetto Ave- Approximately 6,000 feet northeast of the intersec- Passaic River: nue ...... *6 Approximately 2,550 feet up- Approximately 600 feet east tion of Ducan Road and Raulerson Road No. 7 ...... *7 stream of downstream cor- of the intersection of Ven- porate limits ...... *177 ture Drive and U.S. Route Approximately 2.84 miles northeast of the intersec- Approximately 200 feet 1 (Ridgewood Avenue downstream of Main Street *179 South) ...... *8 tion of Ducan Road and Raulerson Road No. 7 ...... *7
VerDate 11
#Depth in #Depth in #Depth in feet above feet above feet above ground. ground. ground. Source of flooding and location *Elevation Source of flooding and location *Elevation Source of flooding and location *Elevation in feet in feet in feet (NGVD) (NGVD) (NGVD) Maps available for inspection Approximately 450 feet Approximately 2,920 feet up- at the Millburn Township downstream of Route 842 *187 stream of Suplee Road ..... *597 Hall, 375 Millburn Avenue, Approximately 1,250 feet Maps available for inspection Millburn, New Jersey. downstream of U.S. Route at the Honey Brook Town- 322 (second crossing) ...... *224 ship Building, 495 Suplee PENNSYLVANIA West Branch Brandywine Road, Honey Brook, Penn- Creek: sylvania. Approximately 200 feet up- Avondale (Borough), Chester ——— County (FEMA Docket No. stream of confluence with D–7502) Brandywine Creek ...... *187 London Grove (Township), Approximately 4,200 feet up- Chester County (FEMA East Branch White Clay Creek: Docket No. D–7502) Approximately 330 feet stream of State Road 842 downstream of State Route (Wawaset Road) ...... *195 East Branch White Clay Creek: 41 ...... *271 Maps available for inspection Approximately 1,080 feet up- Approximately 1,060 feet up- at the East Bradford Town- stream of Third Avenue ..... *279 stream of 3rd Avenue ...... *280 ship Hall, 666 Copeland Approximately 1,440 feet up- stream of Third Avenue ..... *280 Maps available for inspection Road, West Chester, Penn- at the Avondale Borough sylvania. Maps available for inspection Hall, 110 Palmroy Avenue, ——— at the London Grove Town- Avondale, Pennsylvania. East Brandywine (Township), ship Hall, 372 Rosehill Road, Chester County (FEMA Suite 100, West Grove, ——— Pennsylvania. Caln (Township), Chester Docket No. D–7502) County (FEMA Docket No. East Branch Brandywine ——— D–7502) Creek: Modena (Borough), Chester East Branch Brandywine Approximately 1,162 feet up- County (FEMA Docket No. Creek: stream of U.S. Route 30 ... *253 D–7502) Approximately 900 feet Approximately 3,500 feet up- stream of Lyndell Road ..... *338 West Branch Brandywine downstream of State Route Creek: 282 ...... *241 Maps available for inspection at the East Brandywine Approximately 500 feet Approximately 1,100 feet up- downstream of Luria Rail- stream of U.S. Route 30 ... *253 Township Office, 1214 Horseshoe Pike, road Bridge (CONRAIL) .... *272 Maps available for inspection Downingtown, Pennsylvania. Approximately 4,200 feet at the Caln Municipal Build- downstream of First Ave- ing, Department of Engineer- ——— nue ...... *283 ing and Code Enforcement, East Caln (Township), Ches- Maps available for inspection 253 Municipal Drive, ter County (FEMA Docket at the Modena Borough Hall, Thorndale, Pennsylvania. No. D–7502) North Brandywine Avenue, ——— East Branch Brandywine Modena, Pennsylvania. Coatesville (City), Chester Creek: ——— Approximately 1,125 feet County (FEMA Docket No. New Garden (Township), D–7502) downstream of U.S. Route 322 (second crossing) ...... *224 Chester County (FEMA West Branch Brandywine Approximately 2,350 feet Docket No. D–7502) Creek: downstream of Dowlin East Branch White Clay Creek: Approximately 2,800 feet Forge Road ...... *260 Approximately 1,080 feet up- downstream of Business stream of Third Avenue ..... *279 Route 30 ...... *307 Maps available for inspection at the East Caln Township Approximately 1,440 feet up- Just downstream of Kings stream of Third Avenue ..... *280 Highway ...... *362 Hall, 110 Bell Tavern Road, Downingtown, Pennsylvania. Maps available for inspection Maps available for inspection ——— at the New Garden Township at the Coatesville City Hall, Building, 8934 Gap Newport Codes Department, 1 City East Fallowfield (Township), Pike, Landenburg, Pennsyl- Hall Place, Coatesville, Chester County (FEMA vania. Docket No. D–7502) Pennsylvania. ——— West Branch Brandywine ——— Newlin (Township), Chester Downingtown (Borough), Creek: Approximately 500 feet County (FEMA Docket No. Chester County (FEMA D–7502) Docket No. D–7502) downstream of State Route 3062 (Strasburg Road) ...... *252 West Branch Brandywine East Branch Brandywine Approximately 375 feet down- Creek: Creek: stream of CONRAIL Railroad Approximately 800 feet up- Approximately 3,000 feet up- bridge ...... *272 stream of State Route stream of U.S. Route 322 *232 Maps available for inspection 3027 (Northbrook Road) ... *202 Approximately 700 feet up- at the East Fallowfield Town- Approximately 500 feet stream of U.S. Route 30 ... *253 ship Hall, 2264 Strasburg downstream of State Route Maps available for inspection Road, East Fallowfield, 3062 (Strasburg Road) ...... *252 at the Downingtown Borough Pennsylvania. Maps available for inspection Hall, 4 West Lancaster Ave- ——— at Yerkey’s Associates, 1444 nue, Downingtown, Pennsyl- Phoenixville Pike, West vania. Honey Brook (Township), Chester, Pennsylvania. Chester County (FEMA ——— Docket No. D–7502) ——— East Bradford (Township), East Branch Brandywine Pocopson (Township), Ches- Chester County (FEMA Creek: ter County (FEMA Docket Docket No. D–7502) Just upstream of South No. D–7502) East Branch Brandywine Creek or Chestnut Tree West Branch Brandywine Creek: Road ...... *558 Creek:
VerDate 11
#Depth in #Depth in #Depth in feet above feet above feet above ground. ground. ground. Source of flooding and location *Elevation Source of flooding and location *Elevation Source of flooding and location *Elevation in feet in feet in feet (NGVD) (NGVD) (NGVD) Approximately 200 feet up- Maps available for inspection Maps available for inspection stream of confluence with at the Valley Township Build- at the West Caln Township Brandywine Creek ...... *187 ing, 890 West Lincoln High- Hall, 721 Kings Highway, Approximately 2,500 feet up- way, Coatesville, Pennsyl- Wagontown, Pennsylvania. stream of State Route vania. ——— 3027 (Northbrook Road) ... *203 ——— West Nantmeal (Township), Maps available for inspection Wallace (Township), Chester Chester County (FEMA at the Pocopson Township Docket No. D–7502) Hall, 740 Denton Hollow County (FEMA Docket No. Road, West Chester, Penn- D–7502) East Branch Brandywine sylvania. East Branch Brandywine Creek: Approximately 1.14 miles ——— Creek: Approximately 3,500 feet up- downstream of North South Coatesville (Borough), stream of Lyndell Road ..... *338 Manor Road ...... *481 Chester County (FEMA Approximately 6,000 feet Just downstream of Chestnut Docket No. D–7502) downstream of North Tree Road ...... *558 West Branch Brandywine: Manor Road ...... *481 Maps available for inspection Approximately 0.89 mile *281 Maps available for inspection at the West Nantmeal Town- downstream of First Ave- at the Wallace Township ship Hall, 455 North Manor nue ...... *281 Building, 451 Fairview Road, Road, Elverson, Pennsyl- Approximately 0.71 mile up- Glen Moore, Pennsylvania. vania. stream of First Avenue ...... *305 ——— Maps available for inspection TENNESSEE at the South Coatesville Bor- West Bradford (Township), ough Hall, 136 Modena Chester County (FEMA Docket No. D–7502) Selmer (City), McNairy Coun- Road, South Coatesville, ty (FEMA Docket No. D– Pennsylvania. West Branch Brandywine 7512) Creek: ——— Cypress Creek: Upper Uwchlan (Township), Approximately 4,200 feet up- stream of State Road 842 *195 Approximately 1,700 feet Chester County (FEMA downstream of South Docket No. D–7502) Approximately 800 feet up- Fourth Street ...... *433 stream of State Route East Branch Brandywine 3027 (Northbrook Road) ... *202 Approximately 1,855 feet up- stream of Purdy Road ...... *444 Creek: East Branch Brandywine Approximately 600 feet Creek: Crooked Creek: downstream of Dorlan Hill Approximately 5,100 feet At the confluence with Cy- Road ...... *281 downstream of U.S. Route press Creek ...... *439 Approximately 3,500 feet up- 322 (First one) ...... *205 Approximately 0.5 mile up- stream of Lyndell Road ..... *338 Approximately 3,000 feet up- stream of Highschool Road *459 Maps available for inspection stream of U.S. Route 322 Maps available for inspection at the Upper Uwchlan Town- (Second one) ...... *232 at the City Hall, 144 North ship Building, 140 Pottstown Maps available for inspection Second Street, Selmer, Ten- Pike, Chester Springs, Penn- nessee. sylvania. at the West Bradford Town- ship Hall, 1385 Campus ——— Drive, Downingtown, Penn- VERMONT Uwchlan (Township), Chester sylvania. County (FEMA Docket No. ——— Woodstock (Town and Vil- D–7502) lage), Windsor County West Brandywine (Town- (FEMA Docket No. D–7510) East Branch Brandywine ship), Chester County Creek: (FEMA Docket No. D–7502) Ottauquechee River: Approximately 2,350 feet West Branch Brandywine Approximately 550 feet up- downstream of Dowlin stream of U.S. Route 4 ..... *697 Forge Road ...... *260 Creek: Approximately 150 feet up- At the upstream corporate Approximately 600 feet limits ...... *812 downstream of Dorlan Hill stream of Kings Highway Road ...... *281 (State Route 340) ...... *365 Maps available for inspection Approximately 600 feet up- at Town Hall, 31 The Green, Maps available for inspection stream of Kings Highway .. *367 Woodstock, Vermont. at the Uwchlan Township Hall, 715 North Ship Road, Maps available for inspection Exton, Pennsylvania. at the West Brandywine Township Hall, 199 LaFay- (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. ——— ette Road, Coatesville, Penn- 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’) Valley (Township), Chester sylvania. Dated: October 9, 2001. County (FEMA Docket No. D–7502) ——— Robert F. Shea, West Branch Brandywine West Caln (Township), Ches- Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and Creek: ter County (FEMA Docket Mitigation Administration. No. D–7502) Approximately 3,300 feet [FR Doc. 01–26429 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] downstream Business West Branch Brandywine Route 30 (Lincoln High- Creek: BILLING CODE 6718–08–P way) ...... *305 Approximately 150 feet up- Approximately 1,050 feet up- stream of Kings Highway stream from Valley Station (State Route 340) ...... *365 Drive ...... *341 Approximately 600 feet up- stream of Kings Highway .. *367
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Halibut Donation Program that was Accordingly, 50 CFR part 679 is published in the Federal Register on corrected by making the following National Oceanic and Atmospheric June 12, 1998. correcting amendment: Administration DATES: Effective October 19, 2001. PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 50 CFR Part 679 Patsy A. Bearden, 907–586–7008. ALASKA [Docket No. 980212037–8142-02; I.D. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final 012798A] rule was published in the Federal 1. The authority citation for part 679 Register on 63 FR 32144 (June 12, 1998) RIN 0648–AJ87 continues to read as follows: to authorize the distribution of Pacific Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and 3631 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic halibut taken as bycatch in the specified et seq. Zone Off Alaska; Halibut Donation groundfish trawl fisheries off Alaska to Program; Correction economically disadvantaged individuals § 679.26 [Corrected] through tax-exempt organizations 2. In § 679.26 (b)(1)(vi), remove the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries selected by NMFS to be the authorized word ‘‘salmon’’ and replace it with the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and distributors. word ‘‘fish.’’ Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), An error was made by inadvertently Commerce. omitting a word revision at § 679.26 Dated: October 15, 2001. John Oliver, ACTION: Final rule; correcting (b)(1)(vi) from ‘‘salmon’’ to read ‘‘fish.’’ amendments. Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 National Marine Fisheries Service. SUMMARY: This document contains a Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and [FR Doc. 01–26451 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] correction to the final rule for the reporting requirements. BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
VerDate 11
Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 203
Friday, October 19, 2001
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER organizations and individuals who have boundary lines for a portion of a State contains notices to the public of the proposed commented on APHIS dockets, are being designated as quarantined are set issuance of rules and regulations. The available on the Internet at http:// up approximately four-and-one-half purpose of these notices is to give interested www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/ miles from the detection sites. The persons an opportunity to participate in the webrepor.html. boundary lines may vary due to factors rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. such as the location of Medfly host Stephen A. Knight, Senior Staff Officer, material, the location of transportation PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 36, centers such as bus stations and DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734– airports, the patterns of persons moving 8247. in that State, the number and patterns Animal and Plant Health Inspection of distribution of the Medfly, and the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Service use of clearly identifiable lines for the Background boundaries. 7 CFR Part 301 The Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis In accordance with these criteria and the recent Medfly findings described capitata (Wiedemann), is one of the [Docket No. 01–093–1] above, we are amending § 301.78–3 by world’s most destructive pests of adding a portion of Los Angeles County, Mediterranean Fruit Fly; Addition to numerous fruits and vegetables. The CA, to the list of quarantined areas. The Quarantined Areas Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) can new quarantined area is described in the cause serious economic losses. Heavy AGENCY: rule portion of this document. Animal and Plant Health infestations can cause complete loss of Inspection Service, USDA. crops, and losses of 25 to 50 percent are Emergency Action ACTION: Interim rule and request for not uncommon. The short life cycle of This rulemaking is necessary on an comments. this pest permits the rapid development emergency basis to prevent the Medfly of serious outbreaks. SUMMARY: We are amending the from spreading to noninfested areas of The Mediterranean fruit fly Mediterranean fruit fly regulations by the United States. Under these regulations contained in 7 CFR 301.78 adding a portion of Los Angeles County, circumstances, the Administrator has through 301.78–10 (referred to below as CA, to the list of quarantined areas and determined that prior notice and the regulations) restrict the interstate restricting the interstate movement of opportunity for public comment are movement of regulated articles from regulated articles from the quarantined contrary to the public interest and that quarantined areas to prevent the spread area. This action is necessary on an there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 of Medfly to noninfested areas of the emergency basis to prevent the spread of for making this rule effective less than United States. Recent trapping surveys the Mediterranean fruit fly into 30 days after publication in the Federal by inspectors of California State and noninfested areas of the United States. Register. county agencies and by inspectors of the We will consider comments that are DATES: This interim rule was effective Animal and Plant Health Inspection received within 60 days of publication October 15, 2001. We invite you to Service (APHIS) have revealed that an of this rule in the Federal Register. comment on this docket. We will infestation of Medfly has occurred in After the comment period closes, we consider all comments that we receive the Hyde Park area of Los Angeles will publish another document in the by December 18, 2001. County, CA. Federal Register. The document will ADDRESSES: Please send four copies of The regulations in § 301.78–3 provide include a discussion of any comments your comment (an original and three that the Administrator of APHIS will list we receive and any amendments we are copies) to: Docket No. 01–093–1, as a quarantined area each State, or each making to the rule as a result of the Regulatory Analysis and Development, portion of a State, in which the Medfly comments. PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River has been found by an inspector, in Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737– which the Administrator has reason to Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 1238. believe that the Medfly is present, or Flexibility Act Please state that your comment refers that the Administrator considers This rule has been reviewed under to Docket No. 01–093–1. necessary to regulate because of its Executive Order 12866. For this action, You may read any comments that we inseparability for quarantine the Office of Management and Budget receive on this docket in our reading enforcement purposes from localities in has waived its review process required room. The reading room is located in which the Medfly has been found. by Executive Order 12866. room 1141 of the USDA South Building, Less than an entire State will be In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we 14th Street and Independence Avenue designated as a quarantined area only if have performed an initial regulatory SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading the Administrator determines that the flexibility analysis, which is set out room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., State has adopted and is enforcing below, regarding the effects of this Monday through Friday, except restrictions on the intrastate movement interim rule on small entities. We do not holidays. To be sure someone is there to of regulated articles that are equivalent currently have all the data necessary for help you, please call (202) 690–2817 to those imposed on the interstate a comprehensive analysis of the effects before coming. movement of regulated articles, and the of this interim rule on small entities. APHIS documents published in the designation of less than the entire State Therefore, we are inviting comments Federal Register, and related as a quarantined area will prevent the concerning potential effects. In information, including the names of interstate spread of the Medfly. The particular, we are interested in
VerDate 11
determining the number and kind of provide a basis for our conclusion that 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106–224, 114 Stat. small entities that may incur benefits or the implementation of integrated pest 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note). costs from the implementation of this management to achieve eradication of 2. In § 301.78–3, paragraph (c) is interim rule. the Medfly would not have a significant revised to read as follows: Under the Plant Protection Act (7 impact on human health or the natural § 301.78–3 Quarantined Areas. U.S.C. 7701–7772), the Secretary of environment. Based on the finding of no Agriculture is authorized to regulate the significant impact, the Administrator of * * * * * interstate movement of articles to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection (c) The areas described below are prevent the spread of injurious plant Service has determined that an designated as quarantined areas: pests in the United States. environmental impact statement need California This interim rule amends the Medfly not be prepared. regulations by adding a portion of Los The environmental assessment and Los Angeles County. That portion of Angeles County, CA, to the list of finding of no significant impact were the county in the Hyde Park area quarantined areas. This action is prepared in accordance with: (1) The bounded by a line beginning at the necessary on an emergency basis to National Environmental Policy Act of intersection of La Brea Avenue and prevent the spread of the Medfly into 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. Interstate Highway 10; then east along noninfested areas of the United States. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Interstate Highway 10 to Alameda This rule restricts the interstate Council on Environmental Quality for Street; then south along Alameda Street movement of regulated articles from the implementing the procedural provisions to Washington Boulevard; then east newly quarantined area. The portion of of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) along Washington Boulevard to Sante Fe Los Angeles County, CA, subject to USDA regulations implementing NEPA Avenue; then south along Sante Fe quarantine under this rule is a (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA Avenue to Truba Avenue; then south predominantly residential area with Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part along Truba Avenue to Tweedy many apartment buildings. Available 372). Boulevard; then west along Tweedy information indicates that there are no Copies of the environmental Boulevard to Alameda Street; then south entities in the quarantined area that sell, assessment and finding of no significant along Alameda Street to 103rd Street; process, handle, or move regulated impact are available for public then west along 103rd Street to articles. Such entities would include inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Wilmington Avenue; then south along fruit sellers, nurseries, growers, Building, 14th Street and Independence Wilmington Avenue to Interstate packinghouses, certified farmer’s Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between Highway 105; then west along Interstate markets, and swapmeets. 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Highway 105 to Hawthorne Boulevard; The alternative to this interim rule Friday, except holidays. Persons then north along Hawthorne Boulevard was to make no changes in the wishing to inspect copies are requested to La Brea Avenue; then north along La regulations. After consideration, we to call ahead on (202) 690–2817 to Brea Avenue to the point of beginning. rejected this alternative because if no facilitate entry into the reading room. In Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of action was taken, the Medfly would addition, copies may be obtained by October 2001 . spread to noninfested areas of the writing to the individual listed under Bobby R. Acord, continental United States. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant This interim rule contains no viewed on the Internet at http:// Health Inspection Service. information collection or recordkeeping www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/ppq/ [FR Doc. 01–26329 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] requirements. hydepkea.pdf. BILLING CODE 3410–34–U Executive Order 12372 Paperwork Reduction Act This program/activity is listed in the This interim rule contains no DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance information collection or recordkeeping under No. 10.025 and is subject to requirements under the Paperwork Agricultural Marketing Service Executive Order 12372, which requires Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 intergovernmental consultation with et seq.). 7 CFR Part 1260 State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part [No. LS–01–05] 3015, subpart V.) List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 Agricultural commodities, Plant Executive Order 12988 Beef Promotion and Research; diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reapportionment This rule has been reviewed under Reporting and recordkeeping Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice requirements, Transportation. AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR USDA. and local laws and regulations that are part 301 as follows: ACTION: Proposed rule. inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE SUMMARY: This proposed rule would require administrative proceedings NOTICES adjust representation on the Cattlemen’s before parties may file suit in court Beef Promotion and Research Board 1. The authority citation for part 301 challenging this rule. (Board), established under the Beef continues to read as follows: Promotion and Research Act (Act) of National Environmental Policy Act Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 7711, 7712, 7714, 1985, to reflect changes in cattle An environmental assessment and 7731, 7735, 7751, 7752, 7753, and 7754; 7 inventories and cattle and beef imports finding of no significant impact have CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. that have occurred since the most recent been prepared for this interim rule. The Section 301.75–15 also issued under Board reapportionment rule became site-specific environmental assessment Sec. 204, Title II, Pub. L. 106–113, 113 effective in 1999. These adjustments are and programmatic Medfly Stat. 1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 required by the Beef Promotion and environmental impact statement and 301.75–16 also issued under Sec. Research Order (Order) and would
VerDate 11
result in a decrease in Board The proposed rule imposes no new the number of Board members based on membership from 110 to 108, effective burden on the industry. It only adjusts a conversion of the total volume of with the Secretary’s appointments for representation on the Board to reflect imported cattle, beef, or beef products terms beginning early in the year 2003. changes in domestic cattle inventory into live animal equivalencies. DATES: Comments must be received by and cattle and beef imports. This action The initial Board appointed in 1986 December 18, 2001. would adjust representation on the was composed of 113 members. ADDRESSES: Send two copies of Board, established under the Act. The Reapportionment based on a 3-year comments to Ralph L. Tapp, Chief; adjustments are required by the Order average of cattle inventory numbers and Marketing Programs Branch, Room and would result in a decrease in Board import data, reduced the Board to 111 2627–S; Livestock and Seed Program; membership from 110 to 108. members in 1990 and 107 members in Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), The Board was initially appointed 1993 before the Board was increased to USDA; STOP 0251; 1400 Independence August 4, 1986, pursuant to the 111 members in 1996. The Board was provisions of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2901 et decreased to 110 members in 1999 and Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250– seq.) and the Order issued thereunder. will be decreased to 108 members with 0251. Comments will be available for public Domestic representation on the Board is appointments for terms effective early in inspection during regular business based on cattle inventory numbers, and 2003. The current Board representation by hours at the above office in Room 2627- importer representation is based on the States or units has been based on an South Building, 14th and Independence conversion of the volume of imported cattle, beef, or beef products into live average of the January 1, 1996, 1997, Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. animal equivalencies. and 1998 inventory of cattle in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Section 1260.141(b) of the Order various States as reported by NASS of Ralph L. Tapp, Chief, Marketing provides that the Board shall be the Department. Current importer Programs Branch, on 202/720–1115. composed of cattle producers and representation has been based on a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: importers appointed by the Secretary combined total average of the 1995, Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, the from nominations submitted by certified 1996, and 1997 live cattle imports as Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the producer organizations. A producer may published by the Foreign Agricultural Paperwork Reduction Act only be nominated to represent the unit Service of the Department and the in which that producer is a resident. average of the 1995, 1996, and 1997 live The Department of Agriculture Section 1260.141(c) of the Order animal equivalents for imported beef (Department) is issuing this rule in provides that at least every 3 years and products. conformance with Executive Order not more than every 2 years, the Board Recommendations concerning Board 12866. This proposed rule has been shall review the geographic distribution reapportionment were approved by the reviewed under Executive Order 12988, of cattle inventories throughout the Board at its August 9, 2001, meeting. In Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended United States and the volume of considering reapportionment, the Board to have retroactive effect. Section 11 of imported cattle, beef, and beef products reviewed cattle inventories as well as the Act provides that nothing in the Act and, if warranted, shall reapportion cattle, beef, and beef product import may be construed to preempt or units and/or modify the number of data for the period January 1, 1998, to supersede any other program relating to Board members from units in order to January 1, 2001. The Board beef promotion organized and operated reflect the geographic distribution of recommended that a 3-year average of under the laws of the United States or cattle production volume in the United cattle inventories and import numbers any State. There are no administrative States and the volume of cattle, beef, or should be continued. The Board proceedings that must be exhausted beef products imported into the United determined that an average of the prior to any judicial challenge to the States. January 1, 1999, 2000, and 2001 provisions of this rule. Section 1260.141(d) of the Order Department cattle inventory numbers Pursuant to the requirements set forth authorizes the Board to recommend to would best reflect the number of cattle in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) the Secretary modifications in the in each State or unit since publication (5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 601 et number of cattle per unit necessary for of the 1999 reapportionment rule. seq.). The Administrator of AMS has representation on the Board. The Board reviewed the February 28, considered the economic effect of this Section 1260.141(e)(1) provides that 2001, Department’s Economic Research action on small entities and has each geographic unit or State that Service circular, ‘‘Livestock, Dairy and determined that this proposed rule will includes a total cattle inventory equal to Poultry Situation and Outlook,’’ to not have a significant economic impact or greater than 500,000 head of cattle determine proper importer on a substantial number of small shall be entitled to one representative representation. The Board entities. The purpose of RFA is to fit on the Board. Section 1260.141(e)(2) recommended the use of a combined regulatory actions to the scale of provides that States that do not have total of the average of the 1998, 1999, businesses subject to such actions in total cattle inventories equal to or and 2000 cattle import data and the order that small businesses will not be greater than 500,000 head shall be average of the 1998, 1999, and 2000 live unduly burdened. grouped, to the extent practicable, into animal equivalents for imported beef In the January 26, 2001, issue of geographically-contiguous units, each of products. The method used to calculate ‘‘Cattle,’’ the Department’s National which have a combined total inventory the total number of live cattle Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) of not less than 500,000 head. Such equivalents was the same as that used estimates that in 2000 the number of grouped units are entitled to at least one in the previous reapportionment of the cattle operations in the United States representative on the Board. Each unit Board. The recommendation for totaled about 1.1 million. The majority that has an additional one million head importer representation is based on the of these operations subject to the Order, of cattle within a unit qualifies for most recent 3-year average of data 7 CFR 1260.101 et seq., are considered additional representation on the Board available to the Board at its August 9, small businesses under the criteria as provided in § 1260.141(e)(4). As 2001, meeting to be consistent with the established by the Small Business provided in § 1260.141(e)(3), importers procedures used for domestic Administration. are represented by a single unit, with representation.
VerDate 11
The Board’s recommended South Carolina no longer has sufficient members on the Board, thus enabling reapportionment plan would decrease cattle inventory to qualify for a position both States to be represented. The States the number of representatives on the on the Board independently, the Board and units affected by the Board from 110 to 108. Five States— proposes that South Carolina be merged reapportionment plan and the current Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, with Georgia, a contiguous State that and proposed member representation and Wisconsin—lose one member each; has only one member, to form a per unit are as follows: (Units are listed two States and one unit—New Mexico, Southeast unit. The combined cattle with the State makeup recommended by Wyoming, and Importer unit—gain one inventory of South Carolina and Georgia the Board.) member each. In addition, because would entitle the Southeast unit to two
Current Proposed States representation representation
1 Alabama ...... 2 1 2. Illinois ...... 2 1 3. Kentucky ...... 3 2 4. New Mexico ...... 1 2 5. New York ...... 2 1 6. Wisconsin ...... 4 3 7. Wyoming ...... 1 2 8. Importer unit ...... 7 8 9. Southeast unit ...... South Carolina ...... Georgia ...... 2 1 ...... 1 ......
The 2001 nomination and CATTLE AND CALVES 1 CATTLE AND CALVES 1—Continued appointment process was in progress (1,000 while the Board was developing its State/unit Directors State/unit (1,000 Directors recommendations. Thus, the Board head) head) reapportionment as proposed by this 1. Alabama ...... 1,440 1 Washington 1,187 ...... rulemaking would be effective, if 2. Arizona ...... 833 1 adopted, with 2002 nominations and 3. Arkansas ...... 1,823 2 Total ... 1,408 ...... appointments that will be effective early 4. California ...... 5,117 5 37. Northeast ...... 1 in the year 2003. 5. Colorado ...... 3,167 3 Connecticut 65 ...... 6. Florida ...... 1,820 2 Delaware ... 28 ...... List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1260 7. Idaho ...... 1,940 2 8. Illinois ...... 1,497 1 Maine ...... 99 ...... Administrative practice and 9. Indiana ...... 953 1 Massachu- setts ...... 55 ...... procedure, Advertising, Agricultural 10. Iowa ...... 3,683 4 New Hamp- research, Imports, Marketing agreement, 11. Kansas ...... 6,617 7 12. Kentucky ..... 2,303 2 shire ...... 45 ...... Meat and meat products, Reporting and 13. Louisiana .... 887 1 New Jersey 50 ...... recordkeeping requirements. 14. Michigan ..... 1,013 1 Rhode Is- 15. Minnesota ... 2,533 3 land ...... 6 ...... For reasons set forth in the preamble, 16. Mississippi .. 1,100 1 it is proposed that 7 CFR part 1260 be Vermont ..... 300 ...... 17. Missouri ...... 4,333 4 Total ...... 647 amended as follows: 18. Montana ...... 2,583 3 19. Nebraska .... 6,650 7 38. Mid-Atlantic ...... 1 PART 1260—BEEF PROMOTION AND 20. Nevada ...... 517 1 District of RESEARCH 21. New Mexico 1,617 2 22. New York .... 1,433 1 Columbia 0 ...... Maryland .... 243 ...... 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 23. North Caro- lina ...... 957 1 West Vir- part 1260 continues to read as follows: 24. North Da- ginia ...... 420 ...... Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2901 et seq. kota ...... 1,927 2 25. Ohio ...... 1,237 1 Total ... 663 ...... 2. In § 1260.141, paragraph (a) and the 26. Oklahoma ... 5,183 5 39. Southeast ...... 2 table immediately following it, are 27. Oregon ...... 1,447 1 Georgia ...... 1,293 ...... revised to read as follows: 28. Pennsyl- South Caro- vania ...... 1,653 2 lina ...... 463 ...... § 1260.141 Membership of Board. 29. South Da- kota ...... 3,950 4 Total ... 1,756 ...... (a) Beginning with the 2002 Board 30. Tennessee .. 2,167 2 40. Importer 2 .... 7,654 8 nominations and the associated 31. Texas ...... 13,900 14 appointments effective early in the year 32. Utah ...... 903 1 1 1999, 2000, and 2001 average of January 2003, the United States shall be divided 33. Virginia ...... 1,650 2 1 cattle inventory data. 34. Wisconsin ... 3,383 3 2 1998, 1999, and 2000 average of annual into 39 geographical units and 1 unit 35. Wyoming ..... 1,563 2 import data. representing importers, and the number 36. Northwest ...... 1 of Board members from each unit shall Alaska ...... 11 ...... * * * * * be as follows: Hawaii ...... 162 ......
VerDate 11
Dated: October 12, 2001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: slaughter under retained ownership. Kenneth C. Clayton, Ralph L. Tapp, Chief, Marketing The agency also estimates that Associate Administrator, Agricultural Programs Branch on 202/720–1115 or assessments on up to one-sixth of the Marketing Service. fax 202/720–1125. cattle (1 million head) would be paid in [FR Doc. 01–26395 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: advance to QSBCs. If the $1 assessment BILLING CODE 3410–02–P were paid in advance to QSBCs on these Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, the cattle, the QSBCs’ 50 percent share of Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the up to $1 million in assessments or as DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Paperwork Reduction Act much as $500,000 would be The Department of Agriculture redistributed among the QSBCs. Agricultural Marketing Service (Department) is proposing this rule in The major cattle feeding States of conformance with Executive Order Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, and 7 CFR Part 1260 12866. This rule has been determined Oklahoma could reasonably be expected not to be significant and, therefore, has to account for up to 80 percent of the [No. LS–99–20] not been reviewed by OMB. $500,000 in reduced revenue to QSBCs This proposed rule has been reviewed Amendment to the Beef Promotion and annually. These States collect an under Executive Order 12988, Civil Research Rules and Regulations average of $8 million annually and Justice Reform. It is not intended to retain one-half that amount or $4 AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, have a retroactive effect. Section 11 of million. Assuming that the revenue to USDA. the Act provides that nothing in the Act each of these five States available for ACTION: Proposed rule. may be construed to preempt or State directed programs was reduced by supersede any other program relating to an average of $80,000, it would SUMMARY: This proposed rule would beef promotion organized and operated represent a 2-percent decrease in the amend the Beef Promotion and Research under the laws of the United States or average revenue available for State Rules and Regulations (Rules and any State. There are no administrative directed programs in these States. Regulations) established under the Beef proceedings that must be exhausted The remaining 40 QSBCs have annual Promotion and Research Act of 1985 prior to any judicial challenge to the State budgets that average about (Act) to provide the opportunity for a provisions of this rule. $500,000. An estimated net increase in producer to pay the $1-per-head Pursuant to requirements set forth in annual income for these States, as a assessment to the Qualified State Beef the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)(5 result of the advance payment of Council (QSBC) located in the U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Administrator of assessments, could average up to producer’s State of residence prior to AMS has considered the economic $10,000 per State representing a 2- sale, subject to certain conditions. effect of this action on small entities and percent increase. has determined that this proposed rule DATES: Written comments must be Producers wishing to direct payment will not have a significant economic received by December 18, 2001. Written of assessments to the QSBC in the impact on a substantial number of small comments on the information collection producers’ State of residence when business entities. The purpose of RFA is cattle are sent to another State for requirements must be received on or to fit regulatory actions to the scale of before December 18, 2001. feeding under retained ownership businesses subject to such actions in would complete a form which would be ADDRESSES: Send two copies of order that small businesses will not be provided to affected parties including comments to Ralph L. Tapp, Chief; unduly burdened. the QSBC, the feedlot, and the packer or Marketing Programs Branch, Room The Department’s National the collecting person. 2627–S; Livestock and Seed Program; Agricultural Statistics Service estimates Copies of the completed ‘‘Certification Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), that in calendar year 2000 the number of Producer Directed Payment of Cattle USDA; STOP 0251; 1400 Independence of cattle operations in the United States Assessments’’ form shall be maintained Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250– totaled approximately 1.1 million, on file by the producer, the QSBC or the 0251. Comments received may be including feedlot operations. There are Board, the feedlot operator, and the inspected at this location between 8 also 45 QSBCs in the United States. The purchaser of the cattle for 2 years. a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through majority of these operations are We estimate the average cost of the Friday, except holidays. State that your considered small businesses under the reporting burden per respondent would comments refer to Docket No. LS–99– criteria established by the Small be $16 annually. 20. Business Administration. We estimate the total average cost of Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction The proposed rule imposes no the recordkeeper burden per Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et significant burden on the industry as it recordkeeper would be $8 annually. seq.), also send comments regarding the merely gives producers the opportunity The Administrator of AMS has merits of the burden estimate, ways to to voluntarily pay the $1-per-head considered the economic effect of this minimize the burden, including through assessment on cattle of their own action on small entities and has the use of automated collection production prior to sale and to remit the determined that this proposed rule will techniques or other forms of information assessments to the QSBC located in the not have a significant economic impact technology, or any other aspect of this producer’s State of residence. on a substantial number of small collection of information to the above The impact on QSBCs would be a entities. address. Comments concerning the redistribution of an estimated maximum In compliance with OMB regulations information collection and of one-half million dollars of the $40 [5 CFR part 1320] which implements recordkeeping under the PRA should million currently retained annually in PRA, the information collection also be sent to the Desk Officer for total by the 45 QSBCs. The agency requirements contained in this proposed Agriculture, Offices of Information and estimates that up to 6 million head or rule are being submitted for OMB Regulatory Affairs, Office of 20 percent of the approximately 30 approval. Management and Budget (OMB), million head of steers and heifers Title: Certification of Producer Washington, DC 20503. slaughtered annually are sold for Directed Payment of Assessments.
VerDate 11
OMB Number: 0581–New collection. Estimated Total Annual Burden on (51 FR 21632) (7 CFR § 1260.101 to Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years Respondents: 800 hours. § 1260.217) under the Beef Promotion from date of approval. Total cost: $16,000. and Research Act of 1985 (Act), 7 U.S.C. Type of Request: Approval of new 2. Maintenance of records: 2 years. 2901–2911. information collection. Estimate of Burden: The public Abstract: The Act provides for a recordkeeping burden for keeping this Background and Proposed Change program of promotion, research, document is estimated to average .10 The Act authorizes the establishment consumer information, and industry hour per recordkeeper. of a national beef promotion and information funded by assessments paid Recordkeepers: Producers, QSBCs, research program. The final Order by beef producers each time cattle are feedlot operators, and purchasers. establishing a beef promotion and sold and by importers of cattle and beef Estimated Number of Recordkeepers: research program was published in the products upon importation. 1,260. Federal Register on July 18, 1986, (51 Assessments on cattle and beef Estimated Total Recordkeeping FR 21632) and assessments began on imports are collected by the U.S. Hours: 504 hours. October 1, 1986. The program is Customs Service at the rate of $1 per Estimated Total Cost: $10,080. administered by the Board which is head or the equivalent. An assessment The total average cost of the composed of 110 cattle producers and of $1 per head is due from the producer estimated annual reporting burden per importers. The program is funded by a each time a producer sells cattle in the respondent would be: $16.00. $1-per-head assessment on producer United States. The assessment is to be The total average cost of the marketings of cattle in the United States collected by the purchaser or other recordkeeping burden per recordkeeper and an equivalent amount on imported ‘‘collecting person’’ as provided in the would be: $8.00. cattle, beef, and beef products. In 45 rules and regulations. The producer Comments are invited on: (1) Whether States, QSBCs receive the $1-per-head of assessments are then remitted to QSBCs the proposed collection of information cattle assessment remitted under the in 45 States and to the Cattlemen’s Beef is necessary for the proper performance program and retain up to half of the $1 Promotion and Research Board (Board) of the functions of the agency, including for State-directed programs and remit in the remaining States. QSBCs retain whether the information will have the remainder to the Board. The Board one-half of the $1 assessment for use in practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the receives all import assessments and all State directed programs and forward the agency’s estimate of the burden of the producer assessments in the five States other half to the Board. proposed collection of information with relatively small cattle numbers that Currently, QSBCs in the traditional including the validity of the do not have QSBCs. In 2000, the 45 cattle feeding States (e.g., Texas, Kansas, methodology and assumptions used; (3) QSBCs received a total of about $80 Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Colorado) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and million in assessments. QSBCs retained collect and retain assessments on cattle clarity of the information to be about $40 million and remitted sold that are owned by producers collected; and (4) ways to minimize the approximately $40 million to the Board. residing in other States. This benefits burden of the collection of information The domestic assessment, due each QSBCs in the States that have large on those who are to respond, including time cattle are sold by a producer, is numbers of cattle in feedlots owned by through the use of appropriate collected by the buyer or ‘‘collecting producers residing in other States. Some automated, electronic, mechanical, or person’’ and remitted to the Board or producers retain ownership of cattle and other technological collection QSBC. The term ‘‘producer’’ is defined transport them to one of the cattle techniques or other forms of information as follows: ‘‘means any person who feeding States. To provide producers technology. Comments concerning the owns or acquires ownership of cattle; with more flexibility and to provide the information collection and provided, however, that a person shall opportunity for a more equitable recordkeeping requirements contained not be considered a producer within the distribution of assessment funds to in this action should reference the meaning of this subpart if (a) the States based on cattle ownership, the Docket Number LS–99–20, together with person’s only share in the proceeds of proposed ‘‘Certification of Producer the date and page number of this issue a sale of cattle or beef is a sales Directed Payment of Cattle of the Federal Register. Comments may commission, handling fee, or other Assessments’’ form would be made be sent to Ralph L. Tapp, Chief; service fee; or (b) the person (1) available for use by producers who want Marketing Programs Branch, Room acquired ownership of cattle to facilitate the QSBC located in their States of 2627–S; Livestock and Seed Program, the transfer of ownership of such cattle residence to receive assessment funds AMS, USDA; STOP 0251; 1400 from the seller to a third-party, (2) rather than the QSBC in the State where Independence Avenue, SW.; resold such cattle no later than 10 days the cattle are fed. Washington, DC 20250–0251; telephone: from the date on which the person 1. Certification of Producer Directed 202/720–1115 or Fax: 202/720–1125. acquired ownership, and (3) certified, as Payment of Assessments. All comments received will be available required by regulations prescribed by Estimate of Burden: The public for public inspection during regular the Board and approved by the reporting burden for this collection of business hours at the above address. Secretary, that the requirements of this information is estimated to average .20 Comments also should be sent to the provision have been satisfied.’’ hour per response. Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of When cattle are sold within 10 days Respondents: Producers wishing to Information and Regulatory Affairs, of purchase by a person who is not a direct payment of assessments to the Office of Management and Budget, producer under the above definition, the QSBC in the producers’ State of Washington, DC 20503. collecting person is not required to residence when cattle are sent to This proposed rule would amend the collect the $1 assessment from the another State for feeding under retained rules and regulations published in the person (seller), if the seller provides the ownership would use the form. Federal Register on February 26, 1988 collecting person with a Statement of Estimated Number of Respondents: (53 FR 5749) (7 CFR § 1260.301 to Certification of Non-Producer Status on 1,000. § 1260.315). These regulations further a form approved by the Board and the Estimated Number of Responses per define the requirements of the Beef Secretary. The person claiming non- Respondent: 4. Promotion and Research Order (Order) producer status must submit to the
VerDate 11
collecting person a Statement of each of these five States available for and paid in advance pursuant to Certification of Non-Producer Status ‘‘at State directed programs was reduced by subparagraph (1) above, the purchaser of the time of sale’’ in lieu of paying the an average of $80,000, it would the cattle shall not be required to collect assessment. represent a 2-percent decrease in the and remit the assessment, but shall In a similar fashion this proposed average revenue available for State maintain on file a copy of the modification to the regulations to permit directed programs in these States. Certification of Producer Directed producer directed payment of The remaining 40 QSBCs have annual Payment of Cattle Assessments form assessments would result in the State budgets that average about completed and signed by the producer collecting person, at the time of sale, $500,000. An estimated net increase in who originally transported the cattle collecting a document certifying the annual income for these States, as a under retained ownership. assessment had been paid in advance by result of the advance payment of (4) For those cattle for which the the producer. assessments, could average up to assessment has been producer directed It is believed that this producer $10,000 per State representing a 2- and paid in advance pursuant to directed payment option would be used percent increase. subparagraph (1) above, copies of the by producers of a relatively small share Producers desiring to direct payment completed Certification of Producer of all cattle sold. It would apply only to of assessments could do so subject to Directed Payment of Cattle Assessments cattle of a producer’s own production the requirements of a new paragraph form shall be maintained on file by the transported to another State under § 1260.311(f) which would read as producer, the QSBC or the Board, the retained ownership for feeding prior to follows: feedlot operator, and the purchaser of sale as slaughter cattle. Utilizing this ‘‘(f)(1) A producer who transports, the cattle for 2 years.’’ option would permit a producer who prior to sale, cattle of that producer’s retains ownership of cattle to ensure own production to another State, may List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1260 that the QSBC located in the State elect to make a directed payment of the Advertising, Agricultural research, where the producer resides receives the $1-per-head assessment in advance to Imports, Marketing agreements, Meat $1 checkoff rather than the QSBC in the the QSBC in the State in which the and meat products, Reporting and State in which the cattle are located producer resides, or to the Board if there recordkeeping requirements. when sold. This could increase checkoff is no QSBC in such State, provided that For the reasons set forth in the revenue for many QSBCs such as those the producer fulfills the requirements preamble, it is proposed that title 7 of located in the southeastern United set forth below: the CFR part 1260 be amended as States that currently do not receive (i) transports the cattle under retained follows: revenue from cattle owned and sold by ownership to a feedlot or similar producers residing in the southeastern location, and the cattle remain at such PART 1260—BEEF PROMOTION AND States who use feedlots in States such location, prior to sale, for a period not RESEARCH as Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, less than 30 days; and and Colorado to finish cattle before (ii) the producer, at the time of 1. The authority citation of part 1260 selling the cattle to packers. transport, signs a Certification of continues to read as follows: Since States retain one-half of the $1- Producer Directed Payment of Cattle Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2901 et seq. per-head checkoff for use in State Assessments form indicating that the 2. Paragraph (a) of § 1260.311 is directed programs, providing producers assessment has been paid in advance. A revised to read as follows: with the flexibility and the opportunity copy of the certification form to direct payment of the assessment to establishing the payment of the § 1260.311 Collecting persons for their home State likely would increase assessment shall be sent by the producer purposes of collection of assessments. revenue in many States such as Florida, with the assessment when remitted to * * * * * Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi with the QSBC or the Board. The producer (a) Except as provided in paragraphs limited feedlot capacity. also shall send a copy of the (b), (c), and (f) of this section, each The Department estimates that a certification form to the feedlot operator person making payment to a producer maximum of $500,000 of the total $40 at the time the cattle are delivered. A for cattle purchased in the United States million currently retained annually by copy of the certification form also shall shall collect from the producer an the 45 QSBCs would be redirected to be given to the purchaser of the cattle assessment at the rate of $1 per head of States that currently do not receive by the feedlot operator at the time of cattle purchased and shall be revenue from cattle owned and sold by sale. responsible for remitting assessments to their producers. Approximately 6 (2) The certification form will include the QSBC or the Board as provided in million head, or 20 percent, of the the following information: § 1260.312. The collecting person shall estimated 30 million head of steers and 1. Producer’s Name. collect the assessment at the time the heifers slaughtered annually are sold for 2. Producer’s social security number collecting person makes payment or any slaughter under retained ownership. or Tax I.D. number. credit to the producer’s account for the The Department estimates that 3. Producer’s address (street address cattle purchased. The person paying the assessments on up to one-sixth of the or P.O. Box, city, State, and zip code). producer shall give the producer a cattle (1 million head) would be paid in 4. Signature of Producer. receipt indicating payment of the advance under this proposal to QSBCs. 5. Producer’s State of residence. assessment. The major cattle feeding States of 6. Number of cattle shipped to out of Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, and State feedyard under retained * * * * * Oklahoma could reasonably be expected ownership. 3. Paragraph (c) of § 1260.311 is to account for up to 80 percent of the 7. Date cattle shipped. revised to read as follows: $500,000 in reduced revenue to QSBCs 8. State where cattle will be on feed. * * * * * annually. These States collect an 9. Name of feedyard. (c) In the States listed below there average of $8 million annually and 10. Address of feedyard. exists a requirement that cattle be brand retain one-half that amount or $4 (3) For those cattle for which the inspected by State authorized inspectors million. Assuming that the revenue to assessment has been producer directed prior to sale. In addition, when cattle
VerDate 11
are sold in the sales transactions listed assessments due as a result of the sale collection and remittance of such below in those States, these State of cattle. In those transactions in which assessments. The following chart authorized inspectors are authorized to, inspectors are responsible for collecting identifies the party responsible for and shall, except as provided for in assessments, the person paying the collecting and remitting assessments in paragraph (f) of this section, collect producer shall not be responsible for the these States:
Sales through Sales to a Sales to a Sales to an Country States auction slaughter/ order buyer/ 1 market packer feedlot dealer sales
Arizona ...... CP CP CP B B California ...... CP CP B B–CP B Colorado ...... CP BBBB Idaho ...... CP CP B B B Montana ...... CP BBBB Nebraska ...... CP CP B–CP B–CP B–CP Oregon ...... CP B–CPBBB New Mexico ...... CP B–CP B–CP B–CP B–CP Utah ...... CP B–CPBBB Washington ...... CP CP B B–CP B Wyoming ...... CP BBBB Key: B—Brand inspector has responsibility to collect and remit assessments due. CP—The person paying the producer shall be the collecting person and has responsibility to collect and remit the assessments due. B–CP—Brand inspector has responsibility to collect; however, when there has not been a physical brand inspection the person paying the pro- ducer shall be the collecting person and has the responsibility to collect and remit assessments due. 1 For the purpose of this subpart, the term ‘‘country sales’’ shall include any sales not conducted at an auction or livestock market and which is not a sale to a slaughter/packer, feedlot, or order buyer or dealer.
* * * * * 3. Producer’s address (street address DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 4. A new paragraph (f) of § 1260.311 or P.O. Box, city, State, and zip code). is added to read as follows: 4. Signature of Producer. 10 CFR Part 852 (f)(1) A producer who transports, 5. Producer’s State of residence. prior to sale, cattle of that producer’s 6. Number of cattle shipped to out of RIN 1901–AA90 own production to another State, may State feedyard under retained Guidelines for Physicians Panel elect to make a directed payment of the ownership. $1-per-head assessment in advance to Determinations on Worker Requests 7. Date cattle shipped. for Assistance in Filing for State the QSBC in the State in which the 8. State where cattle will be on feed. producer resides, or to the Board if there Workers’ Compensation Benefits 9. Name of feedyard. is no QSBC in such State, provided that AGENCY: Department of Energy. the producer fulfills the requirements 10. Address of feedyard. set forth below: (3) For those cattle for which the ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; (i) transports the cattle under retained assessment has been producer directed announcement of public hearing. and paid in advance pursuant to ownership to a feedlot or similar SUMMARY: This document announces a paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the location, and the cattle remain at such public hearing to be held on October 25, purchaser of the cattle shall not be location, prior to sale, for a period not 2001, in order to obtain comments required to collect and remit the less than 30 days; and regarding a notice of proposed assessment, but shall maintain on file a (ii) the producer, at the time of rulemaking published in the Federal copy of the Certification of Producer transport, signs a Certification of Register on September 7, 2001. This is Directed Payment of Cattle Assessments Producer Directed Payment of Cattle the second public hearing held on this form completed and signed by the Assessments form indicating that the proposed rulemaking. The first hearing producer who originally transported the assessment has been paid in advance. A was held on October 10, 2001, at the cattle under retained ownership. copy of the certification form Forrestal Building in Washington, D.C. establishing the payment of the (4) For those cattle for which the Testimony submitted at that hearing can assessment shall be sent by the producer assessment has been producer directed be found at the Office of Advocacy with the assessment when remitted to and paid in advance pursuant to website: www.eh.doe.gov/advocacy. the QSBC or the Board. The producer paragraph (f)(1) of this section, copies of Testimony submitted at the October 25 also shall send a copy of the the completed Certification of Producer hearing will also be made available at certification form to the feedlot operator Directed Payment of Cattle Assessments this website. at the time the cattle are delivered. A form shall be maintained on file by the DATES: Oral views, data, and arguments copy of the certification form also shall producer, the QSBC or the Board, the may be presented at the public hearing, be given to the purchaser of the cattle feedlot operator, and the purchaser of beginning at 4 p.m. on October 25, 2001. by the feedlot operator at the time of the cattle for 2 years. DOE must receive requests to speak at sale. Dated: October 12, 2001. the public hearing and a fax of your (2) The certification form will include Kenneth C. Clayton, statements no later than 4 p.m., October the following information: Associate Administrator, Agricultural 24, 2001. DOE is requesting that 1. Producer’s Name. Marketing Service. speakers bring four (4) copies of their 2. Producer’s social security number [FR Doc. 01–26394 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] written comments and prepared or Tax I.D. number. BILLING CODE 3410–02–P statements for the public hearing.
VerDate 11
ADDRESSES: Those wishing to speak SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation proposals contained in this action may should contact Judy Keating at 202– Administration (FAA) proposes to adopt be changed in light of the comments 586–7551, and fax a copy of their a new airworthiness directive (AD) that received. statements to Ms. Keating at 202–586– is applicable to CFM International, S.A. Comments are specifically invited on 6010 in advance of the meeting (no later (CMFI) CFM56 –5 series turbofan the overall regulatory, economic, than 4 p.m. October 24, 2001). DOE engines. This proposal would require environmental, and energy aspects of requests that speakers bring four (4) replacement of the magnetic drain plug the proposed rule. All comments copies of their statements to distribute on certain part number (P/N) air turbine submitted will be available, both before to the media and the public. Speakers engine starters manufactured by and after the closing date for comments, who have not preregistered will be Honeywell Engines & Systems. This in the Rules Docket for examination by allowed to speak once all registered proposal is prompted by three instances interested persons. A report speakers are heard. The meeting will not of uncontained air turbine engine starter summarizing each FAA-public contact conclude until all those wishing to failures, resulting in cowl damage. The concerned with the substance of this speak are heard. actions specified by the proposed AD proposal will be filed in the Rules The hearing will begin at 4 p.m. at the are intended to prevent uncontained Docket. Radisson Hotel Cincinnati Airport failure of the starter and possible Commenters wishing the FAA to (adjacent to the Cincinnati-Northern damage to the airplane. acknowledge receipt of their comments Kentucky International Airport in DATES: Comments must be received by submitted in response to this action Hebron, Kentucky). You can find more December 18, 2001. must submit a self-addressed, stamped information concerning public ADDRESSES: Submit comments in postcard on which the following participation in this rulemaking triplicate to the Federal Aviation statement is made: ‘‘Comments to proceeding in Section IV, ‘‘Opportunity Administration (FAA), New England Docket Number 2001–NE–20–AD.’’ The for Public Comment,’’ of the previously Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, postcard will be date stamped and published notice of proposed Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NE– returned to the commenter. rulemaking (66 FR 46742). 20–AD, 12 New England Executive Park, Availability of NPRM’s Written comments can continue to be Burlington, MA 01803–5299. Comments addressed to Ms. Loretta Young, Office may also be sent via the Internet using Any person may obtain a copy of this of Advocacy, EH–8, U.S. Department of the following address: 9-ane- NPRM by submitting a request to the Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, [email protected]. Comments sent FAA, New England Region, Office of the SW, Washington, DC 20585, via the Internet must contain the docket Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules ‘‘PHYSICIAN PANEL RULE number in the subject line. Comments Docket No. 2001–NE–20–AD, 12 New COMMENTS.’’ The deadline for may be inspected at this location, by England Executive Park, Burlington, MA receiving written comments is appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 01803–5299. November 8, 2001. p.m., Monday through Friday, except Discussion FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Federal holidays. The service Keating, Office of Advocacy, EH–8, U.S. information referenced in the proposed The FAA has received three reports of Department of Energy, 1000 rule may be obtained from Honeywell uncontained failures of air turbine Independence Avenue, S.W., Engines & Systems, Technical starters that resulted in cowl damage. A Washington, D.C. 20585; (202) 586– Publications Department, 111 South number of air turbine starters have been 7551; fax: 202–586–6010; e-mail: 34th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85034; damaged by running without oil. [email protected]. telephone (602) 365–5535, fax (602) Investigations of the incidents have Issued in Washington, DC, on October 17, 365–5577.This information may be shown that over torque of the magnetic 2001. examined, by appointment, at the FAA, drain plug, P/N 572–510–9004, can Steven Cary, New England Region, Office of the result in the failure of the plug, which Acting Assistant Secretary, Environment, Regional Counsel, 12 New England can allow oil to drain from the starter Safety and Health. Executive Park, Burlington, MA. housing. Failure of the plug may not be [FR Doc. 01–26510 Filed 10–17–01; 12:29 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: immediately evident when it is over pm] James Rosa, Aerospace Engineer, Engine torqued. Replacement of the existing BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Certification Office, FAA, Engine and magnetic drain plug, P/N 572–510– Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 9004, with a new redesigned magnetic Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803– drain plug, P/N 572–8510–9152, would DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5299; telephone (781) 238–7152, fax reduce the potential for oil loss from the (781) 238–7199. turbine starter if the plug is Federal Aviation Administration SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: inadvertently over torqued, and would prevent uncontained failure of the 14 CFR Part 39 Comments Invited starter due to loss of oil and possible Interested persons are invited to damage to the airplane. [Docket No. 2001–NE–20–AD] participate in the making of the Manufacturer’s Service Information RIN 2120–AA64 proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as The FAA has reviewed and approved Airworthiness Directives; CFM they may desire. Communications the technical contents of Honeywell International, S.A. CFM56–5 Series should identify the Rules Docket Service Bulletin 3505582–80–1706, Turbofan Engines number and be submitted in triplicate to dated March 8, 2000, that describes AGENCY: Federal Aviation the address specified above. All procedures for replacing magnetic drain Administration, DOT. communications received on or before plugs, P/N 572–510–9004 and packings, the closing date for comments, specified P/N S9413–555, with new redesigned ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking above, will be considered before taking drain plugs P/N 572–8510–9152, and (NPRM). action on the proposed rule. The packings, P/N S3225–905; and re-
VerDate 11
marking the air turbine engine starter regulatory evaluation prepared for this magnetic drain plug P/N 752–8510–9152; with a new P/N. action is contained in the Rules Docket. replace the packing P/N S3225–905, with A copy of it may be obtained by packing P/N 39413–555, and remark the air FAA’s Determination of an Unsafe contacting the Rules Docket at the turbine engine starter in accordance with Condition and Proposed Actions paragraphs 2.A. through 2. C. of the location provided under the caption Accomplishment Instructions of Honeywell Since an unsafe condition has been ADDRESSES. Service Bulletin 3505582–80–1706, dated identified that is likely to exist or List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 March 8, 2000. develop on other CFMI CFM56–5 series (b) Replenish the air turbine starter. turbofan engines of the same type Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation design, with Honeywell Engines & safety, Safety. Alternative Methods of Compliance Systems air turbine engine starters, P/ (c) An alternative method of compliance or The Proposed Amendment N’s 3505582–2, 3505582–3, 3505582–4, adjustment of the compliance time that 3505582–12, 3505582–14, 3505582–15, Accordingly, pursuant to the provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Engine 3505582–22, and 3505582–23, installed, authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Certification Office. Operators shall submit the proposed AD would require the their request through an appropriate FAA following actions within 500 cycles-in- Administration proposes to amend part Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may service after the effective date of the 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations add comments and then send it to the proposed AD: (14 CFR part 39) as follows: Manager, Engine Certification Office. • Replacement of magnetic drain PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS Note 2: Information concerning the plug, P/N 572–510–9004, with a new existence of approved alternative methods of redesigned magnetic drain plug, P/N DIRECTIVES compliance with this airworthiness directive, 572–8510–9152. 1. The authority citation for part 39 if any, may be obtained from the Engine • Replacement of packing, P/N continues to read as follows: Certification Office. 39413–555, with packing, P/N S3225– Special Flight Permits 905. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. (d) Special flight permits may be issued in • Re-marking of the air turbine engine § 39.13 [Amended] starter after replacement of the magnetic accordance §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the 2. Section 39.13 is amended by Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 drain plug. adding the following new airworthiness and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a Cost Analysis directive: location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished. The FAA estimates that about 512 CFM International, S.A.: Docket No. 2001– engines installed on airplanes of U.S. NE–20–AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on registry would be affected by this Applicability October 11, 2001. proposed AD. The FAA also estimates This airworthiness directive (AD) is Donald E. Plouffe, that it would take approximately 0.1 applicable to CFM International, S.A. Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller work hours per engine to accomplish CFM56–5 series turbofan engines with Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. the proposed actions, and that the Honeywell Engines & Systems air turbine [FR Doc. 01–26325 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] engine starters, part numbers (P/N’s) average labor rate is $60 per work hour. BILLING CODE 4910–13–U Required parts would cost 3505582–2, 3505582–3, 3505582–4, approximately $787 per engine. Based 3505582–12, 3505582–14, 3505582–15, on these figures, the total cost impact of 3505582–22, and 3505582–23 installed. These engines are installed on, but not DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the proposed AD on U.S. operators is limited to Airbus Industries A318, A319, estimated to be $406,016. A320, A321 and A340 airplanes. Federal Aviation Administration Regulatory Analysis Note 1: This AD applies to each engine identified in the preceding applicability 14 CFR Part 73 This proposed rule does not have provision, regardless of whether it has been [Docket No. FAA–2001–10286; Airspace federalism implications, as defined in modified, altered, or repaired in the area Docket No. 01–AEA–11] Executive Order 13132, because it subject to the requirements of this AD. For would not have a substantial direct engines that have been modified, altered, or RIN 2120–AA66 effect on the States, on the relationship repaired so that the performance of the between the national government and requirements of this AD is affected, the Proposed Amendment of Restricted the States, or on the distribution of owner/operator must request approval for an Area R–5201, Fort Drum, NY alternative method of compliance in power and responsibilities among the AGENCY: Federal Aviation various levels of government. accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of Administration (FAA), DOT. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted the effect of the modification, alteration, or ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. with state authorities prior to repair on the unsafe condition addressed by publication of this proposed rule. this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not SUMMARY: This notice proposes to For the reasons discussed above, I been eliminated, the request should include amend the designated altitudes for certify that this proposed regulation (1) specific proposed actions to address it. Restricted Area R–5201 (R–5201), Fort is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ Drum, NY, by designating the ceiling of under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not Compliance the airspace at 23,000 feet mean sea a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT Compliance with this AD is required level (MSL) on a year-round basis. Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 within 500 cycles-in-service after the Currently, the upper altitude limit for FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if effective date of this AD, unless already the restricted area changes between done. promulgated, will not have a significant To prevent uncontained failure of the 23,000 feet MSL from April 1 through economic impact, positive or negative, starter due to loss of oil and possible damage September 30; and 20,000 feet MSL, on a substantial number of small entities to the airplane, do the following: from October 1 through March 31. under the criteria of the Regulatory (a) Replace the magnetic drain plug, P/N Increased training requirements at Fort Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft 572–510–9004, with a new redesigned Drum have resulted in a regular need for
VerDate 11
restricted airspace up to 23,000 feet 10286/Airspace Docket No. 01–AEA– Division, was activated at Fort Drum MSL throughout the year. This proposed 11.’’ The postcard will be date/time with a full time, year-round training modification would not change the stamped and returned to the requirement. In addition, over the years, current boundaries, time of designation, commenter. Send comments on use of R–5201 has increased by U.S. Air or activities conducted in R–5201. environmental and land use aspects to: Force units. The reduction of R–5201’s DATES: Comments must be received on Moira D. Keane, Environmental upper limit to 20,000 feet MSL during or before December 3, 2001. Specialist, FAA, Eastern Regional Air the period October 1 through March 31 ADDRESSES: Send comments on this Traffic Division, 1 Aviation Plaza, has increasingly become a limiting proposal to the Docket Management Jamaica, NY 11434. All communications factor to the year-round training needs System, U.S. Department of received on or before the specified at Fort Drum. closing date for comments will be Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 The Proposal Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC considered before taking action on the The FAA is considering an 20590–0001. You must identify the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to amend docket numbers FAA–2001–10286/ the designated altitudes of R–5201 Fort Airspace Docket No. 01–AEA–11 at the of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for Drum, NY. Specifically, this action beginning of your comments. proposes to change the designated You may also submit comments examination in the Rules Docket both altitudes for R–5201 from ‘‘Surface to through the Internet to http:// before and after the closing date for 23,000 feet MSL, April 1 through dms.dot.gov. You may review the public comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA September 30; surface to 20,000 feet docket containing the proposal, any MSL, October 1 through March 31’’ to comments received, and any final personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. ‘‘Surface to 23,000 feet MSL.’’ This disposition in person in the Dockets proposal would delete the seasonal Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Availability of NPRM’s changes to the upper altitude limit and Monday through Friday, except Federal An electronic copy of this document establish 23,000 feet MSL as the upper holidays. The Dockets Office (telephone may be downloaded from the FAA altitude limit on a year-round basis. The 1–800–647–5527) is on the plaza level regulations section of the Fedworld 20,000 feet MSL limit adversely affects of the NASSIF Building at the electronic bulletin board service training at Fort Drum and requires units Department of Transportation at the (telephone: 703–321–3339) or the to alter their training profiles when above address. Federal Register’s electronic bulletin 23,000 feet is not available. This is An informal docket may also be board service (telephone: 202–512– disruptive to training continuity and examined during normal business hours 1661) using a modem and suitable precludes the most cost-effective at the office of the Regional Air Traffic communications software. accomplishment of training activities. Division, Federal Aviation Internet users may reach the FAA’s The U.S. Army has proposed this Administration, 1 Aviation Plaza, web page at http://www.faa.gov or the modification to better accommodate Jamaica, NY 11434. Federal Register’s web page at http:// existing and forecast training FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to requirements at Fort Drum. This action Gallant, Airspace and Rules Division, recently published rulemaking would not change the current ATA–400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace documents. boundaries, time of designation, or Management, Federal Aviation Any person may also obtain a copy of activities conducted within R–5201. Administration, 800 Independence this NPRM by submitting a request to Thus, as under the current rule, the Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; the FAA, Office of Air Traffic Airspace restricted area’s designated altitude telephone: (202) 267–8783. Management, ATA–400, 800 remains 23,000 feet MSL at all times SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Independence Avenue, SW., between April 1 and September 30. Washington, DC 20591, or by calling Under the proposed rule, the restricted Comments Invited (202) 267–8783. Communications must area’s designated altitude would change Interested parties are invited to identify both docket numbers of this from 20,000 feet MSL to 23,000 feet participate in this proposed rulemaking NPRM. Persons interested in being MSL for the October 1 to March 31 by submitting such written data, views, placed on a mailing list for future period. Because the time of designation or arguments as they may desire. NPRM’s should call the FAA, Office of is not being amended, between October Comments that provide the factual basis Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to request 1 and March 31, the restricted area supporting the views and suggestions a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, would continue to be in effect only presented are particularly helpful in which describes the application between 0600 and 1800 local time, developing reasoned regulatory procedure. unless a Notice to Airmen is issued 48 decisions on the proposal. Comments hours in advance; and it would continue Background are specifically invited on the overall to be in effect continuously between regulatory, aeronautical, economic, Restricted airspace at Fort Drum, NY, April 1 and September 30. environmental, and energy-related dates back to at least the 1960’s. The Section 73.52 of 14 CFR part 73 was aspects of the proposal. current designated altitudes for the republished in FAA Order 7400.8J, Communications should identify the restricted area were based on past use of dated September 20, 2001. airspace docket number and be the installation as a National Guard The FAA has determined that this submitted in triplicate to the address facility which had primarily seasonal regulation only involves an established listed above. Commenters wishing the training requirements. The higher body of technical regulations for which FAA to acknowledge receipt of their altitude designated for the period April frequent and routine amendments are comments on this notice must submit 1 through September 30 reflected necessary to keep them operationally with those comments a self-addressed, increased use of the restricted area by current. It, therefore—(1) is not a stamped postcard on which the reserve components during annual ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under following statement is made: summer training periods. In 1985, an Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘Comments to Docket Nos. FAA–2001– U.S. Army unit, the 10th Mountain ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT
VerDate 11
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) Federal Energy Regulatory Standards for Business Practices of does not warrant preparation of a Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines regulatory evaluation as the anticipated Commission impact is so minimal. Since this is a [Docket Nos. RM96–1–019] routine matter that will only affect air 18 CFR Part 284 Regulation of Short-Term Natural Gas traffic procedures and air navigation, it Transportation Services; is certified that this rule, when [Docket No. RM96–1–019] [Docket No. RM98–10–008] promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial Standards for Business Practices of Regulation of Interstate Natural Gas number of small entities under the Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines Transportation Services criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. October 12, 2001. [Docket No. RM98–12–008] The Federal Energy Regulatory Environmental Review AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to Commission. This proposal will be subjected to the amend § 284.12(c)(1)(ii) of its open appropriate environmental analysis in ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. access regulations to require that accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, interstate pipelines permit releasing Policies and Procedures for Considering SUMMARY: The Federal Energy shippers to recall released capacity and Environmental Impacts, prior to any Regulatory Commission is proposing to renominate that recalled capacity at any FAA final regulatory action. amend its regulations governing of the scheduling opportunities standards for conducting business provided by interstate pipelines. The List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 practices with interstate natural gas proposed rule is intended to create more Airspace, Navigation (air). pipelines to require that interstate flexibility for firm capacity holders on pipelines permit releasing shippers to interstate pipelines by synchronizing The Proposed Amendment recall released capacity and renominate the Commission’s regulation of recalled that recalled capacity at any of the capacity with its standards for intra-day In consideration of the foregoing, the nominations. The proposed rule is Federal Aviation Administration scheduling opportunities provided by interstate pipelines. The proposed rule intended to benefit the public by proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as providing firm capacity holders with follows: is designed to synchronize the Commission’s regulation of recalled increased flexibility in structuring capacity release transactions that will capacity with its standards for intra-day PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE result in enhanced competition across nominations and to provide releasing the interstate pipeline grid. 1. The authority citation for part 73 shippers with increased flexibility in continues to read as follows: structuring capacity release I. Background Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, transactions. In Order No. 636, the Commission 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– adopted regulations permitting shippers DATES: Comments are due November 19, 1963 Comp., p. 389. (releasing shippers) to release their 2001. capacity to other shippers (replacement § 73.52 [Amended] ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory shippers).1 Under these regulations, 2. § 73.52 is amended as follows: Commission, 888 First Street, NE., releasing shippers were permitted to ‘‘release their capacity in whole or in * * * * * Washington, DC 20426. part, on a permanent or short-term basis, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R–5201 Fort Drum, NY [Amended] without restriction on the terms and Michael Goldenberg, Office of the conditions of the release.’’ 2 The By removing ‘‘Designated altitudes. General Counsel, Federal Energy regulation permits releasing shippers to Surface to 23,000 feet MSL, April 1 Regulatory Commission, 888 First impose terms on a release transaction though September 30; surface to 20,000 Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, under which the releasing shipper feet MSL, October 1 through March 31’’ (202) 208–2294. reserves the right to recall that capacity and substituting ‘‘Designated altitudes. to use the capacity itself. As an Surface to 23,000 feet MSL’’ in its place. Marvin Rosenberg, Office of Markets, example, a shipper might include a Tariffs, and Rates, Federal Energy * * * * * recall condition in the event that Regulatory Commission, 888 First temperature drops below a pre- Issued in Washington, DC on October 12, Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, determined level.3 2001. (202) 208–1283. In July 1996, in Order No. 587,4 the Reginald C. Matthews, Kay Morice, Office of Markets, Tariffs, Commission incorporated by reference Manager, Airspace and Rules Division. and Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory [FR Doc. 01–26462 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 1 18 CFR 284.8 (2001). 2 18 CFR 284.8(b). BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208– 3 Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to 0507. Regulations Governing Self-Implementing Transportation Under Part 284 of the Commission’s Regulations, Order No. 636, 57 FR 13267 (Apr. 16, 1992), FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [Jan. 1991–June 1996] ¶ 30,939, at 30,418 (Apr. 8, 1992). 4 Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587, 61 FR 39053 (Jul. 26, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [July 1996–December 2000] ¶ 31,038 (Jul. 17, 1996).
VerDate 11
consensus standards approved by the adoption of these standardized intra-day II. Discussion Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) nomination opportunities. The Commission is proposing to designed to standardize business In Order No. 637, the Commission revise § 284.12(c)(1)(ii) of its regulations practices and communication protocols adopted § 284.12(c)(1)(ii) of its to require pipelines to permit recalls of of interstate pipelines in order to create regulations which requires interstate capacity at each nomination a more integrated and efficient pipeline pipelines to ‘‘permit shippers acquiring opportunity. Specifically, the grid. GISB is a private, consensus released capacity to submit a Commission is proposing to require nomination at the earliest available standards developer composed of pipelines to permit shippers to recall nomination opportunity after the members from all segments of the released capacity and renominate such acquisition of capacity.’’ 11 The purpose natural gas industry. recalled capacity at each nomination of this regulatory change was to permit One aspect of GISB’s standards opportunity provided by the pipeline capacity release transactions to take adopted in Order No. 587 covered according to the notice and bumping place on an intra-day basis so that capacity release transactions. Of provisions applicable to interruptible released capacity can compete with relevance here, two standards, 5.3.6 and shippers.16 pipeline capacity on a comparable 5.3.7, apply to recalls of capacity release 12 This proposal will enable releasing transactions. basis. The adoption of shippers to coordinate recalls of § 284.12(c)(1)(ii) now permits shippers capacity release transactions and Standard 5.3.6: If the releasing shipper to acquire released capacity at any intra- renominations of that capacity with the wishes to recall capacity to be effective for day nomination opportunity and to current intra-day nomination cycle. a gas day, the notice should be provided to nominate coincident with their the transportation service provider and the 13 Under this proposal, recall rights would acquiring shipper no later than 8 A.M. acquisition of capacity. On February 1, 2001, GISB filed a operate according to the same timelines Central Clock Time on nomination day.5 that now apply to interruptible Standard 5.3.7: There should be no partial report with the Commission, in Docket No. RM98–10–000, concerning its transportation. day recalls of capacity. Transportation This proposal is intended to ensure development of standards regarding service providers should support the that the regulations relating to capacity function of reputting by releasing shippers.6 partial day recalls of capacity. release recalls remain consistent with According to GISB, some members In this context, a partial day recall refers believed that partial day recalls fell the original intent of the Commission’s to a recall condition that applies only to within the purview of the scheduling capacity release regulations by part of gas day, rather than the full gas equality requirements of Order No. 637, providing releasing shippers with the 7 day. while others did not. Other members, flexibility to structure capacity release transactions that best fit their business In 1996, when GISB first adopted GISB asserts, believe that partial day needs. The proposal also seeks to foster these standards, GISB’s standards recalls are a valid business practice, greater competition for pipeline provided for one nomination, at 11:30 irrespective of whether this practice is capacity by creating parity between a.m. CCT 8 for the next gas day and only required by Order No. 637. Due to these scheduling of capacity release one intra-day nomination at an disagreements, GISB reports it has been transactions and scheduling of pipeline indeterminate time. In order to create a unable to reach consensus on how to interruptible service. By enabling more standardized intra-day nomination proceed. releasing shippers to recall and schedule,9 GISB amended its standards On March 16, 2001, AGA filed, in renominate capacity quickly, they will to provide for three standardized intra- Docket Nos. RM98–10–008 and RM98– 14 have greater incentive to release day nomination opportunities: an 12–008, a ‘‘Reply to February 1, 2001, capacity, providing capacity purchasers Evening nomination at 6 p.m. CCT to Gas Industry Standards Board Report with an alternative to purchasing take effect on the next gas day, an Intra- and Petition for Clarification and pipeline interruptible service. At the Day 1 nomination at 10 a.m. CCT to take Directive from FERC Regarding same time, this proposal will provide effect at 5 p.m. CCT on the same gas Requirement for Capacity Release replacement shippers whose capacity is day, and an Intra-Day 2 nomination at Scheduling Equality.’’ AGA argues that recalled the same advance notice and 5 p.m. CCT to take effect at 9 p.m. CCT the Commission should require on the same gas day.10 GISB, however, pipelines to allow partial day recalls as part of their compliance with Delmarva Power & Light Company (Delmarva), has not amended its capacity release Duke Energy Gas Transmission (Algonquin Gas recall standards to take into account its § 284.12(c)(1)(ii). Ten comments to Transmission Company, East Tennessee Natural 15 AGA’s request were filed. Gas Co., Egan Hub Partners, L.P., and Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.) (DEGT), Dynegy Marketing and 5 18 CFR 284.12(b)(1)(v) (2001), Capacity Release 11 Trade (Dynegy), El Paso Pipeline Companies (El Related Standard 5.3.6. 18 CFR 284.12(c)(1)(ii) (2001). 12 Paso), Enron Interstate Pipelines (Enron), Interstate 6 18 CFR 284.12(b)(1)(v) (2001), Capacity Release Regulation of Short-Term Natural Gas Transportation Services, Order No. 637, 65 FR Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), Related Standard 5.3.7. Keyspan Delivery Companies (Keyspan), Natural 7 10156, 101–58–60 (Feb. 25, 2000), FERC Stats. & Under the GISB standards, a gas day runs from Regs. Regulations Preambles [July 1996–December Gas Supply Association (NGSA), Public Service 9 a.m. central clock time (CCT) on Day 1 to 9 a.m. 2000] ¶ 31,091, at 31,297 (Feb. 9, 2000). Commission of the State of New York (PSCNY). CCT the next day (Day 2). 18 CFR 284.12(b)(1)(i), 13 Prior to Order No. 637, GISB’s existing capacity 16 The Commission also is proposing to rescind Nominations Related Standards 1.3.1. release nomination standards had not been the incorporation by reference of GISB standard 8 CCT refers to Central Clock Time, which amended to reflect the intra-day nomination 5.3.6 (which requires notice of capacity release includes an adjustment for day light savings time. standards. Thus, prior to Order No. 637, a shipper recalls by 8 a.m. CCT) and the first sentence of GISB See 18 CFR § 284.12(b)(1)(i), Nominations Related acquiring released capacity had to acquire the Standard 5.3.7 (which prohibits partial day recalls Standards 1.3.1. capacity and notify the pipeline by 9 a.m. CCT to of capacity). The Commission is retaining the 9 See Order No. 587–C, 62 FR at 10687, FERC nominate at 11:30 a.m. CCT for the next gas day and portion of Standard 5.3.7 that requires Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [July 1996– could not avail itself of any intra-day nomination transportation service providers to ‘‘support the December 2000] ¶ 31,050, at 30,585 (rejecting a opportunities for the current gas day. function of reputting by releasing shippers.’’ proposed GISB intra-day nomination standard for 14 Because the Commission is issuing this NOPR Reputting refers to the ability of a releasing shipper being vague and non-standardized and providing on the issues raised in the AGA filing, Docket Nos. to include a condition in a release under which it additional time for GISB to develop a standardized RM98–10–008 and RM98–12–008 are being can recall capacity when needed and, after the intra-day nomination schedule). terminated. recall has ended, the capacity will revert (be 10 18 CFR 284.12(b)(1)(i) (2001), Nominations 15 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, reputted) to the replacement shipper, without the Related Standard 1.3.2. Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities (ConEd), need for a new release.
VerDate 11
protection from bumping as is provided that will ensure it has adequate peak initiative and is given notice that to interruptible shippers under the day capacity.’’ 21 Thus, all recall insufficient supply is being delivered to Commission’s regulations. conditions, including partial day recalls its city-gate, the LDC will need to recall The Commission has placed great are consistent with the Commission’s released capacity for later in the same reliance on GISB’s development of regulations. Moreover, in Order No. 637, day or, at least, for the next day. If a consensus standards, because the the Commission sought to create greater partial day recall right is not provided, industry is the most knowledgeable scheduling parity between capacity a releasing shipper with supplier-of-last- about how it operates and it is the release transactions and pipeline resort obligations will be reluctant to industry that must operate under these services by enabling capacity release release capacity at all since it will not standards.17 However, when GISB has transactions to take place on an intra- be able to recall that capacity when it is been unable to reach consensus on day basis at each of the four scheduling needed. In that event, shippers seeking issues concerning Commission policy, opportunities.22 While this regulatory capacity will have fewer alternatives to the Commission has resolved the policy change enables shippers to release purchasing pipeline interruptible dispute so that the standards capacity at any nomination opportunity, service. development process can continue.18 the existing GISB recall standards do Under the Commission’s proposal, the A consensus of GISB’s membership not permit releasing shippers to take full releasing shipper would be able to recall adopted its current standards for advantage of the intra-day nomination and renominate its capacity in capacity release recalls when GISB’s opportunities by recalling the capacity accordance with the current nomination standards provided for only one and renominating that capacity at each and scheduling timelines. For example, nomination a day, at 11:30 a.m. CCT of the four scheduling opportunities. the shipper could notify the pipeline of and a single non-standardized intra-day Allowing partial day recalls is, its recall and renomination at the 10 nomination . But the circumstances therefore, consistent with the overall a.m. CCT Intra-Day 1 nomination cycle under which the recall standards were regulatory changes promulgated in and submit a new nomination that will developed have markedly changed as Order No. 637. become effective at 5 p.m. CCT on the the number of nomination opportunities Permitting partial day recalls will add same day. In processing recalls and have now expanded to four nomination flexibility to shippers’ rights and will renominations, the pipeline would opportunities. At the same time, it is better enable releasing shippers to offer follow the applicable GISB nomination apparent that the consensus supporting released capacity that competes with the standard (standard 1.3.2) in terms of GISB’s existing recall standards no pipelines’ interruptible service. The providing notice to the bumped longer exists, and GISB itself has current GISB standards inhibit the replacement shipper. recognized that it can no longer make ability of releasing shippers to release The replacement shipper also will progress in resolving this issue. In these capacity because of their inability to receive the same protection against loss circumstances, the Commission must quickly reclaim capacity when they of service as do interruptible shippers. resolve the policy question regarding require it for their own use. For In Order No. 587–G, the Commission partial day recalls. example, under the current GISB determined that interruptible shippers In Order No. 636, the Commission standards, a releasing shipper that meets could be bumped by firm intra-day established the capacity release the 8 a.m. CCT notification time is nominations at the first three mechanism to create competition with unable to recall its capacity and submit nomination opportunities, but could not pipeline firm and interruptible a timely nomination for the next gas day be bumped at the third intra-day transportation.19 One of the at the 6 p.m. CCT Evening Nomination nomination opportunity (5 p.m. CCT fundamental tenets of the Commission’s cycle. Moreover, a shipper that misses nomination, with scheduled volumes by capacity release regulations is that the 8 a.m. CCT recall notification time 9 p.m. CCT). The Commission provided releasing shippers have the opportunity will miss four nomination opportunities this protection against bumping to to establish any recall conditions for and will be unable to have its volume provide stability in the nomination their capacity. Section 284.8(b) flow until 48 hours after it submits the system, so that shippers can be expressly permits shippers to ‘‘release 23 recall notification. confident by late afternoon that they their capacity in whole or in part, on a As a result of such lengthy delays, will receive their scheduled flows.24 permanent or short-term basis, without releasing shippers may not be able to This rationale seems to apply equally to restriction on the terms and conditions use their recall rights as effectively as replacement shippers so that they of the release.’’ 20 In Order No. 636–A, possible to ensure that they can retain would not have to monitor the status of the Commission recognized that ‘‘a adequate peak day capacity for their their nominations after 5 p.m. CCT. releasing shipper may include terms own needs. The delay in rescheduling In their comments on AGA’s March and conditions, such as recall rights, recalled capacity also can have an 16, 2001 filing, the pipelines (INGAA, adverse competitive impact on the DEGT, El Paso Pipeline Companies, 17 Order No. 587, 61 FR at 39057 (Jul. 26, 1996), market by reducing the amount of Enron) are not opposed to some revision FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [July capacity available for release. As AGA 1996–December 2000] ¶ 31,038, at 30,059 (resolving of the GISB standards to liberalize the dispute over bumping of interruptible service by points out, if an LDC is a provider of last resort under a state unbundling recall conditions. They maintain that firm service). allowing partial day recalls requires 18 Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587–G, 63 FR 21 Order No. 636–A, 57 FR 36128 (Aug. 12, 1992), resolution of a number of issues such as 20072 (Apr. 23, 1998), FERC Stats. & Regs. FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [Jan. notification of the replacement shipper Regulations Preambles [July 1996–December 2000] 1991–June 1996] ¶ 30,950, at 30,558 (Aug. 3, 1992). that its capacity is being recalled, ¶ 31,062, at 30–668–72 (Apr. 16, 1998). 22 18 CFR 284.12(c)(1)(ii) (2001) (permitting operational provisions to ensure that the 19 Order No. 636–A, 57 FR 36128 (Aug. 12, 1992), shippers acquiring released capacity to submit a recalled party does not continue to flow FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles [Jan. nomination at the earliest available nomination 1991–June 1996] ¶30,950, at 30,556 (Aug. 3, 1992) opportunity after the acquisition of capacity). gas, billing issues regarding the use of (‘‘competition between pipeline capacity and 23 A releasing shipper that misses the 8 a.m. CCT released capacity helps ensure that customers pay notification time cannot renominate that capacity 24 Order No. 587–G, 63 FR at 20078, FERC Stats. only the competitive price for the available until 11:30 a.m. CCT the next day, a nomination & Regs. Regulations Preambles [July 1996– capacity’’). under which gas will not flow until 9 a.m. CCT the December 2000] ¶ 31,062, at 30,671–72 (Apr. 16, 20 18 CFR 284.8(b) (emphasis added). day after. 1998).
VerDate 11
capacity for part of a day, and with pipeline interruptible capacity and issue or revise a regulation containing a scheduling and nomination issues. shippers purchasing recallable capacity standard identifying whether a The Commission’s proposal here is should be subject to the same voluntary consensus standard or a designed so as not to cause operational scheduling rules that apply to government-unique standard is being problems for pipelines. Some pipelines interruptible transportation. Partial day proposed. In this NOPR, the already have implemented partial day recalls will be no more likely to result Commission is proposing to issue its recall provisions on their systems.25 in shut-in production than interruptible own regulation, because the existing Partial day recalls should not adversely transactions that are subject to being GISB standard has not been revised to affect scheduling procedures, since bumped under the current standards. take into account changed under the Commission’s proposal, As discussed earlier, permitting circumstances, there is no longer recalls will take place under the same partial day recalls should not reduce consensus supporting this standard, and nomination timeline currently used for competition, as Dynegy and NGSA the existing standard fails to reflect nominating and scheduling firm and assert, but should enhance competition Commission policy. interruptible service, including as capacity that previously was not bumping of interruptible service. Order released because of concerns about IV. Information Collection Statement No. 637 already requires pipelines to recall rights becomes available as an The following collection of implement procedures to allocate alternative to pipeline interruptible information contained in this proposed capacity and potential imbalances and service. Dynegy and NGSA appear to rule has been submitted to the Office of penalties associated with partial day assume that if partial day recalls are not Management and Budget (OMB) for releases, so the same procedures can be permitted, shippers will nonetheless review under Section 3507(d) of the used for partial day recalls.26 release the same amount of capacity. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 In their comments on AGA’s March However, as AGA points out, if LDCs or U.S.C. 3507(d). The Commission solicits 16, 2001 filing, NGSA and Dynegy other shippers need to recall capacity to comments on the Commission’s need for oppose partial day recalls. They ensure their own peak day capacity, this information, whether the maintain that flowing or partial day they may be reluctant to release capacity information will have practical utility, recalls undermine system reliability, at all without some assurance of the the accuracy of the provided burden because they may shut in production or ability to recall. Since Order No. 636, estimate, ways to enhance the quality, result in scheduling problems, overruns, the Commission has proceeded under utility, and clarity of the information to penalties, or operational flow orders. the assumption that the best way to be collected, and any suggested methods They claim that if capacity is recalled, improve access to capacity is to provide for minimizing respondents’ burden, the replacement shippers (whose flexibility for releasing shippers to including the use of automated capacity is recalled) may be unable to establish the terms and conditions of information techniques. The following obtain replacement capacity within the releases. While including partial day burden estimate includes the costs of same day. They further contend that recalls may make some capacity releases modifying, preparing and submitting flowing day recalls may undermine less valuable to replacement shippers, tariff changes to reflect compliance with competition. They assert that if flowing as Dynegy and NGSA assert, the the Commission’s proposed regulation day recalls become the default method replacement shippers will know the to require pipelines to permit shippers of doing business, such recall rights will terms of releases upfront and can to recall released capacity and result in lowering the value of released determine whether to purchase that renominate such recalled capacity at capacity. As a consequence, they capacity or seek more reliable capacity, each nomination opportunity provided maintain, shippers may be left with no and can take the recall conditions into by the pipeline. Adoption of the alternative other than purchasing account in determining how much the proposed regulation will not place capacity from the pipeline. capacity is worth. As discussed above, the use of partial additional burdens on pipelines, day recalls should create no additional III. Notice of Use of Voluntary because the regulation will require scheduling problems since recalls will Consensus Standards pipelines to use existing nomination be scheduled according to the existing Office of Management and Budget procedures and protocols. The one-time scheduling requirements. In effect, Circular A–119 (§ 11) (February 10, tariff filing will not result in on-going releasing shippers using partial day 1998) provides that federal agencies costs. recalls are creating another form of should publish a request for comment in Public Reporting Burden: (Estimated interruptible transportation to compete a NOPR when the agency is seeking to Annual Burden).
Number of re- Data collection Number of sponses per Hours per Total number respondents respondent response of hours
FERC–545 ...... 93 1 38 3,534
Total Annual Hours for Collection (Reporting and Recordkeeping, (if appropriate)) = 3,534. Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comments on the costs to comply with these requirements. It has projected the average annualized cost for all respondents to be the following:
25 See Dominion Transmission, Inc., 95 FERC imbalances, and penalties among releasing and Texas Gas Transmission Corporation, 89 FERC ¶ 61,316 (2001); National Fuel Gas Supply replacement shippers, releasing shippers also may ¶61,096, at 61,274 (1999) (releasing shippers can Corporation, 96 FERC ¶61,182 (2001). deviate from the default provision by including in revise pipeline default provisions by including their notices of release differing provisions for 26 While the pipeline should propose reasonable different allocation methodologies in their release allocating capacity, imbalances, and penalties notices). default procedures for allocating capacity, between them and the replacement shipper. See
VerDate 11
FERC–545 revisions are necessary to establish a unnecessary and has not been prepared more efficient and integrated pipeline in this NOPR. Annualized Capital/Startup grid. Requiring such information Costs ...... $198,857 VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act ensures both a common means of Certification Annualized Costs (Oper- communication and common business ations & Maintenance) ...... 0 practices which provide participants The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 31 generally requires a description Total Annualized Costs 198,857 engaged in transactions with interstate pipelines with timely information and and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a Total Annualized costs for all uniform business procedures across multiple pipelines. These requirements substantial number of small entities. respondents: $198,857. The regulations proposed here impose OMB regulations 27 require OMB to conform to the Commission’s plan for requirements only on interstate approve certain information collection efficient information collection, communication, and management pipelines, which are not small requirements imposed by agency rule. businesses, and, these requirements are, Respondents subject to the filing within the natural gas industry. The Commission has assured itself, by in fact, designed to benefit all requirements of this proposed rule shall customers, including small businesses. means of its internal review, that there not be penalized for failing to respond Accordingly, pursuant to § 605(b) of the is specific, objective support for the to these collections of information RFA, the Commission hereby certifies burden estimates associated with the unless the collection(s) of information that the regulations proposed herein information requirements. display a valid OMB control No(s). will not have a significant adverse These proposed reporting requirements Interested persons may obtain impact on a substantial number of small if adopted, will be mandatory. The information on the reporting entities. Commission is submitting notification requirements by contacting the of this proposed rule to OMB. following: Federal Energy Regulatory VII. Comment Procedures Title: FERC–545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Commission, 888 First Street, NE., The Commission invites interested Rate Change (Non-Formal). Washington, DC 20426, [Attention: persons to submit written comments on Action: Proposed collection. Michael Miller, Office of the Chief the matters and issues proposed in this OMB Control No.: 1902–0154. Information Officer, Phone: (202) 208– notice to be adopted, including any Respondents: Business or other for 1415, fax: (202) 208–2425, e-mail: related matters or alternative proposals profit, (Interstate natural gas pipelines [email protected]]. that commenters may wish to discuss. (Not applicable to small business.)). Comments may be filed either in paper Frequency of Responses: One-time Comments concerning the collection of information(s) and the associated format or electronically. Those filing implementation (business procedures, electronically do not need to make a capital/start-up). burden estimate(s), should be sent to the contact listed above and to the Office of paper filing. Necessity of Information: This For paper filings, the original and 14 proposed rule, if implemented, would Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, copies of such comments should be require pipelines to permit shippers to submitted to the Office of the Secretary, recall release capacity and renominate Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, such recalled capacity at each 888 First Street, NE, Washington DC nomination opportunity provided by the Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395–7318, fax: (202) 395–7285]. 20426 and should refer to Docket No. pipeline. This requirement is necessary RM96–1–019. to increase the efficiency of the pipeline V. Environmental Analysis Documents filed electronically via the grid. Internet must be prepared in The information collection The Commission is required to WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable requirements of this proposed rule will prepare an Environmental Assessment Document Format, or ASCII format. To be reported directly to the industry or an Environmental Impact Statement file the document, access the users. The implementation of these data for any action that may have a Commission’s website at www.ferc.gov requirements will help the Commission significant adverse effect on the human and click on ‘‘Make An E-Filing,’’ and carry out its responsibilities under the environment.28 The Commission has then follow the instructions for each Natural Gas Act to monitor activities of categorically excluded certain actions screen. First time users will have to the natural gas industry to ensure its from these requirements as not having a establish a user name and password. competitiveness and to assure the significant effect on the human The Commission will send an automatic improved efficiency of the industry’s environment.29 The actions proposed acknowledgment to the sender’s E-mail operations. The Commission’s Office of here fall within categorical exclusions address upon receipt of comments. User Markets, Tariffs and Rates will use the in the Commission’s regulations for assistance for electronic filing is data in rate proceedings to review rate rules that are clarifying, corrective, or available at 202–208–0258 or by e-mail and tariff changes by natural gas procedural, for information gathering, to [email protected]. Comments should companies for the transportation of gas, analysis, and dissemination, and for not be submitted to the e-mail address. for general industry oversight, and to sales, exchange, and transportation of All comments will be placed in the supplement the documentation used natural gas that requires no construction Commission’s public files and will be during the Commission’s audit process. of facilities.30 Therefore, an available for inspection in the Internal Review: The Commission has environmental assessment is Commission’s Public Reference Room at reviewed the requirements pertaining to 888 First Street, NE, Washington DC business practices and electronic 28 Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the 20426, during regular business hours. communication with natural gas National Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 Additionally, all comments may be (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles interstate pipelines and made a 1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). viewed, printed, or downloaded determination that the proposed 29 18 CFR 380.4. remotely via the Internet through 30 See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 27 5 CFR 1320.11. 380.4(a)(27). 31 5 U.S.C. 601–612.
VerDate 11
FERC’s homepage using the RIMS link. By direction of the Commission. SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans User assistance for RIMS is available at David P. Boergers, Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its 202–208–2222, or by e-mail to Secretary. adjudication regulation concerning [email protected]. evidence that is received from foreign In consideration of the foregoing, the countries. The intended effect of this VIII. Document Availability Commission proposes to amend part amendment is to present the existing 284, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal In addition to publishing the full text regulation in plain language. Regulations, as follows. of this document in the Federal DATES: Comments must be received on Register, the Commission provides all PART 284—CERTAIN SALES AND or before December 18, 2001. interested persons an opportunity to TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver written view and/or print the contents of this UNDER THE NATURAL GAS POLICY comments to: Director, Office of document via the Internet through ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED Regulations Management (02D), FERC’s homepage (http://www.ferc.gov) AUTHORITIES Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 and in FERC’s Public Reference Room Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1154, during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. 1. The authority citation for part 284 Washington, DC 20420; or fax comments to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First continues to read as follows: to (202) 273–9289; or e-mail comments Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717w, 3301– to [email protected]. 20426. 3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7532; 43 U.S.C. 1331– Comments should indicate that they are From FERC’s homepage on the 1356. submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900– Internet, this information is available in AK37.’’ All comments received will be both the Commission Issuance Posting 2. Section 284.12 is amended as available for public inspection in the System (CIPS) and the Records and follows: a. Paragraph (b)(1)(v) is revised. Office of Regulations Management, Information Management System Room 1158, between the hours of 8 a.m. (RIMS). b. The heading of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) is revised, and the text of paragraph of and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday —CIPS provides access to the texts of (except holidays). formal documents issued by the (c)(1)(ii) is designated as (c)(1)(ii)(A). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Commission since November 14, c. Paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) is added. The revised and added text reads as White, Team Leader, Plain Language 1994. Regulations Project, Veterans Benefits —CIPS can be accessed using the CIPS follows: Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue, link or the Documents & Filing link. § 284.12 Standards for pipeline business NW., Washington, DC 20420, telephone The full text of this document is operations and communications. (202) 273–7228. This is not a toll-free available on CIPS in ASCII and * * * * * number. WordPerfect 8.0 format for viewing, (b) * * * SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VA printing, and/or downloading. (1) * * * proposes to rewrite 38 CFR 3.202 in —RIMS contains images of documents (v) Capacity Release Related plain language. The current regulation, submitted to and issued by the Standards (Version 1.4, August 31, located in subpart A of part 3, discusses Commission after November 16, 1981. 1999), with the exception of Standard when and how evidence from foreign Documents from November 1995 to 5.3.6 and the first sentence of Standard countries must be authenticated. VA the present can be viewed and printed 5.3.7. from FERC’s Home Page using the proposes to create new § 3.2420 to RIMS link or the Documents & Filing * * * * * restate the current regulation. The (c) * * * link. Descriptions of documents back proposed section would be located in (1) * * * to November 16, 1981, are also Subpart D, Universal Adjudication (ii) Capacity release scheduling. available from RIMS-on-the-Web; Rules That Apply to Benefit Claims (A) * * * requests for copies of these and other Governed by part 3 of this Title. (B) A pipeline must permit shippers older documents should be submitted Paragraph (a) of proposed § 3.2420 to recall released capacity and to the Public Reference Room. states when authentication of the renominate such recalled capacity at User assistance is available for RIMS, signature of officials of foreign countries each nomination opportunity provided is required and who may provide CIPS, and the Web site during normal by the pipeline according to the notice business hours from our Help line at authentication. This is a restatement of and bumping provisions applicable to the first sentence of paragraph (a) of (202) 208–2222 (e-mail to interruptible shippers. [email protected]) or the Public current § 3.202. Paragraph (b) of proposed § 3.2420 Reference at (202) 208–1371 (e-mail to * * * * * addresses who may authenticate [email protected]). [FR Doc. 01–26328 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] signatures of foreign government During normal business hours, BILLING CODE 6717–01–P documents can also be viewed and/or officials when the authentication called printed in FERC’s Public Reference for in paragraph (a) of this section is not Room, where RIMS, CIPS, and the FERC available. This is a restatement of the DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS last sentence of paragraph (a) and the Web site are available. User assistance is AFFAIRS also available. text of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of 38 CFR Part 3 current § 3.202. We have eliminated the List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284 requirement that only the ‘‘nearest’’ Continental shelf, Incorporation by RIN 2900–AK37 United States Consular Officer may reference, Natural gas, Reporting and certify that the signature of an official of Acceptable Evidence From Foreign recordkeeping requirements. a foreign country has been investigated Countries and found to be authentic. We believe The Commission Orders AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. that requirement is unnecessarily Docket Nos. RM98–10–008 and narrow and can be broadened without ACTION: Proposed rule. RM98–12–008 are terminated. diminishing the integrity of VA’s
VerDate 11
programs. We have, therefore, amended 64.105, 64.106, 64.109, 64.100, and (c) Authentication of signature not this provision to allow a United States 64.127. 1 required. Authentication of signature is Consular Officer from another country not required for the following types of List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 to authenticate the signature. evidence: Paragraph (c) of proposed § 3.2420 Administrative practice and (1) Documents approved by the lists categories of evidence from foreign procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, countries that do not require Health care, Pensions, Radioactive Department of Veterans Affairs, Ottawa, authentication of signature. This is a materials, Veterans, Vietnam. Canada, restatement of paragraph (b) of current Approved: October 11, 2001. (2) Documents that have the signature § 3.202. Anthony J. Principi, and seal of an officer authorized to Paragraph (d) of proposed § 3.2420 Secretary of Veterans Affairs. administer oaths for general purposes, (3) Documents signed before a VA explains that photocopies of original For the reasons set forth in the documents are acceptable to VA when employee authorized to administer preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 oaths, they are genuine and free from CFR part 3 as follows: alteration. This is a restatement of (4) Affidavits prepared in the paragraph (c) of current § 3.202. PART 3—ADJUDICATION Republic of the Philippines that are This rulemaking reflects VA’s goal of certified by a VA representative who is making government more responsive, Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, located there and has authority to accessible, and comprehensible to the and Dependency and Indemnity administer oaths, public. The Plain Language Regulations Compensation (5) Copies of public or church records Project was developed as a long-term from any foreign country used to 1. The authority citation for part 3, establish birth, adoption, marriage, comprehensive project to reorganize and subpart A continues to read as follows: rewrite in plain language the annulment, divorce, or death, if: adjudication regulations in part 3 of title Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless (i) The records have the signature and 38, Code of Federal Regulations. This otherwise noted. seal of the custodian of such records, and proposed rule is one of a series of § 3.202 [Removed] proposed revisions to those regulations. (ii) There is no conflicting evidence 2. § 3.202 is removed. on file, or Unfunded Mandates (6) Copies of public or church records Subpart D—Universal Adjudication from England, Scotland, Wales, or The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Rules that Apply to Benefit Claims Northern Ireland used to establish birth, requires (in section 202) that agencies Governed by Part 3 of This Title assess anticipated costs and benefits marriage, or death, when: before developing any rule that may 3. The authority citation for part 3, (i) The records have the signature or result in an expenditure by State, local, subpart D continues to read as follows: seal or stamp of the custodian of such or tribal governments, in the aggregate, Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless records, and (ii) There is no conflicting evidence or by the private sector of $100 million otherwise noted. on file. or more in any given year. This 4. § 3.2420 is added under the (d) Photocopies of documents proposed rule will have no undesignated center heading acceptable. Photocopies of original consequential effect on State, local, or ‘‘EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS’’ to read documents described in this section are tribal governments. as follows: acceptable to establish birth, death, Paperwork Reduction Act Evidence Requirements marriage or relationship if VA is satisfied that they are genuine and free This document contains no provisions § 3.2420 Evidence from foreign countries. from alteration. constituting a collection of information (a) Authentication of signature. When (Authority: 22 U.S.C. 4221; 38 U.S.C. 5712) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 the signature on an affidavit or other U.S.C. 3501–3520). document signed under oath is [FR Doc. 01–26382 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Regulatory Flexibility Act authenticated by a government official BILLING CODE 8320–01–P of a foreign country, the signature of The Secretary certifies that the that official must in turn be adoption of this proposed rule would authenticated by either: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION not have a significant economic impact (1) A United States Consular Officer AGENCY on a substantial number of small entities in that jurisdiction, or as they are defined in the Regulatory (2) The State Department (See 40 CFR Part 70 Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. The § 3.108). [CA 055–OPP; FRL–7086–7] proposed rule does not directly affect (b) When there is no United States any small entities. Only VA Consular Officer in that country. If there Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval beneficiaries could be directly affected. is no United States Consular Officer in of Operating Permit Program; Bay Area Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(B), that country, the government official’s Air Quality Management District, this amendment is exempt from the signature may be authenticated by California initial and final regulatory flexibility either: analysis requirements of sections 603 (1) A consular agent of a friendly AGENCY: Environmental Protection and 604. government whose signature and seal Agency (EPA). Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance can be verified by the State Department, ACTION: Proposed Rule. Program Numbers or (2) A United States Consular Officer SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve The catalog of Federal Domestic in another country who certifies that the the operating permit program of the Bay Assistance Program numbers for this signature was investigated and is Area Air Quality Management District proposal are 64.100, 64.101, 64.104, authentic. (‘‘Bay Area’’ or ‘‘District’’). The Bay
VerDate 11
Area operating permit program was SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This II. What Is Being Addressed in This submitted in response to the directive in section provides additional information Document? the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) by addressing the following questions: Bay Area submitted, via the California Amendments that permitting authorities I. What Is the Operating Permit Program? Air Resources Board (CARB) its initial develop, and submit to EPA, programs II. What Is Being Addressed in this operating permits program to EPA on for issuing operating permits to all Document? March 23, 1995. Because the Bay Area’s major stationary sources and to certain III. Impact of Today’s Proposed Full operating permit program substantially, other sources within the permitting Approval on the District’s SIP-Approved but not fully, met the criteria outlined authorities’ jurisdictions. EPA granted Federally-Enforceable State Operating in the implementing regulations interim approval to the Bay Area Permits Program codified at 40 Code of Federal operating permit program on June 23, IV. Are There Other Issues with the Program? Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA granted 1995 but listed certain deficiencies in V. What Are the Program Changes That EPA interim approval of the program, and the program preventing full approval. Is Proposing to Approve? conditioned full approval on the District Bay Area has revised its program to VI. What Is Involved in this Proposed revising its program to correct the correct the deficiencies of the interim Action? deficiencies. The interim approval approval and this action proposes full VII. Discussion on the Revision to the approval of those revisions. The District notice published on June 23, 1995 [60 Definition of Potential to Emit FR 32606], described the program has also made other revisions to its VIII. Public Comments program since interim approval was deficiencies and revisions that had to be granted and EPA is also proposing to made in order for the Bay Area’s I. What Is the Operating Permit program to receive full approval. Since approve most of those revisions in this Program? action. that time, the Bay Area has revised, and the California Air Resources Board, on DATES: Comments on this proposed rule The CAA Amendments of 1990 behalf of the Bay Area, has submitted a must be received in writing by required all state and local permitting revision to the Bay Area’s operating November 19, 2001. authorities to develop operating permit permit program; this revision was programs that met certain federal ADDRESSES: Written comments on this submitted May 30, 2001. This Federal criteria. In implementing the operating action should be addressed to Gerardo Register notice describes the changes permit programs, the permitting Rios, Acting Chief, Permits Office, Air that have been made to the Bay Area authorities require certain sources of air Division (AIR–3), EPA Region IX, 75 operating permit program as submitted pollution to obtain permits that contain Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, on May 30, 2001, and the basis for EPA all applicable requirements under the California, 94105. Attention: David proposing full approval of the program. Wampler. You can inspect copies of the CAA. One goal of the operating permit Bay Area’s submittals, and other program is to improve compliance by III. Impact of Today’s Proposed Full supporting documentation relevant to issuing each source a permit that Approval on the District’s SIP- this action, during normal business consolidates all of the applicable CAA Approved Federally-Enforceable State hours at Air Division, EPA Region 9, 75 requirements into a federally Operating Permits Program Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, enforceable document. By consolidating Concurrent with our action on June California, 94105. all of the applicable requirements for a 23, 1995 to grant final interim approval You may also see copies of the facility, the source, the public, and the to the Bay Area’s title V program, EPA District’s submitted operating permits permitting authorities can more easily granted, pursuant to 40 CFR part 52, program at the following locations: determine what CAA requirements final approval to the District’s Federally- California Air Resources Board, apply and how compliance with those Enforceable State Operating Permit Stationary Source Division, Rule requirements is determined. Program (FESOP) which is contained in Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, Sources required to obtain an portions of Regulation 2, Rule 6, and the Sacramento, CA 95814. operating permit under this program District’s Manual of Procedures, Volume The Bay Area Air Quality Management include ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution II, Part 3 (MOP) thereby incorporating District, 939 Ellis Street, San and certain other sources specified in the FESOP into the California SIP. In the Francisco, CA 94109–7799. the CAA or in EPA’s implementing process of correcting cited deficiencies An electronic copy of Bay Area’s regulations. For example, all sources in its operating permit program, the operating permit program (Regulation 2, regulated under the acid rain program, District also revised language in Rule 6) rules may be available via the regardless of size, must obtain permits. Regulation 2, Rule 6 related to its Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ Examples of major sources include FESOP rule. Even though this proposed ba/cur.htm. However, the version of those that have the potential to emit 100 rulemaking action discusses the District Regulation 2, Rule 6 at the tons per year or more of volatile organic District’s FESOP program, today’s above internet address may be different compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, proposed approval is for part 70 from the version submitted to EPA for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NOX), purposes only. EPA is not proposing to approval. Readers are cautioned to or particulate matter (PM10); those that approve, for SIP purposes under 40 CFR verify that the adoption date of emit 10 tons per year of any single part 52, those portions of Regulation 2 Regulation 2, Rule 6 listed is the same hazardous air pollutant (specifically Rule 6 that involve the FESOP program. as the rule submitted to EPA for listed under the CAA); or those that We can only take action on the approval. The official submittal is emit 25 tons per year or more of a Regulation 2, Rule 6 for SIP purposes available only at the three addresses combination of hazardous air pollutants only after the State submits it to us. listed above. (HAPs). In areas that are not meeting the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: National Ambient Air Quality Standards IV. Are There Other Issues With the David Wampler, EPA Region IX, Permits for ozone, carbon monoxide, or Program? Office (AIR–3), U.S. Environmental particulate matter, major sources are On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) defined by the gravity of the rulemaking that extended the interim 744–1256 or [email protected]. nonattainment classification. approval period of 86 operating permits
VerDate 11
programs until December 1, 2001. (65 qualify as insignificant activities. conditions of the permit and the FR 32035) The action was subsequently (§§ 70.5(c) and 70.4(b)) applicable requirements themselves. challenged by the Sierra Club and the Rule Change: Instead of Rule Changes: The District corrected New York Public Interest Research demonstrating that each activity on the this deficiency by revising the permit Group (NYPIRG). In settling the Bay Area’s insignificant activity list is content section of Rule 2–6–409, to: (1) litigation, EPA agreed to publish a truly insignificant, the District corrected Require that all applicable requirements notice in the Federal Register that this deficiency by establishing be included in the permit; and (2) add would alert the public that they may significant source emissions cut-offs requirements to the compliance identify and bring to EPA’s attention below which activities would be schedule section of permit content alleged programmatic and/or insignificant. To implement this requirements (see 2–6–409.10.3). implementation deficiencies in Title V correction, the District amended Furthermore, Rule 2–6–409.7 already programs and that EPA would respond Regulation 2, Rule 6, section 239 to required that the permit contain a to their allegations within specified time define ‘‘significant source’’ as a source statement that the owner or operator periods if the comments were made that has a potential to emit of more than must comply with all permit conditions within 90 days of publication of the 2 tons per year of any regulated air and limitations set forth in the permit. Federal Register notice. pollutant, or more than 400 lbs per year These additions will ensure that the EPA received a comment letter from of any hazardous air pollutant. In permits contain all necessary one organization on what they believe to addition, the application content section requirements to assure compliance with be deficiencies with respect to Title V of rule 2–6–405 requires operating applicable requirements. programs in California. EPA takes no permit applications to identify and Issue (4): Bay Area was required to action on those comments in today’s describe each permitted source at the show that certifications signed by the responsible official affirmatively state action and will respond to them by facility and each source or other activity that they are based on truth, accuracy, December 1, 2001. As stated in the that is exempt from the requirements to and completeness, and that the Federal Register notice published on obtain a permit or excluded from certifications be based on information December 11, 2000, (65 FR 77376) EPA District rules or regulations under and belief formed after reasonable will respond by December 1, 2001 to Regulation 2, Rule 1. Furthermore, all inquiry. Bay Area needed to revise timely public comments on programs part 70 permit applications are required Rules 2–6–405.9, 2–6–502, and the MOP that have obtained interim approval; to contain a list of all applicable (Sections 4.5 and 4.7), and any other and EPA will respond by April 1, 2002 requirements that apply to each source certification provisions to ensure that to timely comments on fully approved (Rule 2–6–405.5). Finally, Section 2.1.2 both elements are explicitly required. of the Manual of Procedures (‘‘MOP’’) programs. We will publish a notice of (§ 70.5(d)) deficiency (NOD) when we determine requires applications to include other Rule Change: The District corrected that a deficiency exists, or we will information necessary to implement and this deficiency by revising several parts notify the commenter in writing to enforce other applicable requirements or of the rule. First, the District added the explain our reasons for not making a determine the applicability of any such following to the permit content section finding of deficiency. A NOD will not requirement on any source (whether at 409.20: ‘‘A certification requirement necessarily be limited to deficiencies permitted, exempt, or excluded) or any for all documents submitted pursuant to identified by citizens and may include other activity. a major facility review permit. For any deficiencies that we have identified Issue (2): Bay Area was required to applications, compliance certifications, through our program oversight. include a term consistent with the Part and reports, the certification shall state 70 definition of ‘‘applicable V. What Are the Program Changes That that based on information and belief requirement,’’ and use that term EPA Is Proposing To Approve? formed after reasonable inquiry, the consistently in rules 2–6–409.1, 2–6– statements and information in the As discussed in the June 23, 1995 [60 409.2 and throughout the regulation. document are true, accurate, and FR 32606] rulemaking, full approval of Rule Change: The District corrected complete. The certifications shall be the Bay Area operating permit program this deficiency by revising the definition signed by a responsible official for the was made contingent upon satisfaction of ‘‘applicable requirement’’ at 2–6–202 facility.’’ Second, the District revised of the following conditions: to include a reference to the federal the application content requirements at Issue (1): Bay Area was required to definition of ‘‘applicable requirement’’ Rule 2–6–405.9 to state that applications provide a demonstration that each as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. They have must contain: ‘‘A compliance activity on its insignificant activities list also added the term to 2–6–409.1 and certification by a responsible official of is truly insignificant and is not likely to 409.2. the facility that the application forms be subject to an applicable requirement. Issue (3): Bay Area rule 2–6–409 was and all accompanying reports and other Alternatively, the District may establish required to be revised to ensure that required compliance certifications are emissions level cut-offs, in which permit terms and conditions assure true, accurate, and complete based on activities emitting below the cut-offs compliance with all applicable information and belief formed after would qualify as insignificant. In the requirements (§ 70.7(a)(1)(iv)) and that reasonable inquiry; and* * *.’’ Third, latter case, the District must permits contain emission limitations the District revised the Monitoring and demonstrate that the cut-off emissions and standards (§ 70.6(a)(1)) and Records section at Rule 2–6–502 to state levels are insignificant compared to the compliance certification requirements that: ‘‘A responsible official shall certify level of emissions from and type of (§ 70.6(c)(1)) that assure compliance that all such reports are true, accurate, units that are required to be permitted with all applicable requirements. Prior and complete based on information and or subject to applicable requirements. In to being revised, the rule only required belief formed after reasonable inquiry.’’ addition, Bay Area must revise the District’s operating permits to Finally, the MOP Sections 4.5 and 4.7, Regulation 2, Rule 6 to state that include requirements for testing, were revised to include these provisions activities needed to determine the monitoring, reporting, and and section 2–6–426 was added and applicability of, or impose applicable recordkeeping sufficient to assure requires compliance certifications requirements on, the facility may not compliance with the terms and consistent with Part 70. (See § 70.5(d)).
VerDate 11
Issue (5): Bay Area was required to major facility review permit revision accordance with the procedures and revise Regulation 2–6 to define and before commencing the change.’’ restrictions set forth in Rule 2–6–418. require notice to affected states. Issue (8): Bay Area was required to This provision shall not apply to the Alternatively, Bay Area could have eliminate the extended review period phase II acid rain portion of any facility made a commitment to: (1) Initiate rule from the minor permit modification subject to this Rule.’’ revisions upon being notified by EPA of procedures at Rule 2–6–414.2 because it Issue (12): Bay Area was required to an application by an affected tribe for is inconsistent with Rules 2–6–410.2 add a requirement to Regulation 2–6 state status, and (2) provide affected and 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(iv). that any document required by an state notice to tribes upon their filing for Rule Change: The District corrected operating permit must be certified by a state status (i.e., prior to Bay Area’s this deficiency by revising Rule 2–6– responsible official. (§ 70.6(c)(1)) adopting affected state notice rules). 414.2 to read: ‘‘The APCO shall act on Rule Change: The District has added (§§ 70.2 and 70.8(b) the proposed minor revision within 15 the required language at the end of Rule Rule Change: The District corrected days after the end of EPA’s 45-day 2–6–409.20 which now states, ‘‘[t]he this deficiency by adding the term review period or within 90 days of certifications shall be signed by a ‘‘Affected State’’ at Rule 2–6–242 to receipt of the permit application responsible official for the facility.’’ provide: ‘‘A State whose air quality may whichever is later.’’ This is now Issue (13): Bay Area was required to be affected by a facility and that is consistent with part 70 and 2–6–410.2. revise Rule 2–6–224 and Rule 2–6– contiguous to the State of California or Issue (9): The District was required to 409.10 to specify that all progress a state that is within 50 miles of a revise 2–6–412.1 to include notice ‘‘by reports must include: (1) Dates when permitted source within the District.’’ In other means if necessary to assure activities, milestones, or compliance adequate notice to the affected public.’’ required in the schedule of compliance addition, the District added notification (§ 70.7(h)(1)) Rule Change: The District were achieved; and (2) an explanation of requirements for affected states corrected this deficiency by adding the why any dates in the schedule of consistent with 40 CFR 70.8(b)(1) to suggested language to Rule 2–6–412.1. compliance were not or will not be met Rule 2–6–412. The District also revised Issue (10): Bay Area was required to and any preventive or corrective Rule 2–6–412.6, consistent with 40 CFR add a provision to the MOP (section 4.1) measures adopted. (§ 70.6(c)(4)(i and ii)) 70.8(b)(2), to require written notification to state that only alternative emission Rule Change: Bay Area responded and to EPA and affected states of any refusal control plans (AECPs) that have been revised Section 2–6–409.10 to include a to accept all recommendations from an approved into the SIP may be requirement that compliance plans must affected state received during the public incorporated into the federally include deadlines for achieving each comment period for a draft permit. enforceable portion of the permit. item in the plan, and a requirement that Issue (6): The District was required to (§ 70.6(a)(1)(iii)) progress reports must be submitted eliminate the phrase ‘‘but not limited Rule Change: The District has not every 6 months. Also, Section 409.10.3 to’’ from the definition of revised the MOP as specified in our now includes the statement that, ‘‘administrative permit amendment.’’ final interim approval. However, the ‘‘[p]rogress reports shall contain the (§ 70.7(d)(1)(iv)) District has corrected this deficiency by dates by which each item in the plan Rule Change: The District corrected stating in a letter dated July 7, 2000 that was achieved, and an explanation of this deficiency by revising the definition there are no general AECP provisions in why any dates in the schedule of at 2–6–201 to eliminate the problematic District rules. The only specific AECP compliance were not or will not be met, phrase. provisions in the District rules are and any preventative or corrective Issue (7): The District was required to contained in the District coating rules, measure adopted.’’ No changes have revise Rule 2–6–404.3 to limit the all of which have been SIP approved. been made or are necessary to District universe of significant permit Therefore, it is not possible for non-SIP- Rule 2–6–224 because such changes modification applications due 12 approved AECP provisions to be would be redundant with the changes months after commencing operations to incorporated into the federally already made in 2–6–409. only those applications for revisions enforceable portion of an operating Issue (14): Bay Area was required to pursuant to section 112(g) and title I, permit. Further, the language in the revise Section 4.5 of the MOP and add parts C and D of the Act that are not MOP is not inconsistent with federal a provision to Rule 2–6–409 to require prohibited by an existing operating regulations at Part 70, which is silent on that compliance certifications be permit. Except in the above how the District must treat AECPs. EPA submitted more frequently than circumstances, a source is not allowed understands that the District will annually if specified in an underlying to operate the proposed change until the identify only SIP-approved AECP applicable requirement. (§ 70.6(c)(4)) permitting authority has revised the provisions, as federally enforceable in Rule Change: The District corrected source’s operating permit. operating permits. this deficiency by adding new Section (§ 70.5(a)(1)(ii)). Issue (11): Bay Area was required to 2–6–409.17 that requires permits to Rule Change: Bay Area corrected this add emissions trading provisions include, ‘‘a requirement for annual deficiency by revising Rule 2–6–404.3 to consistent with 40 CFR 70.6(a)(10), compliance certifications, unless be consistent with federal regulations at which requires that trading must be compliance certifications are required 40 CFR Part 70. The definition now allowed where an applicable more frequently than annually in an reads: ‘‘An application for a significant requirement provides for trading applicable requirement or by the permit revision shall be submitted by increases and decreases without a case- APCO.’’ the applicant prior to commencing an by-case approval. Issue (15): At the time of the interim operation associated with a significant Rule Change: The District corrected approval, Bay Area indicated in its permit revision. Where an existing this deficiency by revising Rule 2–6– program description that it intended to federally enforceable major facility 306—‘‘Emissions Trading’’ to be process new units that do not affect any review permit condition would prohibit consistent with 40 CFR Part 70 as federally enforceable permit condition such change in operation, the follows: ‘‘The APCO shall allow as ‘‘off-permit’’ (see Section II, p. 21 and responsible official must request emissions trading within a facility that Staff Report, pp. 3–4). Bay Area was preconstruction review and obtain a has a major facility review permit in required to submit a letter revising its
VerDate 11
program description to indicate that it 9, dated September 19, 2001. In collect additional data, remove any will not process new units as ‘‘off- addition, since the granting of interim remaining legal obstacles, and issue any permit’’ or it could have revised its rule approval, the EPA has discovered that, necessary guidance within the three to include the part 70 off-permit in general, there is not a reliable or year deferral time frame to be ambitious. provisions as defined in federal complete inventory of emissions We welcome comments on other areas regulations at 40 CFR 70.4(b)(14) and associated with agricultural operations that might also warrant study, as well as 70.4(b)(15). in California that are subject to the ways that this work might be done more Rule Change: Bay Area corrected this exemption. Although further research quickly. deficiency by providing a letter to Jack on this issue is needed, many sources During the interim deferral period, Broadbent, Director, Region IX, Air with activities covered by the EPA will continue to work with the Division, dated May 24, 2001, from the exemption may not have emission levels agricultural industry and our state and Bay Area APCO, Ellen Garvey that that would subject them to title V, and federal regulatory partners to pursue, stated: ‘‘The District has decided not to the State and/or individual Districts wherever possible, voluntary emission incorporate the ‘off-permit’ provisions may be able to demonstrate that none of reduction strategies. At the end of this into its current program submittal.’’ the sources that are exempt under the period, EPA will, taking into Therefore, no off-permit changes will be State law are subject to title V. allowed under the Bay Area program. Based, in part, on these factors, EPA consideration the results of these Issue (16): Bay Area was required to has tentatively concluded that requiring studies, make a determination as to how revise 2–6–222 defining ‘‘regulated air the immediate commencement of title V the title V operating permit program pollutant’’ to be consistent with the permitting of the limited types of will be implemented for any potential Federal definition (§ 70.2) and include agricultural activities presently subject major agricultural stationary sources. pollutants subject to any requirement to the exemption, without a better Rule Change: In addition to the established under section 112 of the understanding of the sources and their statutory exemption in the Health and Act, including sections 112(g), (j), and emissions, would not be an appropriate Safety Code, Bay Area’s regulations (r). utilization of limited local, state and contained an exemption; however, the Rule Change: The District corrected federal resources. As a result, despite District has since revised its regulations this deficiency by revising the definition the State of California’s failure to to allow for permitting once state law of regulated air pollutant at Rule 2–6– eliminate the agricultural permitting provides for it. Specifically, Regulation 222.5 to state, ‘‘* * * any pollutant that exemption, EPA is proposing to grant 1, Section 110 and Regulation 2, Rule 1 is subject to any standard or full approval to local Air District were revised to allow for permitting requirement promulgated under Section operating permit programs and allow a pursuant to the California Health and 112 of the Clean Air Act, including deferral of title V permitting of Safety Code. sections 112(g), (j) and (r).’’ agricultural operations involved in the Issue (17): One of EPA’s conditions growing of crops or the raising of fowl VI. What Is Involved in This Proposed for full title V program approval was the or animals for a further brief period, not Action? California Legislature’s revision of the to exceed three years. During the Health and Safety Code to eliminate the The Bay Area has corrected the deferral period, we expect to develop deficiencies cited in the interim provision that exempts ‘‘any equipment the program infrastructure and used in agricultural operations in the approval on June 23, 1995 [60 FR experience necessary for effective 32606]. Thus, EPA is proposing full growing of crops or the raising of fowl implementation of the title V permitting or animals’’ from the requirement to approval of the Bay Area operating program to this limited category of permit program. In addition, Bay Area obtain a permit. See California Health sources. has made other changes to its operating and Safety Code section 42310(e). Even EPA believes it is appropriate to defer permit program since we granted though the local Districts have, in many permitting for this limited category of cases, removed the title V exemption for agricultural sources because the interim approval. These changes were agricultural sources from their own currently available techniques for not required by EPA to correct interim rules, the Health and Safety Code has determining emissions inventories and approval deficiencies cited in our June not been revised to eliminate this for monitoring emissions (e.g., from 23, 1995 Federal Register. EPA has provision. irrigation pumps and feeding reviewed the additional changes and In evaluating the impact of the Health operations) are problematic and will be proposes to approve most of the and Safety Code exemption, EPA dramatically enhanced by several efforts changes. Table 1a and 1b, respectively, believes there are a couple of key factors currently being undertaken with the list which rule and MOP subsections we to consider. First, many post-harvest cooperation and participation of the are proposing to approve. activities are not covered by the operators and agricultural organizations, EPA is not acting on some changes exemption and, thus, are still subject to as well as EPA, other federal agencies, that the District made to its rules; these title V permitting. For example, and the State and local air pollution changes were not required to correct according to the California Air agencies. For example, the National interim approval issues and may not be Resources Board (CARB), the Health and Academy of Sciences is undertaking a approvable. See Table 2 below for a list Safety Code exemption does not include study addressing emissions from animal of the rule (and MOP) sections of Bay activities such as milling and crushing, feeding operations. Their report is due Area’s program on which EPA is not or canning or cotton ginning operations. next year. In addition, EPA’s Office of taking action. Please refer to the TSD for Activities such as these are subject to Air and Radiation is working with the additional information on the basis for review under the State’s title V U.S. Department of Agriculture to better our decision to either approve or not act programs. See letter from Michael P. address the impact of agricultural on those other changes. If a section is Kenny, Executive Officer, California Air operations on air quality. We consider not listed in any of the tables below, it Resources Board, to Jack Broadbent, the effort to evaluate the existing means that there has been no change to Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region science, improve on assessment tools, that section since interim approval.
VerDate 11
TABLE 1A.—APPROVABLE RULE SUBSECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CHANGED SINCE INTERIM APPROVAL
Adoption Approvable rule section and name date
2–6–101, Description ...... 5/2/01 2–6–114, Exemption, Non-Road Engines ...... 10/20/99 2–6–201, Administrative Permit Amendment ...... 10/20/99 2–6–202, Applicable Requirements ...... 5/2/01 2–6–204, Designated Facility ...... 10/20/99 2–6–206, Facility ...... 5/2/01 2–6–207, Federally Enforceable ...... 5/2/01 2–6–211, Independent Power-Production Facility ...... 5/2/01 2–6–212, Major Facility ...... 10/20/99 2–6–215, Minor Permit Revision ...... 10/20/99 2–6–217, Phase II Acid Rain Facility ...... 5/2/01 2–6–218, Potential to Emit (see discussion below and in the TSD) ...... 10/20/99 2–6–219, Preconstruction Permit or Review ...... 10/20/99 2–6–222, Regulated Air Pollutant ...... 5/2/01 2–6–226, Significant Permit Revision ...... 10/20/99 2–6–229, Subject Solid Waste Incinerator Facility ...... 10/2099 2–6–230, Synthetic Minor Facility ...... 10/20/99 2–6–231, Synthetic Minor Operating Permit ...... 10/20/99 2–6–232, Synthetic Minor Operating Permit Revision ...... 10/20/99 2–6–233, Permit Shield ...... 5/2/01 2–6–235, Actual Emissions ...... 5/2/01 2–6–236, Modified Source or Facility ...... 5/2/01 2–6–237, Potential to Emit Demonstration ...... 10/20/99 2–6–238, Process Statement ...... 10/20/99 2–6–239, Significant Source ...... 10/20/99 2–6–240, State Implementation Plan ...... 10/20/99 2–6–241, 12-month Period ...... 10/20/99 2–6–242, Affected State ...... 5/2/01 2–6–243, Final Action ...... 5/2/01 2–6–244, CFR ...... 5/2/01 2–6–303, Major Facility Review Requirement for Subject Solid Waste Incinerator Facilities ...... 10/20/99 2–6–304 and 2–6–302: Major Facility Review Requirements for Designated Facilities: and Major Facility Review for Phase II Acid Rain Facilities: ...... 10/20/99 2–6–306, Emissions Trading ...... 5/2/01 2–6–307, Non-compliance, Major Facility Review ...... 10/20/99 2–6–310, Synthetic Minor Operating Permit Requirement ...... 10/20/99 2–6–311, Non-compliance, Synthetic Minor Facilities ...... 5/2/01 2–6–312, Major Facility Review, Smaller Facilities ...... 5/2/01 2–6–314, Revocation ...... 5/2/01 2–6–401, Facilities Affected (Deleted 10/20/99) ...... 10/20/99 2–6–403, Application for Major Facility Review Permit, Permit Renewal, or Permit Revision ...... 2/1/95 2–6–404, Timely Application for Major Facility Review Permit ...... 10/20/99 2–6–405, Complete Application for a Major Facility Review Permit ...... 5/2/01 2–6–406, Application for Minor Permit Revision ...... 10/20/99 2–6–407, Application Shield ...... 10/20/99 2–6–408, Completeness Determination ...... 10/20/99 2–6–409, Permit Content ...... 5/2/01 2–6–410, Final Action for Initial Permit Issuance, Five-Year Renewal, Reopenings, and Revisions ...... 10/20/99 2–6–411, Reports to EPA and Public Petitions for Major Facility Review Permits ...... 5/2/01 2–6–412, Public Participation, Major Facility Review Permit Issuance ...... 5/2/01 2–6–413, Administrative Permit Amendment Procedures ...... 10/20/99 2–6–414.2 and 414.3, Minor Permit Revision Procedures. (Note: EPA is not acting on subsection 414.1. See table 2, below) ...... 5/2/01 2–6–416, Term for Major Facility Review ...... 5/2/01 2–6–418, Emissions Trading Procedures ...... 5/2/01 2–6–420, Application for a Synthetic Minor Operating Permit ...... 5/2/01 2–6–421, Timely Application for a Synthetic Minor Operating Permit ...... 5/2/01 2–6–422, Complete Application for a Synthetic Minor Operating Permit ...... 10/20/99 2–6–423, District Procedures for Synthetic Minor Operating Permits ...... 5/2/01 2–6–424, Applicability ...... 10/20/99 2–6–425, Facility List ...... 10/20/99 2–6–426, Compliance Certification Procedures ...... 5/2/01 2–6–502, Monitoring Reports, Major Facility Review Permit ...... 5/2/01 2–6–503, Monitoring ...... 5/2/01
VerDate 11
TABLE 1B.—APPROVABLE MANUAL OF PROCEDURES (MOP) SUBSECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CHANGED SINCE INTERIM APPROVAL
Approvable Manual of Procedures Section Number and Title Adoption Date was May 2, 2001 1. Introduction (every paragraph except the second) 2. Applications: 2.1 Major Facility Review Permits 2.2 Synthetic Minor Operating Permits 2.3 Potential to Emit Demonstrations 3. Fees 4. Permit Content: 4.1 Applicable Requirements 4.2 Permit Duration 4.3 Terms and Conditions for Reasonably Anticipated Operating Scenarios 4.4 Terms and Conditions for Emissions Trading 4.5 Compliance 4.6 Monitoring Requirements 4.7 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 4.8 Emergency Provisions 4.9 Acid Rain Provisions 4.10 Severability Clause 4.11 Standard Conditions to Implement EPA Title V Regulations and 40 CFR 70 4.12 Requirement to Pay Fees 4.13 Provisions Regarding the Federal Enforceability of Conditions 4.14 Inspection and Entry Requirements 4.15 Requirements for Compliance Certification 4.16 Permit Shield 5. Trade Secret and Availability of Information 6. Public Participation & EPA Review: 6.1 Major Facility Review Permits 6.2 Synthetic Minor Operating Permits 6.3 Appeals and Objections 7. District Permitting Procedures: 7.1 Major Facility Review Permits (all paragraphs except the three paragraphs that precede the last paragraph in the section) 7.2 Synthetic Minor Operating Permits 8. Title IV: Applicability
TABLE 2.—LIST OF RULE AND MOP SECTIONS THAT EPA IS NOT ACTING ON AS PART OF TODAY’S PROPOSED APPROVAL
Adoption Rule or MOP section and title date
2–6–113, Exemption, Registered Portable Engines ...... 10/20/99 2–6–234, Program Effective Date ...... 10/20/99 2–6–313, Denial, Failure to Comply ...... 5/2/01 2–6–414.1, Minor Permit Revision Procedures ...... 5/2/01 MOP—Section 1—Introduction Only the second paragraph regarding the Program Effective Date ...... 5/2/01 MOP—Section 7.1—Major Facility Review Permits. Only the three paragraphs that precede the last paragraph in section 7.1 ...... 5/2/01
VII. Discussion on the Revision to the Project v. EPA, No. 96–1224 (D.C. Cir. interpretation. EPA has issued several Definition of Potential To Emit June 28, 1996), the court remanded and guidance memoranda that discuss how Although not required to make the vacated the requirement for federal the court rulings affect the definition of change for full approval, the District has enforceability for potential to emit potential to emit under CAA § 112, New revised its definition of ‘‘Potential to limits under part 70. Therefore, even Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of Emit’’ (2–6–218) (‘‘PTE’’) and the though part 70 has not been revised it Significant Deterioration (PSD) discussion of it in the MOP (page 3–2). should be read to mean, ‘‘federally programs, and title V.2 In particular, the The revised language no longer requires enforceable or legally and practicably that permit limits be only ‘‘federally enforceable by a state or local air 2 See, e.g., January 22, 1996, memorandum 1 enforceable.’’ The definition now allows pollution control agency.’’ entitled, ‘‘Release of Interim Policy on Federal a permit limitation or the effect it would EPA proposes to approve this revision Enforceability of Limitations on Potential to Emit’’ from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS and Robert I. Van have on emissions, to be ‘‘enforceable because the Bay Area rule is consistent with the current meaning of potential to Heuvelen, Director, Office of Regulatory by the District or EPA.’’ Although Bay Enforcement to EPA Regional Offices; January 31, Area’s definition is different from the emit as described above in the court’s 1996 paper to the Members of the Subcommittee on current definition in 40 CFR 70.2, Permit, New Source Review and Toxics Integration litigation has occurred since we granted 1 See also, National Mining Association (NMA) v. from Steve Herman, OECA, and Mary Nichols, EPA, 59 f.3d 1351 (D.C. Cir. July 21, 1995) (Title Assistant Administrator of Air and Radiation; and interim approval to Bay Area’s rule that III) and Chemical Manufacturing Ass’n (CMA) v. the August 27, 1996 Memorandum entitled, has affected EPA’s consideration of this EPA, No. 89–1514 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) (Title ‘‘Extension of January 25, 1995 Potential to Emit issue. In Clean Air Implementation I). Transition Policy’’ from John Seitz, Director,
VerDate 11
memoranda reiterate the Agency’s documentation used in developing the the distribution of power and earlier requirements for practicable proposed full approval are contained in responsibilities between the State and enforceability for purposes of effectively docket files maintained at the EPA the Federal government established in limiting a source’s potential to emit.3 Region 9 office. The docket is an the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule For example, practicable enforceability organized and complete file of all the also is not subject to Executive Order for a source-specific permit means that information submitted to, or otherwise 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from the permit’s provisions must, at a considered by, EPA in the development Environmental Health Risks and Safety minimum: (1) Be technically accurate of this proposed full approval. The Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or and identify which portions of the primary purposes of the docket are: (1) Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions To allow interested parties a means to source are subject to the limitation; (2) Concerning Regulations That specify the time period for the identify and locate documents so that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, limitation (hourly, daily, monthly, and they can effectively participate in the annual limits such as rolling annual approval process, and (2) to serve as the Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May limits); (3) be independently enforceable record in case of judicial review. EPA 22, 2001), because it is not a and describe the method to determine will consider any comments received in significantly regulatory action under compliance including appropriate writing by November 19, 2001. Executive Order 12866. This action will monitoring, recordkeeping and not impose any collection of Administrative Requirements reporting; (4) be permanent; and (5) information subject to the provisions of include a legal obligation to comply Under Executive Order 12866, the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. with the limit. ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 3501 et seq., other than those previously EPA will rely on Bay Area FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this approved and assigned OMB control implementing this new definition in a proposed action is not a ‘‘significant number 2060–0243. For additional manner that is consistent with the regulatory action’’ and therefore is not information concerning these court’s decisions and EPA policies. In subject to review by the Office of requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An addition, EPA wants to be certain that Management and Budget. Under the agency may not conduct or sponsor, and absent federal and citizen’s Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 a person is not required to respond to, enforceability, Bay Area’s enforcement et seq.) the Administrator certifies that a collection of information unless it this proposed rule will not have a program still provides sufficient displays a currently valid OMB control significant economic impact on a incentive for sources to comply with number. permit limits. This proposal provides substantial number of small entities notice to Bay Area about our because it merely approves state law as In reviewing State operating permit expectations for ensuring the permit meeting federal requirements and programs submitted pursuant to Title V limits they impose are enforceable as a imposes no additional requirements of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve practical matter (i.e., practicably beyond those imposed by state law. This State programs provided that they meet enforceable) and that its enforcement rule does not contain any unfunded the requirements of the Clean Air Act program will still provide sufficient mandates and does not significantly or and EPA’s regulations codified at 40 compliance incentive. In the future, if uniquely affect small governments, as CFR part 70. In this context, in the Bay Area does not implement the new described in the Unfunded Mandates absence of a prior existing requirement definition consistent with our guidance, Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) for the State to use voluntary consensus and/or has not established a sufficient because it proposes to approve pre- standards (VCS), EPA has no authority compliance incentive absent Federal existing requirements under state law to disapprove a State operating permit and citizen’s enforceability, EPA could and does not impose any additional program for failure to use VCS. It would enforceable duties beyond that required find that the District has failed to thus be inconsistent with applicable law by state law. This rule also does not administer or enforce its program and for EPA, when it reviews an operating may take action to notify the District of have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on permit program , to use VCS in place of such a finding as authorized by a State program that otherwise satisfies § 70.10(b)(1). one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal the provisions of the Clean Air Act. VIII. Public Comments Government and Indian tribes, or on the Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) EPA requests comments on the distribution of power and of the National Technology Transfer and program revisions discussed in this responsibilities between the Federal Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. proposed action. Copies of the Bay Area Government and Indian tribes, as 272 note) do not apply. specified by Executive Order 13175, submittal and other supporting List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with OAQPS and Robert Van Heuvelen, Director, Office Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR Environmental protection, of Regulatory Enforcement. 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule Administrative Practice and Procedure, 3 See, e.g., June 13, 1989 Memorandum entitled, also does not have Federalism Air pollution control, Intergovernmental ‘‘Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit in New implications because it will not have relations, Operating permits, Reporting Source Permitting, from Terrell F. Hunt, Associate substantial direct effects on the States, Enforcement Counsel, OECA, and John Seitz, and recordkeeping requirements. Director, OAQPS, to EPA Regional Offices.’’ This on the relationship between the national guidance is still the most comprehensive statement government and the States, or on the Dated: October 11, 2001. from EPA on this subject. Further guidance was distribution of power and Laura Yoshii, provided on January 25, 1995 in a memorandum entitled ‘‘Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit responsibilities among the various Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under Section 112 and levels of government, as specified in [FR Doc. 01–26407 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act),’’ from John Seitz, Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Director, OAQPS and Robert I. Van Heuvelen, (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The Director, ORE to Regional Air Directors. Also please refer to the EPA Region 7 database at http:// rule merely proposes to approve www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/policy/ existing requirements under state law, policy.htm for more information. and does not alter the relationship or
VerDate 11
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION However, the version of District National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY Regulation XIV at the above internet for ozone, carbon monoxide, or address may be different from the particulate matter, major sources are 40 CFR Part 70 version submitted to EPA for approval. defined by the gravity of the [CA 049–OPP; FRL–7087–5] Readers are cautioned to verify that the nonattainment classification. For adoption date of the rule listed is the example, in ozone nonattainment areas Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval same as the rule submitted to EPA for classified as ‘‘serious,’’ major sources of Operating Permit Program; San approval. The official submittal is include those with the potential of Diego County Air Pollution Control available only at the three addresses emitting 50 tons per year or more of District, CA listed above. volatile organic compounds or nitrogen FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: oxides. AGENCY: Environmental Protection David Wampler, EPA Region IX, Permits Agency (EPA). II. What Is Being Addressed in This Office (AIR–3), U.S. Environmental Document? ACTION: Proposed rule. Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1256. Where an operating permit program SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve substantially, but not fully, met the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This the operating permit program of the San section provides additional information criteria outlined in the implementing Diego County Air Pollution Control by addressing the following questions: regulations codified at 40 Code of District (‘‘San Diego’’ or ‘‘District’’). The Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA San Diego operating permit program I. What Is the Operating Permit Program? granted interim approval contingent on was submitted in response to the II. What Is Being Addressed in this the District revising its program to directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act Document? III. Are There Other Issues with the Program? correct any deficiencies. Because the (CAA) Amendments that permitting IV. What Are the Program Changes That EPA San Diego operating permit program authorities develop, and submit to EPA, Is Proposing to Approve? substantially, but not fully, met the programs for issuing operating permits V. What Is Involved in this Proposed Action? requirements of part 70, EPA granted to all major stationary sources and to interim approval to its program in a certain other sources within the I. What Is the Operating Permit rulemaking published on December 7, Program? permitting authorities’ jurisdiction. EPA 1995 (60 FR 62753). The interim granted interim approval to the San The CAA Amendments of 1990 approval notice described the Diego operating permit program on required all state and local permitting conditions that had to be met in order December 7, 1995 but listed conditions authorities to develop operating permit for the San Diego program to receive full that San Diego’s program would be programs that met certain Federal approval. Since that time, the California required to meet for full approval. San criteria. In implementing the operating Air Resources Board, on behalf of the Diego has revised its program to satisfy permit programs, the permitting San Diego has submitted one revision to the conditions of the interim approval. authorities require certain sources of air the San Diego’s interimly approved Thus, this action proposes full approval pollution to obtain permits that contain operating permit program; this revision of the San Diego operating permit all applicable requirements under the is dated June 4, 2001. This Federal program as a result of those revisions. CAA. The focus of the operating permit Register notice describes the changes program is to improve enforcement by DATES: Comments on the program full that have been made to the San Diego approval discussed in this proposed issuing each source a permit that operating permit program since interim action must be received in writing by consolidates all of the applicable CAA approval was granted. November 19, 2001. requirements into a federally enforceable document. By consolidating III. Are There Other Issues With the ADDRESSES: Written comments on this all of the applicable requirements for a Program? action should be addressed to Gerardo facility, the source, the public, and the On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a Rios, Acting Chief, Permits Office, Air permitting authorities can more easily rulemaking that extended the interim Division (AIR–3), EPA Region IX, 75 determine what CAA requirements approval period of 86 operating permits Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, apply and how compliance with those programs until December 1, 2001. (65 California 94105. You can inspect requirements is determined. FR 32035) The action was subsequently copies of the San Diego’s submittals, Sources required to obtain an challenged by the Sierra Club and the and other supporting documentation operating permit under this program New York Public Interest Research relevant to this action, during normal include ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution Group (NYPIRG). In settling the business hours at Air Division, EPA and certain other sources specified in litigation, EPA agreed to publish a Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San the CAA or in EPA’s implementing notice in the Federal Register that Francisco, California 94105. regulations. For example, all sources would alert the public that they may You may also see copies of the regulated under the acid rain program, identify and bring to EPA’s attention submitted Title V program at the regardless of size, must obtain permits. alleged programmatic and/or following locations: Examples of major sources include implementation deficiencies in Title V California Air Resources Board, those that have the potential to emit 100 programs and that EPA would respond Stationary Source Division, Rule tons per year or more of volatile organic to their allegations within specified time Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, periods if the comments were made Sacramento, CA 95814. sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NOX), within 90 days of publication of the The San Diego Air Pollution Control or particulate matter (PM10); those that Federal Register notice. District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San emit 10 tons per year of any single EPA received a comment letter from Diego, California 92123–1096. hazardous air pollutant (specifically one organization on what they believe to An electronic copy of SDCAPCD’s listed under the CAA); or those that be deficiencies with respect to Title V title V rule, Regulation XIV may be emit 25 tons per year or more of a programs in California. EPA takes no available via the Internet at http:// combination of hazardous air pollutants action on those comments in today’s www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/sd/cur.htm. (HAPs). In areas that are not meeting the action and will respond to them by
VerDate 11
December 1, 2001. As stated in the with activities covered by the federal regulatory partners to pursue, Federal Register notice published on exemption may not have emission levels wherever possible, voluntary emission December 11, 2000, (65 FR 77376) EPA that would subject them to title V, and reduction strategies. At the end of this will respond by December 1, 2001 to the State and/or individual Districts period, EPA will, taking into timely public comments on programs may be able to demonstrate that none of consideration the results of these that have obtained interim approval; the sources that are exempt under the studies, make a determination as to how and EPA will respond by April 1, 2002 State law are subject to title V. the title V operating permit program to timely comments on fully approved Based, in part, on these factors, EPA will be implemented for any potential programs. We will publish a notice of has tentatively concluded that requiring major agricultural stationary sources. deficiency (NOD) when we determine the immediate commencement of title V Rule or Program Change: San Diego that a deficiency exists, or we will permitting of the limited types of amended its program to require notify the commenter in writing to agricultural activities presently subject agricultural operations to obtain Title V explain our reasons for not making a to the exemption, without a better operating permits when state law is finding of deficiency. A NOD will not understanding of the sources and their revised. necessarily be limited to deficiencies emissions, would not be an appropriate Issue (2): San Diego was required to identified by citizens and may include utilization of limited local, state and revise Rule 1401(c)(43) definition of any deficiencies that we have identified federal resources. As a result, despite ‘‘Significant Permit Modification,’’ to be through our program oversight. the State of California’s failure to consistent with Part 70 which requires eliminate the agricultural permitting that any significant change in IV. What Are the Program Changes exemption, EPA is proposing to grant monitoring permit terms or conditions That EPA Is Proposing To Approve? full approval to local Air District be processed as a significant permit As explained in the December 7, 1995 operating permit programs and allow a modification. [60 FR 62753] rulemaking, full approval deferral of title V permitting of Rule Change: San Diego met this of the San Diego operating permit agricultural operations involved in the condition by amending the definition of program required satisfaction of the growing of crops or the raising of fowl ‘‘significant permit modification’’ at following conditions: or animals for a further brief period, not Regulation XIV, Rule 1401(c)(44) to Issue (1): One of EPA’s conditions for to exceed three years. During the include a ‘‘significant change in existing full title V program approval was the deferral period, we expect to develop monitoring permit terms or conditions California Legislature’s revision of the the program infrastructure and or relaxation to monitoring, Health and Safety Code to eliminate the experience necessary for effective recordkeeping, or reporting provision that exempts ‘‘any equipment implementation of the title V permitting requirements; or * * *’’ See 40 CFR used in agricultural operations in the program to this limited category of 70.7(e)(4). growing of crops or the raising of fowl sources. Issue (3): San Diego was required to or animals’’ from the requirement to EPA believes it is appropriate to defer define affected state or, because of its obtain a permit. See California Health permitting for this limited category of cooperative agreement with Native and Safety Code section 42310(e). Even agricultural sources because the American Tribes, EPA would accept a though the local Districts have, in many currently available techniques for commitment from San Diego to: (1) cases, removed the title V exemption for determining emissions inventories and Initiate rule revisions upon notification agricultural sources from their own for monitoring emissions (e.g., from from EPA that an affected tribe has rules, the Health and Safety Code has irrigation pumps and feeding applied for state status; and (2) provide not been revised to eliminate this operations) are problematic and will be affected state notice to tribes upon a provision. dramatically enhanced by several efforts tribe’s filing for state status, that is, prior In evaluating the impact of the Health currently being undertaken with the to the District’s adoption of affected and Safety Code exemption, EPA cooperation and participation of the state notice rules. See 40 CFR 70.2 and believes there are a couple of key factors operators and agricultural organizations, 70.8(b)(1). to consider. First, many post-harvest as well as EPA, other Federal agencies, Rule Change: San Diego met this activities are not covered by the and the State and local air pollution requirement by revising its rule to exemption and, thus, are still subject to agencies. For example, the National define affected state at Rule 1401(c)(5) title V permitting. For example, Academy of Sciences is undertaking a to mean: ‘‘any state that: (i) Is according to the California Air study addressing emissions from animal contiguous with California and whose Resources Board (CARB), the Health and feeding operations. Their report is due air quality may be affected by a permit Safety Code exemption does not include next year. In addition, EPA’s Office of action, or (ii) is within 50 miles of the activities such as milling and crushing, Air and Radiation is working with the source for which a permit action is or canning or cotton ginning operations. U.S. Department of Agriculture to better being proposed. For purposes of this Activities such as these are subject to address the impact of agricultural rule affected state includes any federally review under the State’s title V operations on air quality. We consider recognized Eligible Indian Tribe.’’ In programs. See letter from Michael P. the effort to evaluate the existing addition, Rule 1415 was amended to Kenny, Executive Officer, California Air science, improve on assessment tools, require affected states be notified by the Resources Board, to Jack Broadbent, collect additional data, remove any APCO at least 45 days prior to issuance Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region remaining legal obstacles, and issue any of a five year initial permit to operate, 9, dated September 19, 2001. In necessary guidance within the three a revised permit resulting from an addition, since the granting of interim year deferral time frame to be ambitious. application for significant modification approval, the EPA has discovered that, We welcome comments on other areas or renewal of such a permit. in general, there is not a reliable or that might also warrant study, as well as Issue (4): San Diego was required to complete inventory of emissions ways that this work might be done more revise Rule 1410(h)(7), paragraph 2 to associated with agricultural operations quickly. require permit reopening procedures for in California that are subject to the During the interim deferral period, any inactive status permit that is exemption. Although further research EPA will continue to work with the modified to reflect new applicable on this issue is needed, many sources agricultural industry and our state and requirements upon being converted to
VerDate 11
active status if there are 3 years or more Issue (7): The District must revise subject to review by the Office of remaining on the term of its 5-year either the definition of ‘‘federally Management and Budget. Under the permit. See 40 CFR 70.7(f)(1)(i). mandated new source review’’ or the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 Rule Change: San Diego met this definition of ‘‘federally enforceable et seq.) the Administrator certifies that condition by deleting, in its entirety, requirement’’ to clearly include minor this proposed rule will not have a subsection (7) of rule 1410. The rule, new source review as an applicable significant economic impact on a therefore, no longer allows inactive requirement under title V. substantial number of small entities status permits to be reactivated. Rule Change: San Diego met this because it merely approves state law as Issue (5): San Diego was required to requirement by revising Rule meeting federal requirements and remove any activities from the District’s 1401(c)(20) to now define Federally imposes no additional requirements list of insignificant activities that are Mandated New Source Review (NSR) as beyond those imposed by state law. This subject to a unit-specific applicable ‘‘* * * new source review that would rule does not contain any unfunded requirement and adjust/add size cut-offs be required by the approved State mandates and does not significantly or to ensure that the listed activities are Implementation Plan (SIP).’’ uniquely affect small governments, as truly insignificant. See 40 CFR V. What Is Involved in This Proposed described in the Unfunded Mandates 70.4(b)(2) and 70.5(c). Action? Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) Rule Change: San Diego met this The EPA proposes full approval of the because it proposes to approve pre- condition by revising its list of operating permits program submitted by existing requirements under state law insignificant activities to remove San Diego County based on the and does not impose any additional activities (or impose size limits on revisions submitted on June 4, 2001 enforceable duties beyond that required units) that were subject to any unit- which satisfactorily address the program by state law. This rule also does not specific applicable requirements (e.g., deficiencies identified in EPA’s have tribal implications because it will refrigeration units are now limited to a December 7,1995 Interim Approval not have a substantial direct effect on charge of less than 50 pounds of a Class Rulemaking. See 60 FR 62794. In one or more Indian tribes, on the I or II ozone depleting compound). San addition, the District has revised and relationship between the Federal Diego also included a justification as to submitted as part of its revised program, Government and Indian tribes, or on the why certain emission units are included changes to two forms: distribution of power and in the insignificant activities list. San • Form 1401–J1—Monitoring Report responsibilities between the Federal Diego’s justification relied on district and Compliance Certification; and Government and Indian tribes, as emission factors and expected • Form 1401–J2—Deviation Report. specified by Executive Order 13175, operations from the subject emission EPA is not acting on these forms as part ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with units and/or included the analysis that of this action because they were not Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR was conducted in 1999 by a workgroup, required to revise these forms for full 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule including staff from the ARB, EPA approval and the forms may not be also does not have Federalism Region 9 and CAPCOA, who developed consistent with the reporting implications because it will not have a model list of insignificant activities. requirements at 70.6(c)(5) [compliance substantial direct effects on the States, San Diego also removed language in the certifications] and 70.6 (a)(3)(iii) [semi- on the relationship between the national introduction to Appendix A to no longer annual monitoring reports and deviation government and the States, or on the allow insignificant activities to be reports]. distribution of power and exempt from the permit requirements of responsibilities among the various Regulation XIV. Request for Public Comment levels of government, as specified in Issue (6): San Diego was required to EPA requests comments on the Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ remove the reference to Rules 1410 (j) program revisions discussed in this (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The and (k) in Rule 1410(i).1 This reference proposed action. Copies of the San rule merely proposes to approve to minor and significant permit Diego submittal and other supporting existing requirements under state law, modifications in the provisions for documentation used in developing the and does not alter the relationship or administrative permit amendments proposed full approval are contained in the distribution of power and could have be read to be inconsistent docket files maintained at the EPA responsibilities between the State and with the definition of ‘‘significant Region 9 office. The docket is an the Federal government established in permit modification’’ (Rule 1401(c)(43)), organized and complete file of all the the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule which correctly defaulted unspecified information submitted to, or otherwise also is not subject to Executive Order changes to the significant permit considered by, EPA in the development 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from modification process. In addition, EPA of this proposed full approval. The Environmental Health Risks and Safety required the District to remove the word primary purposes of the docket are: (1) Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or ‘‘include’’ from the phrase, ‘‘These shall To allow interested parties a means to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions include the following’’ in the identify and locate documents so that Concerning Regulations That administrative permit amendment they can effectively participate in the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, section (Rule 1410(i)). See 40 CFR approval process, and (2) to serve as the Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 70.7(d). record in case of judicial review. EPA 22, 2001), because it is not a Rule Change: San Diego met this will consider any comments received in significantly regulatory action under condition by revising Rule 1410 (i) to writing by November 19, 2001. Executive Order 12866. This action will not impose any collection of remove the reference to subsections (j) Administrative Requirements and (k) and to remove the phrase that information subject to the provisions of included the word, ‘‘include.’’ Under Executive Order 12866, the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 3501 et seq., other than those previously 1 A typographical error exists in our December 7, FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this approved and assigned OMB control 1995 FR in which we referred to Rule 1410 as Rule proposed action is not a ‘‘significant number 2060–0243. For additional 1401. regulatory action’’ and therefore is not information concerning these
VerDate 11
requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An authorities’ jurisdiction. EPA granted Sources required to obtain an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and interim approval to the District’s operating permit under this program a person is not required to respond to, operating permit program on April 24, include ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution a collection of information unless it 1996. This action proposes approval of and certain other sources specified in displays a currently valid OMB control revisions to the District’s permit the CAA or in EPA’s implementing number. program that were submitted to satisfy regulations. For example, all sources In reviewing State operating permit the conditions for full approval. regulated under the acid rain program, programs submitted pursuant to Title V DATES: Comments on the program regardless of size, must obtain permits. of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve revisions discussed in this proposed Examples of major sources include (but State programs provided that they meet action must be received in writing by are not limited to) those that have the the requirements of the Clean Air Act November 19, 2001. potential to emit: (1) 50 tons per year or and EPA’s regulations codified at 40 ADDRESSES: Written comments on this more of volatile organic compounds or CFR part 70. In this context, in the action should be addressed to Gerardo absence of a prior existing requirement nitrogen oxides (NOX) in a serious non- Rios, Air Division (AIR–3), EPA Region attainment; (2) 70 tons per year of for the State to use voluntary consensus IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, standards (VCS), EPA has no authority particulate matter (PM10) in a PM10 non- California, 94105. You can inspect attainment area; (3) 10 tons per year of to disapprove a State operating permit copies of the District’s submittal, and program for failure to use VCS. It would any single Hazardous Air Pollutant (as other supporting documentation defined under section 112 of the CAA); thus be inconsistent with applicable law relevant to this action, during normal for EPA, when it reviews an operating or (4) 25 tons per year or more of a business hours at the EPA Region 9, 75 permit program , to use VCS in place of combination of Hazardous Air Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, a State program that otherwise satisfies Pollutants (HAPs). California, 94105. the provisions of the Clean Air Act. You may also see copies of the What Rules Were Submitted for Full Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) submitted Title V program at the Approval? of the National Technology Transfer and following locations: Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. California Air Resources Board, Where an operating permit program 272 note) do not apply. Stationary Source Division, Rule substantially, but not fully, met the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, criteria outlined in the implementing regulations codified at 40 Code of Environmental protection, Sacramento, CA 95814 Administrative practice and procedure, The San Joaquin Valley Pollution Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA Air pollution control, Intergovernmental Control District, 1990 E. Gettysburg granted interim approval contingent on relations, Operating permits, Reporting Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726–0244 the State or local permitting agency and recordkeeping requirements. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed revising its program to correct the Pike, EPA Region IX, Permits Office deficiencies. Because the San Joaquin Dated: October 11, 2001. (AIR–3), U.S. Environmental Protection operating permit program substantially, Laura Yoshii, Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1211 or but not fully, met the requirements of Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [email protected]. part 70, EPA granted interim approval to [FR Doc. 01–26408 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This each program in a rulemaking published BILLING CODE 6560–50–P section provides additional information on April 24, 1996 [61 FR 18083]. The on today’s rulemaking: interim approval notice described the conditions that had to be met in order ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION What is the operating permit program? for the San Joaquin program to receive AGENCY What rules were submitted for full approval? How do the program changes qualify for full full approval. 40 CFR Part 70 approval? In response, San Joaquin adopted Are there other issues with the program? [CA 050–OPP; FRL–7087–6] revisions to three permitting regulations What Is the Operating Permit Program? on June 21, 2001. The first is District Clean Air Act Full Approval of The CAA Amendments of 1990 Rule 2520, Federally Mandated Operating Permit Program; San require all State and local permitting Operating Permits, which is the Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution authorities to develop operating permit District’s part 70 permitting rule. The Control District, California programs that met certain federal District also made revisions to the elements of District Rule 2201, New and AGENCY: criteria. In implementing the operating Environmental Protection Modified Source Review, that contain Agency (EPA). permit programs, the permitting part 70 requirements allowing a source ACTION: Proposed rule. authorities require certain sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain to obtain a modification under Rule SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to fully all applicable requirements under the 2201 that also satisfies part 70 approve the operating permit program CAA. The focus of the operating permit requirements. District Rule 2020, for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air program is to improve enforcement by Exemptions, was also revised. The Pollution Control District (‘‘San issuing each source a permit that California Air Resources Board, on Joaquin’’ or ‘‘District’’). The District’s consolidates all of the applicable CAA behalf of the District submitted these operating permit program was requirements into a federally revised regulations and other program submitted in response to the directive in enforceable document. By consolidating revisions on July 3, 2001. This Federal the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) all of the applicable requirements for a Register notice describes the changes Amendments that permitting authorities facility, the source, the public, and the that have been made to the San Joaquin develop, and submit to EPA, programs permitting authorities can more easily operating permit program since interim for issuing operating permits to all determine what CAA requirements approval was granted and how the major stationary sources and to certain apply and how compliance with those revised program meets the conditions other sources within the permitting requirements is determined. for full approval.
VerDate 11
How Do the Program Changes Qualify on this issue is needed, many sources agricultural industry and our state and for Full Approval? with activities covered by the federal regulatory partners to pursue, EPA’s April 24, 1996 rulemaking exemption may not have emission levels wherever possible, voluntary emission required that San Joaquin make a that would subject them to title V, and reduction strategies. At the end of this number of changes to the program to the State and/or individual Districts period, EPA will, taking into may be able to demonstrate that none of qualify for full approval. EPA is consideration the results of these the sources that are exempt under the proposing to fully approve the revised studies, make a determination as to how State law are subject to title V. the title V operating permit program program submitted to EPA on July 3, Based, in part, on these factors, EPA 2001. This revised program contains the will be implemented for any potential has tentatively concluded that requiring major agricultural stationary sources. following changes to address the interim the immediate commencement of title V approval requirements (for more permitting of the limited types of Issue #2 information, please see the Technical agricultural activities presently subject Revise the applicability language in Support Document): to the exemption, without a better Rule 2520 section 2.2 and the Issue #1 understanding of the sources and their definitions of Major Air Toxics Source emissions, would not be an appropriate (Rule 2520 section 3.18) and Major In order for San Joaquin’s program to utilization of limited local, state and Source (Rule 2520 section 3.19) to be receive full approval (and to avoid a federal resources. As a result, despite consistent with the Act and Part 70 to disapproval upon the expiration of this the State of California’s failure to cover sources that emit at major source interim approval), the California eliminate the agricultural permitting thresholds. (See 40 CFR 70.2, definition Legislature must revise the Health and exemption, EPA is proposing to grant of ‘‘Major Source’’) Safety Code to eliminate the exemption full approval to local Air District Rule or Program Change: The District of agricultural production sources from operating permit programs and allow a has amended the applicability language the requirement to obtain a permit. (See deferral of title V permitting of in Rule 2520 section 2.2, Rule 2520 major source definition in 40 CFR 70.2 agricultural operations involved in the section 3.18, and Rule 2520 section 3.19 and applicability under 40 CFR 70.3) growing of crops or the raising of fowl to include sources with actual emissions Rule or Program Change or animals for a further brief period, not at or above the major source thresholds, to exceed three years. During the rather than just sources with the One of EPA’s conditions for full title deferral period, we expect to develop potential to emit at the major source V program approval was the California the program infrastructure and thresholds. Legislature’s revision of the Health and experience necessary for effective Safety Code to eliminate the provision implementation of the title V permitting Issue #3 that exempts ‘‘any equipment used in program to this limited category of Limit the exemption for non-major agricultural operations in the growing of sources. sources in Rule 2520 section 4.1 so that crops or the raising of fowl or animals’’ EPA believes it is appropriate to defer it does not exempt non-major sources from the requirement to obtain a permit. permitting for this limited category of that EPA determines, upon See California Health and Safety Code agricultural sources because the promulgation of a section 111 or 112 section 42310(e). Even though the local currently available techniques for standard, must obtain Title V permits. Districts have, in many cases, removed determining emissions inventories and (See 40 CFR 70.3) the title V exemption for agricultural for monitoring emissions (e.g., from Rule or Program Change: The District sources from their own rules, the Health irrigation pumps and feeding has amended the language in Rule 2520 and Safety Code has not been revised to operations) are problematic and will be section 4.1 to limit the exemption for eliminate this provision. dramatically enhanced by several efforts non-major sources in Rule 2520 section In evaluating the impact of the Health currently being undertaken with the 4.1 so that it does not exempt non-major and Safety Code exemption, EPA cooperation and participation of the sources that EPA determines, upon believes there are a couple of key factors operators and agricultural organizations, promulgation of a section 111 or 112 to consider. First, many post-harvest as well as EPA, other federal agencies, standard, must obtain Title V permits. activities are not covered by the and the State and local air pollution Any source that falls into one or more exemption and, thus, are still subject to agencies. For example, the National of the source categories listed under title V permitting. For example, Academy of Sciences is undertaking a section 4.1 cannot be exempted from the according to the California Air study addressing emissions from animal requirements to obtain a title V permit, Resources Board (CARB), the Health and feeding operations. Their report is due even if it is not a major source. Safety Code exemption does not include next year. In addition, EPA’s Office of activities such as milling and crushing, Air and Radiation is working with the Issue #4 or canning or cotton ginning operations. U.S. Department of Agriculture to better Revise Rule 2520 section 7.1.3.2 to Activities such as these are subject to address the impact of agricultural eliminate the requirement that fugitive review under the State’s title V operations on air quality. We consider emission estimates need only be programs. See letter from Michael P. the effort to evaluate the existing submitted in the application if the Kenny, Executive Officer, California Air science, improve on assessment tools, source is in a source category identified Resources Board, to Jack Broadbent, collect additional data, remove any in the major source definition in 40 CFR Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region remaining legal obstacles, and issue any 70.2. (See 40 CFR 70.5(c)) 9, dated September 19, 2001. In necessary guidance within the three Rule or Program Change: The District addition, since the granting of interim year deferral time frame to be ambitious. amended the language in Rule 2520 approval, the EPA has discovered that, We welcome comments on other areas Section 7.1.3.2 to eliminate the in general, there is not a reliable or that might also warrant study, as well as requirement that fugitive emissions complete inventory of emissions ways that this work might be done more estimates need only be submitted in the associated with agricultural operations quickly. application if the source is in a source in California that are subject to the During the interim deferral period, category identified in the major source exemption. Although further research EPA will continue to work with the definition in 40 CFR 70.2. The District
VerDate 11
also added fugitive emissions to the list renumbered as section 5.9.1.9.4) of Rule applicable requirement is addressed of emissions-related information that 2201 to be consistent with 40 CFR part only in the written reviews (such as a must be submitted with permit 70 as follows: ‘‘EPA objection shall be permit evaluation) supporting permit applications in section 7.1.3.1. limited to compliance with applicable issuance and not in the permit. requirements and the requirements of 40 Rule or Program Change: Rule 2520 Issue #5 CFR part 70.’’ section 13.2.3 was revised to read, ‘‘The Revise Rule 2520 to provide that permit shield applies only to unless the District requests additional Issue #9 requirements that are either identified information or otherwise notifies the Revise Rule 2520 section 2.4 to clarify and included by the District in the applicant of incompleteness within 60 that the phrase in section 2.4 that ‘‘only permit, or are requirements that the days of receipt of an application, the the affected emissions units within the District, in acting on the application, application shall be deemed complete. stationary source shall be subject to part determines in writing are not applicable (See 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) and 70.7(a)(4)) 70 permitting requirements’’ applies to the source. In cases where the District Rule or Program Change: The District only to stationary sources that are also determines that a requirement is not revised section 11.6.1 of District Rule area sources. (See 40 CFR 70.3(c)) applicable to the source and provides a 2520 to assure that ‘‘Unless the APCO Rule or Program Change: Section 2.4 permit shield, the permit shall include requests additional information or was revised to read ‘‘For stationary the determination or a concise summary otherwise notifies the applicant of sources, which are subject to Rule 2520 of the determination.’’ incompleteness within 60 days of solely as a result of Section 2.4, only the receipt of an application, the emissions units within the stationary Issue #13 application shall be deemed complete.’’ source that are subject to the section 111 Revise Rule 2520 section 9.12 to or 112 standard or requirement shall be require that the permit contain terms Issue #6 subject to the Part 70 permitting and conditions for the trading of Revise Rule 2520 sections 11.1.4.2 requirements.’’ emissions increases and decreases to the and 11.3.1.1 and Rule 2201 5.3.1.1.1 to extent that any applicable requirement Issue #10 include notice ‘‘by any other means if provides for such trading without case necessary to assure adequate notice to Revise Rule 2520 section 8.1 to by case approval. The District may limit the affected public.’’ (See 40 CFR provide that each model general permit transfers of emission reduction credits 70.7(h)(1)) and model general permit template will in accordance with District Rules 2201 Rule or Program Change: The District be subject to public, affected state, and and 2301. (See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(10)) revised the language in sections 11.1.4.2 EPA review consistent with initial Rule or Program Change: The and 11.3.1.1 of Rule 2520 and section issuance at least once every 5 years. (See language in section 9.11 (the 5.3.1.1.1 of Rule 2201 (which has been 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(iii) and 70.7(c)(1)) corresponding section after a numbering administratively renumbered as section Rule or Program Change: Section 8.1 correction) of Rule 2520 was revised to 5.9.1.1 of Rule 2201) to include notice of Rule 2520 was revised to provide that require that the permit contain terms by any other means if necessary to each model general permit and model and conditions for the trading of assure adequate notice to the affected general permit template will be subject emissions increases and decreases to the public. to public, affected state, and EPA review extent that any applicable requirement consistent with initial issuance at least Issue #7 provides for such trading without case once every 5 years. by case approval. Revise Rule 2520’s permit issuance procedures to provide for notifying EPA Issue #11: Issue #14 and affected states in writing of any Revise Rule 2520 Section 8.1 to Revise Rule 2520 section 9.0 (permit refusal to accept all recommendations provide that any permit for a solid waste content) to include the 40 CFR for the proposed permit submitted by an incinerator unit that has a permit term § 70.6(c)(3) requirement for schedules of affected state during the public/affected of more than 5 years shall be subject to compliance for applicable requirements state review period. (See 40 CFR review, including public notice and for which the source is in compliance or 70.8(b)(2)) comment, at least once every 5 years. that will become effective during the Rule or Program Change: Language (See 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(iii) and (iv) and permit term. has been added to section 11.3.1.3 of 70.7(c)) Rule or Program Change: A new Rule 2520 requiring the District to notify Rule or Program Change: Section 8.1 section (Section 9.14) was added to Rule EPA and affected states in writing of any of Rule 2520 was revised to provide that 2520. This section includes the 40 CFR refusal to accept all recommendations any permit for a solid waste incinerator § 70.6(c)(3) requirement for schedules of for the proposed permit that an affected unit that has a permit term of more than compliance for applicable requirements state submitted during the public/ 5 years shall be subject to review, for which the source is in compliance or affected state review period. including public notice and comment, that will become effective during the at least once every 5 years. permit term. Issue #8 Either delete section 11.7.5 in Rule Issue #12 Issue #15 2520 and section 5.3.1.8.5 in Rule 2201, Revise Rule 2520 section 13.2.3 to Revise Rule 2520 to treat changes which purport to limit the grounds state that the permit shield will only made under the Prevention of upon which EPA may object to a permit apply to requirements addressed in the Significant Deterioration (PSD) to compliance with applicable permit. Section 504(f) of the Act and 40 provisions of the Act in the same requirements, or revise them to be fully CFR § 70.6(f) are both clear that the manner as ‘‘Title I modifications’’ as consistent with 40 CFR 70.8 (c). permit shield only extends to that term is defined in Rule 2520 and Rule or Program Change: The District requirements that are addressed in the Rule 2201. (See 40 CFR 70.7 and resolved this issue by revising section permit. EPA will not consider a source 70.4(b)(12)) 11.7.5 of Rule 2520 and section 5.3.1.8.5 to be shielded for failure to comply with Rule or Program Change: Sections (which has been administratively an applicable requirement if that 3.20.4.1, 3.20.5, 6.4.1.3, and 6.4.4.5 of
VerDate 11
Rule 2520 were revised to treat changes and EPA will respond by April 1, 2002 Government and Indian tribes, as made under the Prevention of to timely comments on fully approved specified by Executive Order 13175, Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs. We will publish a notice of ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with provisions of the Act in the same deficiency (NOD) when we determine Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR manner as ‘‘Title I modifications’’ as that a deficiency exists, or we will 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule that term is defined in Rule 2520 and notify the commenter in writing to also does not have Federalism Rule 2201. explain our reasons for not making a implications because it will not have finding of deficiency. A NOD will not Issue #16 substantial direct effects on the States, necessarily be limited to deficiencies on the relationship between the national Revise Rule 2520 to state that identified by citizens and may include government and the States, or on the notwithstanding permit shield any deficiencies that we have identified distribution of power and provisions, if a source that is operating through our program oversight. responsibilities among the various under a general permit or general permit levels of government, as specified in template is later determined not to Request for Public Comment qualify for the terms and conditions of EPA requests comments on the Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ that general permit or template, then the program revisions discussed in this (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The source is subject to enforcement action proposed action. Copies of the District’s rule merely proposes to approve for operation without a part 70 permit. submittal and other supporting existing requirements under state law, (See 40 CFR 70.6(d)) documentation used in developing the and does not alter the relationship or Rule or Program Change: Section proposed full approval are contained in the distribution of power and 13.2.4 was added to Rule 2520 to state docket files maintained at the EPA responsibilities between the State and that ‘‘Notwithstanding these permit Region 9 office. The docket is an the Federal government established in shield provisions, if a source that is organized and complete file of all the the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule operating under a general permit or information submitted to, or otherwise also is not subject to Executive Order general permit template is later considered by, EPA in the development 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from determined not to qualify for the terms of this proposed full approval. The Environmental Health Risks and Safety and conditions of that general permit or primary purposes of the docket are: (1) Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or template, then the source is subject to To allow interested parties a means to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions enforcement action for operation identify and locate documents so that Concerning Regulations That without a part 70 permit.’’ they can effectively participate in the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Summary: As noted earlier, EPA is approval process, and (2) to serve as the Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May proposing to fully approve San record in case of judicial review. EPA 22, 2001), because it is not a Joaquin’s revised operating permit will consider any comments received in significantly regulatory action under program based on the revisions writing by November 19, 2001. Executive Order 12866. This action will submitted to EPA on July 3, 2001. Administrative Requirements not impose any collection of information subject to the provisions of Are There Other Issues With the Under Executive Order 12866, Program? the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 3501 et seq., other than those previously On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this approved and assigned OMB control rulemaking that extended the interim proposed action is not a ‘‘significant number 2060–0243. For additional approval period of 86 operating permits regulatory action’’ and therefore is not information concerning these programs until December 1, 2001. (65 subject to review by the Office of requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An FR 32035) The action was subsequently Management and Budget. Under the agency may not conduct or sponsor, and challenged by the Sierra Club and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 a person is not required to respond to, New York Public Interest Research et seq.) the Administrator certifies that a collection of information unless it this proposed rule will not have a Group (NYPIRG). In settling the displays a currently valid OMB control significant economic impact on a litigation, EPA agreed to publish a number. notice in the Federal Register that substantial number of small entities would alert the public that they may because it merely approves state law as In reviewing State operating permit identify and bring to EPA’s attention meeting federal requirements and programs submitted pursuant to Title V alleged programmatic and/or imposes no additional requirements of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve implementation deficiencies in Title V beyond those imposed by state law. This State programs provided that they meet programs and that EPA would respond rule does not contain any unfunded the requirements of the Clean Air Act to their allegations within specified time mandates and does not significantly or and EPA’s regulations codified at 40 periods if the comments were made uniquely affect small governments, as CFR part 70. In this context, in the within 90 days of publication of the described in the Unfunded Mandates absence of a prior existing requirement Federal Register notice. Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) for the State to use voluntary consensus EPA received a comment letter from because it proposes to approve pre- standards (VCS), EPA has no authority one person on what they believe to be existing requirements under state law to disapprove a State operating permit deficiencies with respect to Title V and does not impose any additional program for failure to use VCS. It would programs in California. EPA takes no enforceable duties beyond that required thus be inconsistent with applicable law action on those comments in today’s by state law. This rule also does not for EPA, when it reviews an operating action and will respond to them by have tribal implications because it will permit program, to use VCS in place of December 1, 2001. As stated in the not have a substantial direct effect on a State program that otherwise satisfies Federal Register notice published on one or more Indian tribes, on the the provisions of the Clean Air Act. December 11, 2000, (65 FR 77376) EPA relationship between the Federal Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) will respond by December 1, 2001 to Government and Indian tribes, or on the of the National Technology Transfer and timely public comments on programs distribution of power and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. that have obtained interim approval; responsibilities between the Federal 272 note) do not apply.
VerDate 11
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 also see copies of the submitted Title V sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NOX), Environmental protection, program at the following locations: or particulate matter (PM10); those that Administrative practice and procedure, California Air Resources Board, emit 10 tons per year or more of any Air pollution control, Intergovernmental Stationary Source Division, Rule single hazardous air pollutant (HAP) relations, Operating permits, Reporting Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, listed under the CAA; or those that emit and recordkeeping requirements. Sacramento, CA 95814. Santa Barbara 25 tons per year or more of a County Air Pollution Control District: combination of HAPs. In areas that are Dated: October 11, 2001. 26 Castilian Drive B–23, Goleta, CA not meeting the National Ambient Air Laura Yoshii, 93117. Quality Standards for ozone, carbon Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. You may also review the District rules monoxide, or particulate matter, major [FR Doc. 01–26409 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] by retrieving them from the California sources are defined by the gravity of the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Air Resources Board (ARB) website. If non-attainment classification. For you review rules on the website be sure example, in ozone non-attainment areas the adoption date on the electronic classified as ‘‘serious,’’ major sources ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION version matches that of the rule for include those with the potential of AGENCY which EPA proposes approval. The emitting 50 tons per year or more of location of the District rules is at volatile organic compounds or nitrogen 40 CFR Part 70 http://arbis.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ven/ oxides. [CA048–OPP; FRL–7087–7] cur.htm. What Is Being Addressed in This Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Document? of Operating Permit Program; Santa Robert Baker, EPA Region IX, at (415) Where an operating permit program Barbara County Air Pollution Control 744–1258 ([email protected]). substantially, but not fully, met the District SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This criteria outlined in the implementing section provides additional information regulations codified at 40 Code of AGENCY: Environmental Protection by addressing the following questions: Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA Agency (EPA). What is the operating permit program? granted interim approval contingent on ACTION: Proposed rule. What is being addressed in this document? the state revising its program to correct the deficiencies. Because the District’s SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve Are there other issues with the program? the operating permit program of the What are the program changes that EPA is operating permit program substantially, proposing to approve? but not fully, met the requirements of Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control What is involved in this proposed action? District (‘‘Santa Barbara’’ or ‘‘District’’). part 70, EPA granted interim approval to The District operating permit program What Is the Operating Permit Program? the District’s program on November 1, 1995. This Federal Register notice was submitted in response to the The Clean Air Act Amendments of describes the changes that the District’s directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act 1990 required all state and local has made to its operating permit (CAA) Amendments that permitting permitting authorities to develop program (Rules 1301, 1303, 1304 and authorities develop, and submit to EPA, operating permit programs that met 370) since interim approval was programs for issuing operating permits certain federal criteria. In implementing granted. to all major stationary sources and to the operating permit programs, the certain other sources within the permitting authorities require certain Are There Other Issues With the permitting authorities’ jurisdictions. sources of air pollution to obtain Program? EPA granted interim approval to the permits that contain all applicable On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a Santa Barbara operating permit program requirements under the Clean Air Act rulemaking that extended the interim on November 1, 1995 but listed certain (CAA). The focus of the operating approval period of 86 operating permits deficiencies in the program preventing permit program is to improve programs until December 1, 2001 (65 FR full approval. Santa Barbara has revised enforcement by issuing each source a 32035). The action was subsequently its program to correct the deficiencies of permit that consolidates all of the challenged by the Sierra Club and the the interim approval and this action applicable CAA requirements into a New York Public Interest Research proposes full approval of those federally enforceable document. By Group (NYPIRG). In settling the revisions. The District has also made consolidating all of the applicable litigation, EPA agreed to publish a other revisions to its program since requirements for a facility, the source, notice in the Federal Register that interim approval was granted and EPA the public, and the permitting would alert the public that they may is also proposing to approve those authorities can more easily determine identify and bring to EPA’s attention revisions in this action. what CAA requirements apply and how alleged programmatic and/or DATES: Written comments must be compliance with those requirements is implementation deficiencies in Title V received by November 19, 2001. determined. programs and that EPA would respond ADDRESSES: Written comments on this Sources required to obtain an to their allegations within specified time action should be addressed to Gerardo operating permit under this program periods if the comments were made Rios, Acting Chief, Permits Office, Air include ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution within 90 days of publication of the Division (AIR–3), EPA Region IX, 75 and certain other sources specified in Federal Register notice. Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, the CAA or in EPA’s implementing EPA received a comment letter from California 94105. You can inspect regulations. For example, all sources one organization on what they believe to copies of the District’s submittals, and regulated under the acid rain program, be deficiencies with respect to Title V other supporting documentation regardless of size, must obtain permits. programs in California. EPA takes no relevant to this action, during normal Examples of major sources include action on those comments in today’s business hours at Air Division, EPA those that have the potential to emit 100 action and will respond to them by Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San tons per year or more of volatile organic December 1, 2001. As stated in the Francisco, California 94105. You may compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, Federal Register notice published on
VerDate 11
December 11, 2000 (65 FR 77376), EPA and that no further revision of the rule levels, or production rate shall be listed will respond by December 1, 2001 to is required. in the permit application. timely public comments on programs Issue b. Permit Content: Rule Issue d. Definition of Administrative that have obtained interim approval; 1303.D.1.f., permit content Permit Amendment: The District had to and EPA will respond by April 1, 2002 requirements, had to be revised to revise Rule 1301, definition of to timely comments on fully approved provide adequate specificity with regard ‘‘Administrative Permit Amendment’’ programs. We will publish a notice of to the applicable recordkeeping Part 6. Santa Barbara had to define by deficiency (NOD) when we determine requirements. See § 70.6(a)(3)(ii)(A) and rule what ‘‘other changes’’ will be that a deficiency exists, or we will (B). determined to be administrative permit notify the commentor in writing to District’s response to Issue b. The amendments. In order for ‘‘other explain our reasons for not making a District incorporated all of the above changes’’ to qualify as an administrative finding of deficiency. A NOD will not requirements in Rule 1303.D.1.f. permit amendment, the specific changes necessarily be limited to deficiencies Issue c. Insignificant Activities: The must be approved by the Administrator identified by citizens and may include District had to provide a demonstration as part of the part 70 program. See any deficiencies that we have identified that activities that are exempt from § 70.7(d)(1)(iv). through our program oversight. permitting under Rule XIII, (pursuant to District’s response to Issue d. The Rule 202, the District’s permit District deleted part 6 of the definition What Are the Program Changes That of ‘‘Administrative Permit Amendment’’ EPA Is Proposing To Approve? exemption list) are truly insignificant and are not likely to be subject to an which would have allowed the Control As discussed above, EPA granted final applicable requirement. Alternatively, Officer and the USEPA to incorporate interim approval on November 1, 1995 Rule XIII may restrict the exemptions to ‘‘other changes’’ into a permit as an (60 FR 55460) to the District’s title V activities that are not likely to be subject Administrative Permit Amendment. program. As stipulated in that to an applicable requirement and emit Issue e. Operational Flexibility rulemaking, full approval of the District less than District-established emission Notification: Rule 1304.E.2 and E.3 had operating permit program was made levels. The District would have to to be revised to incorporate a contingent upon satisfaction of certain establish separate emission levels for requirement that sources notify EPA of conditions. In response to EPA’s interim HAP and for other regulated pollutants changes made under the operational approval action, the District revised its and demonstrate that these emission flexibility provisions. See § 70.4(b)(12). operating permit program (Rules 1301, levels are insignificant compared to the District’s response to Issue e. The 1303, 1304 and 370) to remove the level of emissions from and type of District added to the second paragraph deficiencies identified by EPA. The units that are required to be permitted of 1303.E.2: ‘‘The owner or operator District made its revised rule available or subject to applicable requirements. shall also provide written notification to to public review and comments. It also See § 70.4(b)(2). USEPA of emission trades made, a held a workshop on September 27, Additionally, Rule XIII had to be minimum of seven days in advance.’’ The District also added to the first 2000. On January 18, 2001, the District revised to require that insignificant paragraph of 1303.E.3: ‘‘The owner or adopted the revisions. The revised activities that are exempted because of operator shall also provide written program was submitted to EPA on April size or production rate be listed in the notification to USEPA, a minimum of 5, 2001. We have included below a permit application. See § 70.5(c). See seven days in advance, of express discussion of each of the interim 1302.D.1.f., Definition of Insignificant approval deficiencies, the conditions for permit conditions contravened.’’ Activities. Issue f. Public Notification correction, and a summary of how the Additionally, Rule 1301 definition of Requirement: The District had to revise District has corrected the deficiency. ‘‘Insignificant Activities’’ had to be Rule 1304.D.6 to include notice ‘‘by The Technical Support Document (TSD) revised deleting the last sentence, which other means if necessary to assure for this action includes the District’s contradicts the requirement that adequate notice to the affected public.’’ submittal and more details of the applications may not omit information See § 70.7(h)(1). revisions made. In the discussion here, needed to determine the applicability District’s response to Issue f. The each of the EPA cited deficiencies of, or to impose, any applicable District added to the first paragraph of identified in the July 10, 1995 Federal requirement, or to evaluate the fee 1304.D.6: ‘‘Notice shall be provided by Register notice (see 59 FR 60104) that amount required. See § 70.5(c). other means if necessary to assure proposed the interim approval is listed District’s response to Issue c. The adequate notice to the affected public.’’ followed by a brief description of the District deleted the current definition of Issue g. Significant Changes to District’s revisions to its operating ‘‘Insignificant Activities’’ and added: Monitoring Requirements: Rule 1301, permit program to remove these ‘‘Insignificant emission levels’’ means definition of ‘‘Minor Permit deficiencies. the emission levels from any emission Modification’’ part (4) had to be revised Changes Required for Full Program unit, that for regulated air pollutants to read ‘‘The modification does not Approval excluding Hazardous Air Pollutants, are involve any relaxation of any existing less than 2 tons per year potential to reporting or recordkeeping requirements Issue a. Variances: Rule 1305.G(1) had emit, and less than 0.5 tons per year in the permit, or any significant changes to be revised to read ‘‘The terms and potential to emit of any Hazardous Air to existing monitoring requirements in conditions of any variance or abatement Pollutants regulated under Section the permit.’’ See §§ 70.7(e)(2)(i)(2) and order that would prescribe a compliance 112(g) of the Clean Air Act. 70.7(e)(4)(i). schedule shall be incorporated into the The District also deleted the last District’s response to Issue g. The permit as a compliance schedule, to the sentence in the definition of District revised the definition of ‘‘Minor extent required by Part 70 rules.’’ ‘‘Insignificant Activities’’ and added: Permit Modification’’ part 4 of 1301.C to District’s Response to Issue a. After ‘‘Insignificant Activities mean activities add the exact language cited above. reviewing District Rule 1305.G(1) EPA whose emissions do not exceed Issue h. Form of Applicable has determined that the rule already insignificant emission levels’’. Activities Requirement: The District rule did not incorporates all of the above language exempted because of size, emission require the identification of any
VerDate 11
difference in form from the applicable definition of ‘‘major source’’ under part corrective actions taken to the District requirement upon which the term or 70 would be subject to the requirement within two (2) working days of the condition is based. Regulation XIII had to obtain a part 70 permit regardless of emergency. to be revised to include this the unit’s applicability under Section Agricultural Operations requirement. This requirement is 129. included in the Standard Permit Format. District’s response to issue k. The One of EPA’s conditions for full title See § 70.6(a)(1)(i). District deleted Rule 1301.B.4. which V program approval was the California District’s response to Issue h. The exempted solid waste incineration units Legislature’s revision of the Health and District added text to Rule 1303.D.1. to from the operating permit program. Safety Code to eliminate the provision require that each Part 70 permit include Issue l. Recordkeeping for off-permit that exempts ‘‘any equipment used in elements that describe the origin of and changes: Santa Barbara’s rule did not agricultural operations in the growing of authority for each permit term and require that the permittee keep records crops or the raising of fowl or animals’’ condition and identify any difference in describing off-permit changes and the from the requirement to obtain a permit. form as compared to the applicable emissions resulting from these changes. See California Health and Safety Code requirement upon which the term or Santa Barbara’s rule had to be revised to section 42310(e). Even though the local condition is based. be consistent with the requirements of Districts have, in many cases, removed Issue i. Applicable Requirement § 70.4(b)(14)(iv). the title V exemption for agricultural Trading: The District had to add District’s response to issue l. Under sources from their own rules, the Health emissions trading provisions to Rule the District’s rules, a source is required and Safety Code has not been revised to 1301 consistent with § 70.6(a)(10), to obtain an Authority to Construct or eliminate this provision. which require that trading must be minor modification for all changes at a In evaluating the impact of the Health allowed where an applicable Part 70 source. The application for the and Safety Code exemption, EPA requirement provides for trading Authority to Construct describes the believes there are a couple of key factors increases and decreases without a case- changes and the emissions resulting to consider. First, many post-harvest by-case approval. from the change. activities are not covered by the District’s response to Issue i. The Issue m. Definition of Title I exemption and, thus, are still subject to District revised Rule 1301.D.1.s. and Modifications and Significant Part 70 title V permitting. For example, added all of the required provisions Permit Modifications: Rule 1301 defined according to the California Air consistent with § 70.6(a)(10). ‘‘modification’’ to include all Resources Board (CARB), the Health and Issue j. Prompt Reporting of modifications under 40 CFR part 60. Safety Code exemption does not include Deviations: Santa Barbara had not However, the definitions of ‘‘title I (or activities such as milling and crushing, defined ‘‘prompt’’ in their program with major) modification’’ and ‘‘significant or canning or cotton ginning operations. respect to reporting of all deviations. part 70 permit modification’’ did not Activities such as these are subject to Part 70 of the operating permits clearly define all modifications under review under the State’s title V regulations requires prompt reporting of part 60 as title I modifications and did programs. See letter from Michael P. deviations from the permit not clearly ensure that they will be Kenny, Executive Officer, California Air requirements. Section 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B) treated as significant permit Resources Board, to Jack Broadbent, requires the permitting authority to modifications. In order to receive full Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region define prompt in relation to the degree approval, Santa Barbara had to clarify 9, dated September 19, 2001. In and type of deviation likely to occur and the definitions of ‘‘title I (or major) addition, since the granting of interim the applicable requirements. Santa modification’’ and ‘‘significant part 70 approval, the EPA has discovered that, Barbara’s requirement for reporting of permit modification’’ to include all in general, there is not a reliable or deviations was limited to deviations due modifications under 40 CFR part 60. complete inventory of emissions to emergency upset conditions. Under District response to issue m. The associated with agricultural operations part 70, deviations include, but are not District revised the definitions of in California that are subject to the limited to, upset conditions. In our final ‘‘Significant Part 70 Permit exemption. Although further research interim approval, we provided Santa Modification’’ and ‘‘Title I (or Major) on this issue is needed, many sources Barbara three options to correct this Modification’’ in Rule 1301.C. by adding with activities covered by the deficiency. Santa Barbara had to revise clarifing language that these exemption may not have emission levels rule 1303.D.1.g to be consistent with the modifications include all modifications that would subject them to title V, and more inclusive part 70 requirement. under 40 CFR Part 60. the State and/or individual Districts District’s response to issue j. The Issue n. Reporting of an Emergency: In may be able to demonstrate that none of District revised Rules 1303.D.1.g. and h. order to obtain an affirmative defense in the sources that are exempt under the to require the reporting of all permit an emergency, Santa Barbara required in State law are subject to title V. deviations within 7 days after discovery Rule 1303.F.d., among other things, that Based, in part, on these factors, EPA of the violation. the permittee submit a description of has tentatively concluded that requiring Issue k. Exemptions: The District had the emergency within 4 days of the the immediate commencement of title V to delete Rule 1301.B.4. Section 70.3(b) emergency. Santa Barbara had to revise permitting of the limited types of requires that major sources, affected 1303.F.d. to require submittal of notice agricultural activities presently subject sources (acid rain sources), and solid of emergency to the permitting authority to the exemption, without a better waste incinerators regulated pursuant to within 2 working days of the time when understanding of the sources and their section 129(e) of the CAA may not be emission limitations were exceeded due emissions, would not be an appropriate exempted from the program. Although to the emergency, to be consistent with utilization of limited local, state and Section 129(g)(1)(3) of the CAA exempts § 70.6(g)(3)(iv) and in order to maintain federal resources. As a result, despite solid waste incineration units subject to the affirmative defense of emergency. the State of California’s failure to Section 3005 of the Solid Waste District response to issue n. The eliminate the agricultural permitting Disposal Act, part 70 does not exempt District revised Rule 1303.F.4. to require exemption, EPA is proposing to grant these units. Any solid waste the permittee to submit a description of full approval to local Air District incineration unit that meets the the emergency and all mitigating and operating permit programs and allow a
VerDate 11
deferral of title V permitting of Rule 1301.C. and Rule 370 imposes no additional requirements agricultural operations involved in the The District revised the definitions of beyond those imposed by state law. This growing of crops or the raising of fowl ‘‘Part 70 Source’’ and ‘‘Major Source of rule does not contain any unfunded or animals for a further brief period, not Regulated Air Pollutants (excluding mandates and does not significantly or to exceed three years. During the Hazardous Air Pollutants)’’ to reflect the uniquely affect small governments, as deferral period, we expect to develop redesignation of attainment status. described in the Unfunded Mandates the program infrastructure and Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) experience necessary for effective Rule 1303.D.1.c.i. and Rule because it proposes to approve pre- 1304.D.1.a.v. implementation of the title V permitting existing requirements under state law program to this limited category of The District revised its rules to allow and does not impose any additional sources. for permit terms of less than five years. enforceable duties beyond that required by state law. This rule also does not What Is Involved in This Proposed EPA believes it is appropriate to defer have tribal implications because it will Action? permitting for this limited category of not have a substantial direct effect on agricultural sources because the Today, we are proposing to fully one or more Indian tribes, on the currently available techniques for approve the District’s revised operating relationship between the Federal determining emissions inventories and permit program (Rules 1301, 1303, 1304 Government and Indian tribes, or on the for monitoring emissions (e.g., from and 370). We have determined that the distribution of power and irrigation pumps and feeding revisions made by the District removes responsibilities between the Federal operations) are problematic and will be the deficiencies identified by us in Government and Indian tribes, as dramatically enhanced by several efforts 1995. In addition, the District has made specified by Executive Order 13175, currently being undertaken with the other changes to its operating permit ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with cooperation and participation of the program that are unrelated to the Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR operators and agricultural organizations, changes made to correct interim 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule as well as EPA, other Federal agencies, approval deficiencies. EPA is also also does not have Federalism and the State and local air pollution proposing to approve these changes. We implications because it will not have agencies. For example, the National will make our final decision on our substantial direct effects on the States, Academy of Sciences is undertaking a proposal after considering public on the relationship between the national study addressing emissions from animal comments submitted during the 30-day government and the States, or on the feeding operations. Their report is due period from this publication date. distribution of power and next year. In addition, EPA’s Office of Request for Public Comment responsibilities among the various Air and Radiation is working with the levels of government, as specified in EPA requests comments on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to better Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ program revisions discussed in this address the impact of agricultural (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The proposed action. Copies of the rule merely proposes to approve operations on air quality. We consider California submittals and other existing requirements under state law, the effort to evaluate the existing supporting documentation used in and does not alter the relationship or science, improve on assessment tools, developing the proposed full approval collect additional data, remove any are contained in docket files maintained the distribution of power and remaining legal obstacles, and issue any at the EPA Region 9 office. The docket responsibilities between the State and necessary guidance within the three is an organized and complete file of all the Federal government established in year deferral time frame to be ambitious. the information submitted to, or the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule We welcome comments on other areas otherwise considered by, EPA in the also is not subject to Executive Order that might also warrant study, as well as development of this proposed full 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from ways that this work might be done more approval. The primary purposes of the Environmental Health Risks and Safety quickly. docket are: (1) To allow interested Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions During the interim deferral period, parties a means to identify and locate Concerning Regulations That EPA will continue to work with the documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval process, and Significantly Affect Energy Supply, agricultural industry and our state and Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May federal regulatory partners to pursue, (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review. EPA will consider any 22, 2001), because it is not a wherever possible, voluntary emission significantly regulatory action under reduction strategies. At the end of this comments received in writing by November 19, 2001. Executive Order 12866. This action will period, EPA will, taking into not impose any collection of consideration the results of these Administrative Requirements information subject to the provisions of studies, make a determination as to how Under Executive Order 12866, the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. the title V operating permit program ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 3501 et seq., other than those previously will be implemented for any potential FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this approved and assigned OMB control major agricultural stationary sources. proposed action is not a ‘‘significant number 2060–0243. For additional Other Changes regulatory action’’ and therefore is not information concerning these subject to review by the Office of requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An In addition to addressing interim Management and Budget. Under the agency may not conduct or sponsor, and approval deficiencies, the District has Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 a person is not required to respond to, also adopted additional changes to its et seq.) the Administrator certifies that a collection of information unless it operating permit program. EPA has this proposed rule will not have a displays a currently valid OMB control reviewed these changes and has significant economic impact on a number. determined that they are approvable. substantial number of small entities In reviewing State operating permit We have listed these other changes because it merely approves state law as programs submitted pursuant to Title V below. meeting federal requirements and of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve
VerDate 11
State programs provided that they meet other changes that were made by the applicable CAA requirements into a the requirements of the Clean Air Act District but were not required to correct federally enforceable document. By and EPA’s regulations codified at 40 an interim approval issue. consolidating all of the applicable CFR part 70. In this context, in the DATES: Written comments must be requirements for a facility, the source, absence of a prior existing requirement received by November 19, 2001. the public, and the permitting for the State to use voluntary consensus ADDRESSES: Written comments on this authorities can more easily determine standards (VCS), EPA has no authority action should be addressed to Gerardo what CAA requirements apply and how to disapprove a State operating permit Rios, Acting Chief, Permits Office, Air compliance with those requirements is program for failure to use VCS. It would Division (AIR–3), EPA Region IX, 75 determined. thus be inconsistent with applicable law Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, Sources required to obtain an for EPA, when it reviews an operating California, 94105. You can inspect operating permit under this program permit program , to use VCS in place of copies of the District’s submittals, and include ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution a State program that otherwise satisfies other supporting documentation and certain other sources specified in the provisions of the Clean Air Act. relevant to this action, during normal the CAA or in EPA’s implementing Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) business hours at Air Division, EPA regulations. For example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, of the National Technology Transfer and Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San regardless of size, must obtain permits. Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Francisco, California, 94105. You may Examples of major sources include 272 note) do not apply. also see copies of the submitted Title V those that have the potential to emit 100 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 program at the following locations: • California Air Resources Board, tons per year or more of volatile organic Environmental protection, Stationary Source Division, Rule compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, Administrative practice and procedure, Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides ( NOX), Air pollution control, Intergovernmental or particulate matter (PM10 ); those that relations, Operating permits, Reporting Sacramento, CA 95814. • San Luis Obispo County Air emit 10 tons per year or more of any and recordkeeping requirements. Pollution Control District: 3433 Roberto single hazardous air pollutant (HAP) Dated: October 11, 2001. Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. listed under the CAA; or those that emit Laura Yoshii, You may review all the District rules 25 tons per year or more of a Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. by retrieving them from the California combination of HAPs. In areas that are [FR Doc. 01–26410 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Air Resources Board (ARB) Web site. not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P The location of the District rules on the ARB Web site is http://arbis.arb.ca.gov/ carbon monoxide, or particulate matter, drdb/slo/cur.htm. major sources are defined by the gravity ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of the non-attainment classification. AGENCY Gerardo Rios, EPA Region IX, at (415) San Luis Obispo County is classified 744–1259 ([email protected]) or as an attainment area for all NAAQS. 40 CFR Part 70 Nahid Zoueshtiagh at (415) 744–1261. B. What Is Being Addressed in This [CA 044–OPP; FRL–7087–8] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Document? Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ Where an operating permit program Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. substantially, but not fully, met the of Operating Permit Program; San Luis criteria outlined in the implementing Obispo County Air Pollution Control Table of Contents regulations codified at 40 Code of District I. District’s Operating Permit Program A. What Is the Operating Permit Program? Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA AGENCY: Environmental Protection B. What Is Being Addressed in this granted interim approval contingent on Agency (EPA). Document? the State revising its program to correct ACTION: Proposed rule. C. Are There Other Issues with the any deficiencies. Because the District’s Program? operating permit program substantially, SUMMARY: EPA proposes to fully D. What Are the Program Changes That but not fully, met the requirements of approve the operating permit program of EPA Is Proposing to Approve? part 70, EPA granted interim approval to the San Luis Obispo County Air E. What Is Involved in this Action? II. Request For Public Comment the District’s program on November 1, Pollution Control District (District). The 1995 (60 FR 55460). program was submitted in response to I. District’s Operating Permit Program This Federal Register notice describes the directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act the changes that the District has made A. What Is the Operating Permit (CAA) Amendments that permitting to its Rule 216 (District’s Operating Program? authorities develop, and submit to EPA, Permit Program) since interim approval programs for issuing operating permits Title V of the Clean Air Act was granted. The District also revised its to all major stationary sources and to Amendments of 1990 required all State Rule 201 (Equipment Not Requiring a certain other sources within the and local permitting authorities to Permit) to correct one of the deficiency permitting authorities’ jurisdiction. develop operating permit programs that issues. Our notice also describes the On November 1, 1995, EPA granted met certain federal criteria. In change to this rule. interim approval to the District’s implementing the operating permit operating permit program (60 FR programs, the permitting authorities C. Are There Other Issues With the 55460). The District has revised its require certain sources of air pollution Program? operating permit program (Rule 216) to to obtain permits that contain all On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a satisfy the conditions of the interim applicable requirements under the rulemaking that extended the interim approval and this action proposes Clean Air Act (CAA). One goal of the approval period of 86 operating permits approval of these revisions made since operating permit program is to improve programs until December 1, 2001, (65 the interim approval was granted. In compliance by issuing each source a FR 32035). The action was subsequently addition, EPA proposes to approve two permit that consolidates all of the challenged by the Sierra Club and the
VerDate 11
New York Public Interest Research 60 FR 45685 and 60 FR 55460)), our Issue 4. San Luis Obispo County was Group (NYPIRG). In settling the conditions for correction, followed by a required revise Rule 216 H.1.a.4. and litigation, EPA agreed to publish a summary of how the District has L.1.e. to further limit the types of notice in the Federal Register that corrected the deficiency. The Technical significant permit modifications that would alert the public that they may Support Document (TSD) for this action may be operated prior to receiving a identify and bring to EPA’s attention includes the District’s submittal and final part 70 permit revision to only alleged programmatic and/or details on the revisions made. those modifications that are subject to implementation deficiencies in Title V Issue 1. In our 1995 action, we section 112(g) or required to have a programs and that EPA would respond identified two problematic items related permit under Title I, parts C and D of to their allegations within specified time to dealing with insignificant activities in the CAA and that are not otherwise periods if the comments were made the District’s Operating Permits prohibited by an existing part 70 permit. within 90 days of publication of the Program. These identified items were in (Reference 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii)). Federal Register notice. the District’s Rule 201 (Equipment not District’s Response to Issue 4. The EPA received a letter from one Requiring a Permit). The District was District made several changes to correct organization who commented on what required to remove any activities from the deficiency issues. Several parts of they believe to be deficiencies with the District’s list of insignificant Section H of Rule 216 were revised to respect to Title V programs in activities that are subject to a unit- clarify the timing for implementing California. We are not taking any actions specific applicable requirement. various types of modification requests. on those comments in today’s action (Reference 40 CFR 70.4(b)(2) and These changes are as follows. and will respond to them by December 70.5(c)). • Significant Part 70 Permit Actions— 1, 2001. As stated in the Federal District’s Response to Issue 1. The APCO must take final action to approve Register notice published on December District corrected this deficiency by the application before the source may be 11, 2000, (65 FR 77376) EPA will amending its Rule 201.M to require a operated pursuant to the modification respond by December 1, 2001 to timely permit for any comfort air conditioning (Rule 216.H.1.a.4). public comments on programs that have and refrigerant unit that contains more • Minor Part 70 Permit obtained interim approval; and EPA will than 50 pounds of refrigerant. The Modifications—APCO must take final respond by April 1, 2002 to timely District also added a new section to action to approve the application before comments on fully approved programs. Rule 201.A about agricultural the source may be operated pursuant to We will publish a notice of deficiency equipment. The revised rule now states the modification (Rule 216.H.3.a). (NOD) when we determine that a that a Federal Title V Permit shall • Non-Federal Minor Changes—a deficiency exists, or we will notify the always be required for any source that source requesting a non-federal minor commenter in writing to explain our is subject to District Rule 216, Federal change to its Part 70 Permit must submit reasons for not making a finding of Part 70 Permits, including agricultural an application for a modified Part 70 deficiency. A NOD will not necessarily sources as allowed for in the California Permit to the District, with a copy to the be limited to deficiencies identified by Health and Safety Code. With this EPA (Rule 216.H.4.a). citizens and may include any addition, the District will not need to In addition Section L was revised as deficiencies that we have identified revise its operating permit rule should follows: through our program oversight. California law change on exempting • Rule 216.L requires that when a agricultural equipment. complete application to modify a Part D. What Are the Program Changes That Issue 2. The District was required to 70 Permit has been submitted, the EPA Is Proposing To Approve? revise the definitions of ‘‘Minor Part 70 stationary source must be operated in As discussed above, EPA granted final Permit Modification’’ in Rule 216 C.13, compliance with all applicable interim approval on November 1, 1995 to ensure that significant changes to conditions on its Part 70 Permit, except (60 FR 55460) to the San Luis Obispo existing monitoring permit terms or as allowed under ‘‘Administrative Part County Air Pollution Control District’s conditions, rather than just relaxations 70 Permit Amendment’’, and all (‘‘District’’) Title V program. As of existing monitoring terms, are applicable conditions on an Authority stipulated in that rulemakings, full processed as significant permit to Construct for the modification issued approval of the District operating permit modifications. (Reference: 40 CFR pursuant to Rule 202 (Permits), and program was made contingent upon 70.7(e)(4)). Rule 218 (Federal Requirements for satisfaction of certain conditions. In District’s Response to Issue 2. The Hazardous Air Pollutants), until the Part response to EPA’s interim approval District revised Rule 216.C.15.d. to state 70 Permit is revised or the modification action, the District made major revisions that minor modifications do not involve is denied. to its Rule 216 (Operating Permit any significant change to any existing • Section 216.L.1.e. clarifies the Program), and some revisions to its Rule federally-enforceable monitoring term or requirements by stating that the 201 (Equipment not Requiring a Permit) condition or involve any relaxation of protection granted by Subsections L.1.a to remove the deficiencies identified by reporting or recordkeeping requirements through c for a significant Part 70 Permit EPA. The District made its revised rule in the Part 70 Permit. modification shall not be applicable available to public review and Issue 3. The District was required to where a federally-enforceable condition comment, and held a hearing on its revise Rule 216 J.1.b. to include notice of an existing Part 70 Permit would proposed action on March 28, 2001. ‘‘by other means if necessary to assure prohibit the modification of a source After adoption on March 28, 2001, these adequate notice to the affected corresponding to the significant Part 70 revised rules were submitted to EPA via public.’’(Reference 40 CFR 70.7(h)(1)). Permit modification. In this case, the the California Air Resources Board District’s Response to Issue 3. The source shall obtain such modification to (CARB) on May 18, 2001. We have District added 216.J.1.b.3 to address the source’s Part 70 Permit prior to included below a discussion of each EPA’s concerns. The revised rule now commencing operation of the modified interim approval deficiency issue (as requires that any notice of a preliminary portion of the source. enumerated and explained in our 1995 decision shall be provided by other Issue 5. The District was required to proposed and final actions on the means if necessary to assure adequate revise Rule 216 to establish a binding District’s operating permits program (see notice to the affected public. requirement that the Part 70 Permit
VerDate 11
Format will be included in all part 70 Rule 216 to incorporate affected State a non-federal minor change can be permits or revise Rule 216 to fully notice procedures). (Reference 40 CFR made, and failing to do so is a address all part 70 permit content 70.2, 70.7(e)(2)(iii), and 70.8(b)). misdemeanor under California law and requirements within the Rule. District’s Response to Issue 6. The subject to fines and penalties. In sum, (Reference 40 CFR 70.6). District revised Rule 216.C.3 to define the District does not and will not allow District’s Response to Issue 5. The ‘‘Affected State’’ as: off-permit changes. We agree with the District significantly revised its Rule (a) Whose air quality may be affected District that the issue is moot because 216.F to ensure that each Part 70 Permit by the issuance, modification, or re- the District’s revised Rule 216 has now conforms to an EPA approved format issuance of a Part 70 permit and that is clarified its procedure for various types and includes EPA’s required elements. contiguous to the State of California; or of permit modification requests. In The revised Rule 216.F now requires (b) That is within 50 miles of the correcting our deficiency issue 4, the more specific information instead of permitted source. District has also responded to issue 8 referencing to an approved format. For The District also revised Rule Section and addressed our concerns resulting example it requires that Part 70 permit 2 of 216.J.2.b (Minor Part 70 Permit from the description of off-permit include the following elements: Modifications) and 216.J.2.c (Significant changes in the original program • Monitoring requirements that Part 70 Permit Actions) to provide that submittal. assure use of terms, test methods, units, the APCO shall provide, to the EPA and Issue 9. One of EPA’s conditions for averaging periods, and other statistical any affected State, written notification full title V program approval was the conventions consistent with the of any refusal by the District to accept California Legislature’s revision of the applicable requirement. all recommendations that an ‘‘affected’’ Health and Safety Code to eliminate the • Requirements concerning the use, State submitted for the Part 70 permit. provision that exempts ‘‘any equipment maintenance, and, where appropriate, The notice shall include the District’s used in agricultural operations in the installation of monitoring equipment or reasons for not accepting such growing of crops or the raising of fowl methods. recommendations. or animals’ from the requirement to • Detailed records of required Issue 7. The District was required to obtain a permit. See California Health monitoring information. revise the rule to limit the exemption in and Safety Code section 42310(e). Even Other revisions to Rule 216.F include: Rule 216 D.4 for solid waste though the local Districts have, in many • A new provision stating that no incineration units required to obtain a cases, removed the title V exemption for permit revision shall be required, under permit pursuant to section 3005 of the agricultural sources from their own any approved economic incentives, Solid Waste Disposal Act to those units rules, the Health and Safety Code has marketable permits, emissions trading that are not a major source. Section not been revised to eliminate this and other similar programs or processes 70.3(b) states that all major sources, provision. for changes that are provided for in the affected sources (acid rain sources), and In evaluating the impact of the Health permit. solid waste incinerators regulated and Safety Code exemption, EPA • Specifying ‘‘prompt’’ reporting pursuant to section 129(e) of the CAA believes there are a couple of key factors requirements as a verbal report as soon may not be exempted from Title V to consider. First, many post-harvest as reasonably possible, but in any case permitting. Although section 129(g)(1) activities are not covered by the within four (4) hours after the of the CAA exempts solid waste exemption and, thus, are still subject to deviation’s detection, followed by a incineration units subject to section title V permitting. For example, written report within 10 calendar days 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act according to the California Air of having corrected the deviation. from regulation under section 129, these Resources Board (CARB), the Health and • Clarify requirements for inspection units are still subject to Title V and part Safety Code exemption does not include and entry to facilities. 70 if they are also major sources. activities such as milling and crushing, In addition the District revised its (Reference: 40 CFR 70.3(a)(1)). or canning or cotton ginning operations. Rule 216.G to: District’s Response to Issue 7. The Activities such as these are subject to • Require applicants to include EPA District deleted its Rule 216.D.4, review under the State’s title V in their notification when they are therefore removing any exemptions programs. See letter from Michael P. permitted to operate under an emissions from permitting of solid waste Kenny, Executive Officer, California Air cap that allows them to trade emissions incineration units subject to Section Resources Board, to Jack Broadbent, within the emissions cap with 30 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region calendar days written notification. If the Issue 8. San Luis Obispo County was 9, dated September 19, 2001. In District objects to the emissions trade, required to revise Rule 216 H.4. to addition, since the granting of interim the source, the District, and the EPA require that the permittee keep records approval, the EPA has discovered that, shall attach each such notice to their describing non-federal minor changes in general, there is not a reliable or copy of the relevant permit. (e.g., off-permit changes) and the complete inventory of emissions • Include EPA in notification emissions resulting from these changes. associated with agricultural operations requirements under operational (Reference: 40 CFR 70.4(b)(14)(iv)). in California that are subject to the flexibility. District’s Response to Issue 8. The exemption. Although further research Issue 6. The District was required to District responded that while the on this issue is needed, many sources revise Rule 216 to define and provide District’s original program submittal with activities covered by the for giving notice to and responding to envisioned allowing off-permit non- exemption may not have emission levels comments from affected States. federal minor changes, such actions that would subject them to title V, and Alternatively, San Luis Obispo could were not allowed under the actual the State and/or individual Districts have made a commitment to: (1) Initiate program that was implemented. In fact, may be able to demonstrate that none of rule revisions upon being notified by any source subject to an applicable the sources that are exempt under the EPA of an application by a tribe for requirement in the District must first State law are subject to title V. State status, and (2) provide affected notify the District. For example, the Based, in part, on these factors, EPA State notice to tribes upon their filing District Rule 202 requires that an has tentatively concluded that requiring for State status (i.e., prior to revising application be filed and approved before the immediate commencement of title V
VerDate 11
permitting of the limited types of Other District Revisions Review (NSR) and Prevention of agricultural activities presently subject In addition to the changes necessary Significant Deterioration (PSD) 2 to the exemption, without a better to correct interim approval issues, the programs, and title V. In particular, the understanding of the sources and their District made two other changes to its memoranda reiterate the Agency’s emissions, would not be an appropriate rule that we propose to approve as part earlier requirements for practicable utilization of limited local, state and of today’s action. First, the District enforceability for purposes of effectively 3 federal resources. As a result, despite expanded Section A of its Rule 216 to limiting a source’s potential to emit. the State of California’s failure to allow the District’s program to be For example, practicable enforceability eliminate the agricultural permitting suspended during any time period in for a source-specific permit means that exemption, EPA is proposing to grant which a 40 CFR Part 71 operating the permit’s provisions must, at a full approval to local Air District permit program is being administered. minimum: (1) Be technically accurate operating permit programs and allow a The two exceptions to this are when and identify which portions of the deferral of title V permitting of EPA objects to a permit or when EPA source are subject to the limitation; (2) agricultural operations involved in the and the District agree, via a delegation specify the time period for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl agreement, to not suspend all or part of limitation (hourly, daily, monthly, and or animals for a further brief period, not the District’s rules. In the latter case, the annual limits such as rolling annual to exceed three years. During the delegation agreement would describe limits); (3) be independently enforceable deferral period, we expect to develop the terms, conditions and scope of the and describe the method to determine the program infrastructure and District’s authority for implementing compliance including appropriate experience necessary for effective Part 71. This is approvable because it monitoring, recordkeeping and implementation of the title V permitting clarifies how the District’s program will reporting; (4) be permanent; and (5) program to this limited category of be administered during time periods include a legal obligation to comply sources. where Part 71 is in place. with the limit. EPA will rely on San EPA believes it is appropriate to defer Second, the District added a statement Luis Obispo County implementing this permitting for this limited category of to its definition of potential to emit new definition in a manner that is agricultural sources because the (‘‘PTE’’) at Rule 216.C.18 to state that consistent with the court’s decisions currently available techniques for limiting conditions must be legally and and EPA policies. In addition, EPA determining emissions inventories and practicably enforceable by EPA and wants to be certain that absent federal for monitoring emissions (e.g., from citizens or by the District. The last and citizen’s enforceability, San Luis irrigation pumps and feeding paragraph of Rule 216.C.18 (previously Obispo County’s enforcement program operations) are problematic and will be Rule 216.C.6) now reads as follows: still provides sufficient incentive for dramatically enhanced by several efforts sources to comply with permit limits. The potential to emit for an emissions unit This proposed rulemaking serves as currently being undertaken with the is the maximum quantity of each air cooperation and participation of the pollutant that may be emitted by the notice to San Luis Obispo County about operators and agricultural organizations, emissions unit, based on the emissions unit’s our expectations for ensuring the permit as well as EPA, other federal agencies, physical and operational design. Physical limits they impose are enforceable as a and operational design shall include practical matter (i.e., practicably and the State and local air pollution limitations that restrict emissions, such as enforceable) and that its enforcement agencies. For example, the National hours of operation and type or amount of program will still provide sufficient Academy of Sciences is undertaking a material combusted, stored or processed, compliance incentive. In the future, if study addressing emissions from animal provided such limitations are legally and San Luis Obispo County does not feeding operations. Their report is due practicably enforceable by EPA and citizens implement the new definition next year. In addition, EPA’s Office of or by the District. consistent with our guidance, and/or Air and Radiation is working with the We propose to approve this revision U.S. Department of Agriculture to better because even though the new definition 2 See, e.g., January 22, 1996, Memorandum address the impact of agricultural is not consistent with Part 70, it is entitled, ‘‘Release of Interim Policy on Federal operations on air quality. We consider consistent with the new meaning of Enforceability of Limitations on Potential to Emit’’ the effort to evaluate the existing potential to emit at 40 CFR § 70.2 as from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS and Robert I. Van Heuvelen, Director, Office of Regulatory science, improve on assessment tools, established by a 1996 court decision. In Enforcement to EPA Regional Offices; January 31, collect additional data, remove any Clean Air Implementation Project v. 1996 paper to the Members of the Subcommittee on remaining legal obstacles, and issue any EPA, No. 96–1224 (D.C. Cir. June 28, Permit, New Source Review and Toxics Integration necessary guidance within the three from Steve Herman, OECA, and Mary Nichols, 1996), the court remanded and vacated Assistant Administrator of Air and Radiation; and year deferral time frame to be ambitious. the requirement for federal the August 27, 1996 Memorandum entitled, We welcome comments on other areas enforceability for potential to emit ‘‘Extension of January 25, 1995 Potential to Emit that might also warrant study, as well as limits under part 70. Therefore, even Transition Policy’’ from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS and Robert Van Heuvelen, Director, Office ways that this work might be done more though part 70 has not been revised, it of Regulatory Enforcement. quickly. should be read to mean, ‘‘federally 3 See, e.g., June 13, 1989 Memorandum entitled, During the interim deferral period, enforceable or legally and practicably ‘‘Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit in new EPA will continue to work with the enforceable by a state or local air Source Permitting, from Terrell F. Hunt, Associate 1 Enforcement Counsel, OECA, and John Seitz, agricultural industry and our state and pollution control agency.’’ Director, OAQPS, to EPA Regional Offices. This federal regulatory partners to pursue, EPA has issued several guidance guidance is still the most comprehensive statement wherever possible, voluntary emission memoranda that discuss how the court from EPA on this subject. Further guidance was reduction strategies. At the end of this rulings affect the definition of potential provided on January 25, 1995 in a memorandum entitled ‘‘Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit period, EPA will, taking into to emit under CAA § 112, New Source (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under Section 112 and consideration the results of these Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act),’’ from John Seitz, studies, make a determination as to how 1 See also, National Mining Association (NMA) v. Director, OAQPS and Robert I. Van Heuvelen, the title V operating permit program EPA, 59 F.3d 1351 (D.C. Cir. July 21, 1995) (Title Director, ORE to Regional Air Directors. Also please III) and Chemical Manufacturing Ass’n (CMA) v. refer to the EPA Region 7 database at http:// will be implemented for any potential EPA, No. 89–1514 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15 1995) (Title www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/policy/ major agricultural stationary sources. I). policy.htm for more information.
VerDate 11
has not established a sufficient have tribal implications because it will a State program that otherwise satisfies compliance incentive absent Federal not have a substantial direct effect on the provisions of the Clean Air Act. and citizen’s enforceability, EPA could one or more Indian tribes, on the Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) find that the District has failed to relationship between the Federal of the National Technology Transfer. administer or enforce its program and Government and Indian tribes, or on the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 may take action to notify the District of distribution of power and such a finding as authorized by 40 CFR responsibilities between the Federal Environmental protection, 70.10(b)(1). Government and Indian tribes, as Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental E. What Is Involved in This Action? specified by Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with relations, Operating permits, Reporting We have determined that the District Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR and recordkeeping requirements. has addressed our specific concerns 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule Dated: October 11, 2001. identified as interim approval issues. also does not have Federalism Therefore, we are now proposing to Laura Yoshii, implications because it will not have Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. fully approve the District’s Operating substantial direct effects on the States, [FR Doc. 01–26419 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Permit Program. We are also proposing on the relationship between the national to approve two additional changes that government and the States, or on the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P were made beyond those necessary to distribution of power and correct interim approval issues. responsibilities among the various ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION II. Request for Public Comment levels of government, as specified in AGENCY Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ EPA requests comments on the program revisions discussed in this (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The 40 CFR Part 70 rule merely proposes to approve proposed action. Copies of the District [CA 046–OPP; FRL–7087–3] submittal and other supporting existing requirements under state law, documentation used in developing the and does not alter the relationship or Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval proposed full approval are contained in the distribution of power and of Operating Permit Program; Mojave docket files maintained at the EPA responsibilities between the State and Desert Air Quality Management Region 9 office. The docket is an the Federal government established in District, CA organized and complete file of all the the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule AGENCY: information submitted to, or otherwise also is not subject to Executive Order Environmental Protection considered by, EPA in the development 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from Agency (EPA). of this proposed full approval. The Environmental Health Risks and Safety ACTION: Proposed rule. primary purposes of the docket are: (1) Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to fully To allow interested parties a means to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions approve the operating permit program of identify and locate documents so that Concerning Regulations That the Mojave Desert Air Quality they can effectively participate in the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Management District (‘‘Mojave’’ or approval process, and (2) to serve as the Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May ‘‘District’’). The Mojave operating record in case of judicial review. EPA 22, 2001), because it is not a permit program was submitted in will consider any comments received in significantly regulatory action under response to the directive in the 1990 writing by November 19, 2001. Executive Order 12866. This action will not impose any collection of Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments that Administrative Requirements information subject to the provisions of permitting authorities develop, and Under Executive Order 12866, the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. submit to EPA, programs for issuing ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 3501 et seq., other than those previously operating permits to all major stationary FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this approved and assigned OMB control sources and to certain other sources proposed action is not a ‘‘significant number 2060–0243. For additional within the permitting authorities’ regulatory action’’ and therefore is not information concerning these jurisdiction. EPA granted interim subject to review by the Office of requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An approval to the Mojave operating permit Management and Budget. Under the agency may not conduct or sponsor, and program on February 5, 1996, but listed Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 a person is not required to respond to, conditions that Mojave’s program would et seq.) the Administrator certifies that a collection of information unless it be required to meet for full approval. this proposed rule will not have a displays a currently valid OMB control Mojave has revised its program to satisfy significant economic impact on a number. the conditions of the interim approval. substantial number of small entities In reviewing State operating permit Thus, this action proposes full approval because it merely approves state law as programs submitted pursuant to Title V of the Mojave operating permit program meeting federal requirements and of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve as a result of those revisions. imposes no additional requirements State programs provided that they meet DATES: Comments on the proposed full beyond those imposed by state law. This the requirements of the Clean Air Act approval discussed in this proposed rule does not contain any unfunded and EPA’s regulations codified at 40 action must be received in writing by mandates and does not significantly or CFR part 70. In this context, in the November 19, 2001. uniquely affect small governments, as absence of a prior existing requirement ADDRESSES: Written comments on this described in the Unfunded Mandates for the State to use voluntary consensus action should be addressed to Gerardo Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) standards (VCS), EPA has no authority Rios, Acting Chief, Permits Office, Air because it proposes to approve pre- to disapprove a State operating permit Division (AIR–3), EPA Region IX, 75 existing requirements under state law program for failure to use VCS. It would Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, and does not impose any additional thus be inconsistent with applicable law California, 94105. You can inspect enforceable duties beyond that required for EPA, when it reviews an operating copies of Mojave’s submittals, and other by state law. This rule also does not permit program, to use VCS in place of supporting documentation relevant to
VerDate 11
this action, during normal business and certain other sources specified in programs until December 1, 2001. (65 hours at Air Division, EPA Region 9, 75 the CAA or in EPA’s implementing FR 32035) The action was subsequently Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, regulations. For example, all sources challenged by the Sierra Club and the California, 94105. regulated under the acid rain program, New York Public Interest Research You may also see copies of the regardless of size, must obtain permits. Group (NYPIRG). In settling the submitted operating permit program at Examples of major sources include litigation, EPA agreed to publish a the following locations: those that have the potential to emit 100 notice in the Federal Register that California Air Resources Board, tons per year or more of volatile organic would alert the public that they may Stationary Source Division, Rule compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, identify and bring to EPA’s attention Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NOX), alleged programmatic and/or Sacramento, CA 95814. or particulate matter (PM10); those that implementation deficiencies in Title V The Mojave Desert Air Quality emit 10 tons per year of any single programs and that EPA would respond Management District, 14306 Park hazardous air pollutant (specifically to their allegations within specified time Avenue, Victorville, CA 92392. listed under the CAA); or those that periods if the comments were made A electronic copy of Mojave’s emit 25 tons per year or more of a within 90 days of publication of the operating permit program rules may be combination of hazardous air pollutants Federal Register document. EPA received a comment letter from available via the Internet at http:// (HAPs). In areas that are not meeting the one person on what he believes to be www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/moj/cur.htm. National Ambient Air Quality Standards deficiencies with respect to Title V However, the online version of these for ozone, carbon monoxide, or programs in California. EPA takes no rules may be different from the version particulate matter, major sources are action on those comments in today’s submitted to EPA for approval. Readers defined by the gravity of the action and will respond to them by are cautioned to verify that the amended nonattainment classification. For example, in ozone nonattainment areas December 1, 2001. As stated in the dates of the rules listed are the same as classified as ‘‘severe,’’ major sources Federal Register document published those for the rules submitted to EPA for include those with the potential of on December 11, 2000, (65 FR 77376) approval (June 4, 2001). The official emitting 25 tons per year or more of EPA will respond by December 1, 2001 submittal is available only at the three volatile organic compounds or nitrogen to timely public comments on programs addresses listed above. oxides. Part of Mojave is located in an that have obtained interim approval; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: area designated as severe nonattainment and EPA will respond by April 1, 2002 Roger Kohn, EPA Region IX, Permits for ozone. Hence, the potential to emit to timely comments on fully approved Office (AIR–3), U.S. Environmental threshold for major sources in that area programs. We will publish a notice of Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) is 25 tons per year or more of volatile deficiency (NOD) when we determine 744–1238 or [email protected]. organic compounds or nitrogen oxides. that a deficiency exists, or we will SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notify the commenter in writing to What Is Being Addressed in This section provides additional information explain our reasons for not making a Document? by addressing the following questions: finding of deficiency. A NOD will not What is the operating permit program? Where an operating permit program necessarily be limited to deficiencies What is being addressed in this document? substantially, but not fully, met the identified by citizens and may include Are there other issues with the program? criteria outlined in the implementing any deficiencies that we have identified What are the program changes that EPA is regulations codified at 40 Code of through our program oversight. proposing to approve? Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA What is involved in this proposed action? granted interim approval contingent on What Are the Program Changes That EPA Is Proposing To Approve? What Is the Operating Permit Program? the state revising its program to correct the deficiencies. Because the Mojave As stipulated in the February 5, 1996 Title V of the CAA Amendments of operating permit program substantially, (61 FR 4217) rulemaking, full approval 1990 required all state and local but not fully, met the requirements of of the Mojave operating permit program permitting authorities to develop part 70, EPA granted interim approval to was made contingent upon satisfaction operating permit programs that met its program in a rulemaking published of the following conditions: certain federal criteria. In implementing on February 5, 1996 (61 FR 4217). The (1) Mojave must revise Rule the operating permit programs, the interim approval rulemaking 1203(G)(3)(g), which prohibits the permitting authorities require certain incorporated by reference the conditions permit shield from applying to sources of air pollution to obtain described in the July 3, 1995 (60 FR administrative permit amendments and permits that contain all applicable 34488) proposed rulemaking for interim significant permit modifications, to requirements under the CAA. The focus approval that had to be met in order for include a reference to minor permit of the operating permit program is to the Mojave program to receive full modifications as well. In accordance improve enforcement by issuing each approval. On June 4, 2001, the with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(vi), the permit source a permit that consolidates all of California Air Resources Board, on shield cannot apply to minor permit the applicable CAA requirements into a behalf of Mojave, submitted the modifications, and the rule must state federally enforceable document. By District’s revised operating permit this clearly. consolidating all of the applicable program that contains the needed The District revised Rule requirements for a facility, the source, changes for full approval identified in 1203(G)(3)(g) to prohibit the permit the public, and the permitting the interim approval rulemaking. This shield from applying to minor permit authorities can more easily determine document describes these changes. modifications as well. what CAA requirements apply and how (2) Mojave must add a provision for compliance with those requirements is Are There Other Issues With the sending the final permit to EPA, in determined. Program? accordance with 40 CFR 70.8(a)(1). Sources required to obtain an On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a Mojave’s Rule 1203(B)(1)(c) only operating permit under this program rulemaking that extended the interim provides for sending the proposed include ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution approval period of 86 operating permits permit to EPA.
VerDate 11
The District added provision activity list is truly insignificant, the crops or the raising of fowl or animals’’ 1203(B)(1)(e) to specifically require that District elected to establish significant from the requirement to obtain a permit. the final permit be provided to EPA. source emissions level cut-offs below See California Health and Safety Code (3) Mojave must adopt Rule 1210 which activities would presumably be section 42310(e). Even though the local (Acid Rain Provisions of Federal insignificant. To implement this, the Districts have, in many cases, removed Operating Permits), in accordance with District amended Rule 219(D)(1)(a) to the title V exemption for agricultural 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iv). lower the cut-off threshold from five to sources from their own rules, the Health The District adopted Rule 1210 on two tons per year of any regulated air and Safety Code has not been revised to June 28, 1995. pollutant or 10% of the applicable eliminate this provision. (4) Mojave must amend Rule threshold for determination of a major In evaluating the impact of the Health 1206(A)(1)(a)(i), which provides that no facility, whichever is less. For a and Safety Code exemption, EPA reopening is required if the effective Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP), the cut- believes there are a couple of key factors date of the additional applicable off threshold is any de minimis level to consider. First, many post-harvest requirement is later than the date on promulgated pursuant to CAA section activities are not covered by the which the permit is due to expire. 112(g), any significance level defined in exemption and, thus, are still subject to However, if the original permit or any 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i), or 0.5 ton per title V permitting. For example, of its terms and conditions are extended year of any such HAP, whichever is less. according to the California Air pursuant to 40 CFR 70.4(b)(10), the (7) Mojave must add the word ‘‘and’’ Resources Board (CARB), the Health and permit must be reopened to include a at the end of sections (b) and (c) in Rule Safety Code exemption does not include new applicable requirement, and a 219(B)(2), in order to clarify that the activities such as milling and crushing, statement must be made to this effect in four gatekeepers must all apply in order or canning or cotton ginning operations. Mojave’s rule, in accordance with 40 for equipment to be exempt from getting Activities such as these are subject to CFR. 70.7(f)(1)(i). a federal operating permit, in review under the State’s title V The District added a provision Rule accordance with 40 CFR 70.5(c). programs. See letter from Michael P. 1206(A)(1)(a)(i) to require the permit to The District made the required change Kenny, Executive Officer, California Air be reopened if a new applicable to Rule 219(B)(2). Resources Board, to Jack Broadbent, requirement’s effective date falls during (8) Mojave must add to Rule Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region an extension of a Title V permit’s 1203(D)(1)(e)(i) a reference to the 9, dated September 19, 2001. In expiration date pursuant to Rule requirement for the clear identification addition, since the granting of interim 1202(E)(2). of all deviations with respect to approval, the EPA has discovered that, (5) Mojave must clarify in Rule reporting, in accordance with 40 CFR in general, there is not a reliable or 1203(G)(3)(b) that the permit shield 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). complete inventory of emissions shall not limit liability for violations The District modified Rule associated with agricultural operations which occurred prior to or at the time 1203(D)(1)(e) to require the in California that are subject to the of the issuance of the federal operating identification of all instances of exemption. Although further research permit. This is so that violations which deviations in monitoring reports. on this issue is needed, many sources are continuing at the time of permit (9) Mojave must add to Rule with activities covered by the issuance will not be shielded from 1203(D)(1)(e)(ii) a reference to the exemption may not have emission levels potential enforcement action, in requirement to specify the probable that would subject them to title V, and accordance with 40 CFR 70.6(f)(3)(ii). cause and corrective actions or the State and/or individual Districts The District modified Rule preventive measures taken with regard may be able to demonstrate that none of 1203(G)(3)(b) to clarify that the permit to reporting a deviation, in accordance the sources that are exempt under the shield would not limit liability for with 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B). State law are subject to title V. violations which occurred prior to or The District modified Rule Based, in part, on these factors, EPA which were ongoing at the time of the 1203(D)(1)(e)(ii) to require prompt and has tentatively concluded that requiring issuance of the Federal Operating adequate reporting pursuant to the immediate commencement of title V Permit. requirements in Rule 430, which specify permitting of the limited types of (6) In accordance with 40 CFR 70.5(c), that cause and corrective actions must agricultural activities presently subject Mojave must provide a demonstration be identified in reporting deviations . to the exemption, without a better that activities that are exempt from part (10) In addition to the District-specific understanding of the sources and their 70 permitting are truly insignificant and issues arising from Mojave’s program emissions, would not be an appropriate are not likely to be subject to an submittal and locally adopted utilization of limited local, state and applicable requirement. Alternatively, regulations, California state law federal resources. As a result, despite Mojave may restrict the exemptions currently exempts agricultural the State of California’s failure to (including any director’s discretion production sources from permit eliminate the agricultural permitting provisions) to activities that are not requirements. In order for this program exemption, EPA is proposing to grant likely to be subject to an applicable to receive full approval (and avoid a full approval to local Air District requirement and emit less than District- disapproval upon the expiration of this operating permit programs and allow a established emission levels. The District interim approval), the California deferral of title V permitting of should establish separate emission Legislature must revise the Health and agricultural operations involved in the levels for HAPs and for other regulated Safety Code to eliminate the exemption growing of crops or the raising of fowl pollutants and demonstrate that these of agricultural production sources from or animals for a further brief period, not emission levels are insignificant the requirement to obtain a permit. to exceed three years. During the compared to the level of emissions from One of EPA’s conditions for full title deferral period, we expect to develop and type of units that are required to be V program approval was the California the program infrastructure and permitted or subject to applicable Legislature’s revision of the Health and experience necessary for effective requirements. Safety Code to eliminate the provision implementation of the title V permitting Instead of demonstrating that each that exempts ‘‘any equipment used in program to this limited category of activity on Mojave’s insignificant agricultural operations in the growing of sources.
VerDate 11
EPA believes it is appropriate to defer development of this proposed full Environmental Health Risks and Safety permitting for this limited category of approval. The primary purposes of the Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or agricultural sources because the docket are: (1) To allow interested Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions currently available techniques for parties a means to identify and locate Concerning Regulations That determining emissions inventories and documents so that they can effectively Significantly Affect Energy Supply, for monitoring emissions (e.g., from participate in the approval process, and Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May irrigation pumps and feeding (2) to serve as the record in case of 22, 2001), because it is not a operations) are problematic and will be judicial review. EPA will consider any significantly regulatory action under dramatically enhanced by several efforts comments received in writing by Executive Order 12866. This action will November 19, 2001. currently being undertaken with the not impose any collection of cooperation and participation of the Administrative Requirements information subject to the provisions of operators and agricultural organizations, as well as EPA, other federal agencies, Under Executive Order 12866, the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. and the State and local air pollution ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 3501 et seq., other than those previously agencies. For example, the National FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this approved and assigned OMB control Academy of Sciences is undertaking a proposed action is not a ‘‘significant number 2060–0243. For additional study addressing emissions from animal regulatory action’’ and therefore is not information concerning these feeding operations. Their report is due subject to review by the Office of requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An next year. In addition, EPA’s Office of Management and Budget. Under the agency may not conduct or sponsor, and Air and Radiation is working with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 a person is not required to respond to, U.S. Department of Agriculture to better et seq.) the Administrator certifies that a collection of information unless it address the impact of agricultural this proposed rule will not have a displays a currently valid OMB control operations on air quality. We consider significant economic impact on a number. the effort to evaluate the existing substantial number of small entities because it merely approves state law as In reviewing State operating permit science, improve on assessment tools, programs submitted pursuant to Title V collect additional data, remove any meeting federal requirements and of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve remaining legal obstacles, and issue any imposes no additional requirements necessary guidance within the three beyond those imposed by state law. This State programs provided that they meet year deferral time frame to be ambitious. rule does not contain any unfunded the requirements of the Clean Air Act We welcome comments on other areas mandates and does not significantly or and EPA’s regulations codified at 40 that might also warrant study, as well as uniquely affect small governments, as CFR part 70. In this context, in the ways that this work might be done more described in the Unfunded Mandates absence of a prior existing requirement quickly. Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) for the State to use voluntary consensus During the interim deferral period, because it proposes to approve pre- standards (VCS), EPA has no authority EPA will continue to work with the existing requirements under state law to disapprove a State operating permit agricultural industry and our state and and does not impose any additional program for failure to use VCS. It would federal regulatory partners to pursue, enforceable duties beyond that required thus be inconsistent with applicable law wherever possible, voluntary emission by state law. This rule also does not for EPA, when it reviews an operating reduction strategies. At the end of this have tribal implications because it will permit program , to use VCS in place of period, EPA will, taking into not have a substantial direct effect on a State program that otherwise satisfies consideration the results of these one or more Indian tribes, on the the provisions of the Clean Air Act. studies, make a determination as to how relationship between the Federal Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) Government and Indian tribes, or on the the title V operating permit program of the National Technology Transfer and distribution of power and will be implemented for any potential Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. major agricultural stationary sources. responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as 272 Note) do not apply. What Is Involved in This Proposed specified by Executive Order 13175, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 Action? ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with The EPA proposes full approval of the Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR Environmental protection, operating permits program submitted by 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule Administrative practice and procedure, Mojave based on the revisions also does not have Federalism Air pollution control, Intergovernmental submitted on June 4, 2001, which implications because it will not have relations, Operating permits, Reporting satisfactorily address the program substantial direct effects on the States, and recordkeeping requirements. on the relationship between the national deficiencies identified in EPA’s Dated: October 11, 2001. February 5, 1996 Interim Approval government and the States, or on the Rulemaking. See 61 FR 4217. distribution of power and Laura Yoshii, responsibilities among the various Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Request for Public Comment levels of government, as specified in [FR Doc. 01–26417 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] EPA requests comments on the Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ BILLING CODE 6560–50–P program revisions discussed in this (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The proposed action. Copies of the rule merely proposes to approve MDAQMD submittal and other existing requirements under state law, supporting documentation used in and does not alter the relationship or developing the proposed full approval the distribution of power and are contained in docket files maintained responsibilities between the State and at the EPA Region 9 office. The docket the Federal government established in is an organized and complete file of all the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule the information submitted to, or also is not subject to Executive Order otherwise considered by, EPA in the 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from
VerDate 11
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 207, and List and Criteria) may be listed under the CAA); or those that AGENCY available via the Internet at http:// emit 25 tons per year or more of a www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/sac/cur.htm. combination of hazardous air pollutants 40 CFR Part 70 However, the versions of District rule (HAPs). In areas that are not meeting the [CA051–OPP; FRL–7087–2] 207 and the List and Criteria at the National Ambient Air Quality Standards above internet address may be different for ozone, carbon monoxide, or Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval from the versions submitted to EPA for particulate matter, major sources are of Operating Permit Program; approval. Readers are cautioned to defined by the gravity of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality verify that the adoption date of rule 207 nonattainment classification. For Management District, California and the List and Criteria listed is the example, in ozone nonattainment areas same date as the rule 207 and List and classified as ‘‘severe,’’ major sources AGENCY: Environmental Protection Criteria submitted to EPA for approval. include those with the potential of Agency (EPA). The official submittal is available only emitting 25 tons per year or more of ACTION: Proposed rule. at the three addresses listed above. volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides. EPA has classified the SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to fully FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sacramento Metropolitan Area as a approve Rule 207 (Title V—Federal Mark Sims, EPA Region IX, Permits severe nonattainment area for ozone (40 Operating Permit Program) and the Office (AIR–3), U.S. Environmental CFR 81.305). District requirements for permit Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) applications (‘‘List and Criteria’’) which 744–1229 or [email protected]. What Is Being Addressed in This are part of the operating permit program SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Document? of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air section provides additional information The California Air Resources Board Quality Management District by addressing the following questions: submitted an administratively complete (‘‘Sacramento’’ or ‘‘District’’). The What is the operating permit program? permitting program on behalf of the District operating permit program was What is being addressed in this document? District on August 1, 1994. Because the submitted in response to the directive in Are there other issues with the program? District’s operating permit program the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) What are the program changes that EPA is substantially, but not fully, met the Amendments that permitting authorities approving? criteria outlined in the implementing What is involved in this proposed action? develop, and submit to EPA, programs regulations codified at 40 Code of for issuing operating permits to all What Is the Operating Permit Program? Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA major stationary sources and to certain granted interim approval of the other sources within the permitting Title V of the CAA Amendments of program, and conditioned full approval authorities’ jurisdictions. EPA granted 1990 required all state and local on the District revising its program to interim approval to the District permitting authorities to develop correct the deficiencies. Thus, EPA operating permit program on August 4, operating permit programs that met granted interim approval to the 1995, but listed certain deficiencies in certain federal criteria. In implementing District’s program in a rulemaking the program preventing full approval. the operating permit programs, the published on August 4, 1995 (60 FR The District has revised Rule 207 and permitting authorities require certain 39862). The interim approval notice the ‘‘List and Criteria’’ to correct the sources of air pollution to obtain described the program deficiencies and deficiencies of the interim approval and permits that contain all applicable revisions that had to be made in order this action proposes full approval of requirements under the CAA. A goal of for the District program to receive full those revisions. the operating permit program is to approval. Since that time, the District DATES: Comments on this proposed rule improve compliance by issuing each has revised and the California Air must be received in writing by source a permit that consolidates all of Resources Board, on behalf of the November 19, 2001. the applicable CAA requirements into a District, has submitted a revision to the ADDRESSES: Written comments on this federally enforceable document. By District’s operating permit program by action should be addressed to Gerardo consolidating all of the applicable letter dated June 1, 2001. This Federal Rios, Chief, Permits Office, Air Division requirements for a facility, the source, Register document describes the (AIR–3), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne the public, and the permitting changes that have been made to the Street, San Francisco, California, 94105 authorities can more easily determine Sacramento operating permit program as (Attention: Mark Sims). You can inspect what CAA requirements apply and how submitted on June 1, 2001, and the basis copies of the Sacramento submittals, compliance with those requirements is for EPA proposing full approval of the and other supporting documentation determined. program. relevant to this action, during normal Sources required to obtain an Are There Other Issues With the business hours at Air Division, EPA operating permit under this program Program? Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San include ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution Francisco, California, 94105. You may and certain other sources specified in On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a also see copies of the District’s the CAA or in EPA’s implementing rulemaking that extended the interim submitted operating permit program at regulations. For example, all sources approval period of 86 operating permits the following locations: California Air regulated under the acid rain program, programs until December 1, 2001 (65 FR Resources Board, Stationary Source regardless of size, must obtain permits. 32035). The action was subsequently Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 Examples of major sources include challenged by the Sierra Club and the ‘‘I’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. those that have the potential to emit 100 New York Public Interest Research The Sacramento Air Quality tons per year or more of volatile organic Group (NYPIRG). In settling the Management District, 777 12th Street, compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, litigation, EPA agreed to publish a 3rd Floor, Sacramento, California, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides ( NOX), document in the Federal Register that 95814–1908. or particulate matter (PM10); those that would alert the public that they may An electronic copy of Sacramento’s emit 10 tons per year of any single identify and bring to EPA’s attention operating permit program (rules 201, hazardous air pollutant (specifically alleged programmatic and/or
VerDate 11
implementation deficiencies in Title V Kenny, Executive Officer, California Air science, improve on assessment tools, programs and that EPA would respond Resources Board, to Jack Broadbent, collect additional data, remove any to their allegations within specified time Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region remaining legal obstacles, and issue any periods if the comments were made 9, dated September 19, 2001. In necessary guidance within the three within 90 days of publication of the addition, since the granting of interim year deferral time frame to be ambitious. Federal Register document. approval, the EPA has discovered that, We welcome comments on other areas EPA received a comment letter from in general, there is not a reliable or that might also warrant study, as well as one organization on what they believe to complete inventory of emissions ways that this work might be done more be deficiencies with respect to Title V associated with agricultural operations quickly. programs in California. EPA takes no in California that are subject to the During the interim deferral period, action on those comments in today’s exemption. Although further research EPA will continue to work with the action and will respond to them by on this issue is needed, many sources agricultural industry and our state and December 1, 2001. As stated in the with activities covered by the federal regulatory partners to pursue, Federal Register document published exemption may not have emission levels wherever possible, voluntary emission on December 11, 2000, (65 FR 77376) that would subject them to title V, and reduction strategies. At the end of this EPA will respond by December 1, 2001 the State and/or individual Districts period, EPA will, taking into to timely public comments on programs may be able to demonstrate that none of consideration the results of these that have obtained interim approval; the sources that are exempt under the studies, make a determination as to how and EPA will respond by April 1, 2002 State law are subject to title V. the title V operating permit program to timely comments on fully approved Based, in part, on these factors, EPA will be implemented for any potential programs. We will publish a notice of has tentatively concluded that requiring major agricultural stationary sources. deficiency (NOD) when we determine the immediate commencement of title V Issue (2): The District was required to that a deficiency exists, or we will permitting of the limited types of revise its insignificant activities permit notify the commenter in writing to agricultural activities presently subject exemption list or submit information or explain our reasons for not making a to the exemption, without a better criteria justifying these exemptions. (40 finding of deficiency. A NOD will not understanding of the sources and their CFR 70.5(c)). necessarily be limited to deficiencies emissions, would not be an appropriate Rule or Program Change: The District identified by citizens and may include utilization of limited local, state and corrected this deficiency by revising its any deficiencies that we have identified federal resources. As a result, despite List and Criteria to incorporate the through our program oversight. the State of California’s failure to insignificant activities developed by the eliminate the agricultural permitting EPA–ARB–CAPCOA Insignificant What Are the Program Changes That exemption, EPA is proposing to grant Activities Workgroup. The District EPA Is Approving? full approval to local Air District included justifications for each of the As discussed in the August 4, 1995 operating permit programs and allow a identified activities. The District also (60 FR 39862) rulemaking, full approval deferral of title V permitting of revised the List and Criteria in order to of the Sacramento operating permit agricultural operations involved in the clarify that insignificant emission units program was made contingent upon growing of crops or the raising of fowl are not exempt from Title V. satisfaction of the following conditions: or animals for a further brief period, not Issue (3): The District’s limits on Issue (1): One of EPA’s conditions for to exceed three years. During the operational flexibility were not as full title V program approval was the deferral period, we expect to develop explicitly restrictive as the limits California Legislature’s revision of the the program infrastructure and contained in 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12) Health and Safety Code to eliminate the experience necessary for effective concerning Title I modifications. provision that exempts ‘‘any equipment implementation of the title V permitting Rule or Program Change: The District used in agricultural operations in the program to this limited category of corrected this deficiency by revising growing of crops or the raising of fowl sources. Rule 207, section 308.3.b., to not allow or animals’’ from the requirement to EPA believes it is appropriate to defer owners and operators to make obtain a permit. See California Health permitting for this limited category of operational changes that are significant and Safety Code section 42310(e). Even agricultural sources because the Title V permit or Title I modifications. though the local Districts have, in many currently available techniques for Issue (4): The District was required to cases, removed the title V exemption for determining emissions inventories and change its rule to adopt appropriate agricultural sources from their own for monitoring emissions (e.g., from permit issuance deadlines for sources rules, the Health and Safety Code has irrigation pumps and feeding that were initially deferred from the not been revised to eliminate this operations) are problematic and will be program due to their actual emissions provision. dramatically enhanced by several efforts but did not obtain federally enforceable In evaluating the impact of the Health currently being undertaken with the limits on their potential to emit. and Safety Code exemption, EPA cooperation and participation of the Rule or Program Change: The District believes there are a couple of key factors operators and agricultural organizations, corrected this deficiency by revising to consider. First, many post-harvest as well as EPA, other federal agencies, Rule 207, section 301.1, to require activities are not covered by the and the State and local air pollution owners and operators of stationary exemption and, thus, are still subject to agencies. For example, the National sources with a potential to emit at or title V permitting. For example, Academy of Sciences is undertaking a above major source trigger levels but according to the California Air study addressing emissions from animal with actual emissions below levels Resources Board (CARB), the Health and feeding operations. Their report is due stated in section 301 to submit complete Safety Code exemption does not include next year. In addition, EPA’s Office of Title V permit applications by no later activities such as milling and crushing, Air and Radiation is working with the than June 30, 2001. or canning or cotton ginning operations. U.S. Department of Agriculture to better Issue (5): The District was required to Activities such as these are subject to address the impact of agricultural add emissions trading provisions to the review under the State’s title V operations on air quality. We consider rule consistent with 40 CFR 70.6(a)(10). programs. See letter from Michael P. the effort to evaluate the existing The permit content section of the rule
VerDate 11
must allow provisions for trading within state that limitations on the physical or minimum: (1) Be technically accurate the facility where an applicable operational design capacity, including and identify which portions of the requirement provides for trading emissions control devices and source are subject to the limitation; (2) increases and decreases without case- limitations on hours of operation, may specify the time period for the by-case approval. be considered only if such limitations limitation (hourly, daily, monthly, and Rule or Program Change: The District are federally enforceable or legally and annual limits such as rolling annual did not make any rule changes to practicably enforceable by the District limits); (3) be independently enforceable address this deficiency. However, the (emphasis added). This change is and describe the method to determine District believes that Rule 207 contains consistent with litigation affecting compliance including appropriate the necessary language to ensure EPA’s consideration of the potential to monitoring, recordkeeping and permits will include terms and emit issue. In Clean Air Implementation reporting; (4) be permanent; and (5) conditions to allow emissions trading Project v. EPA, No. 96–1224 (D.C. Cir. include a legal obligation to comply without case-by-case approval if June 28, 1996), the court remanded and with the limit. allowed by an applicable requirement. vacated the requirement for federal EPA will rely on Sacramento EPA now agrees that Rule 207 contains enforceability for potential to emit implementing this new definition in a language consistent with 40 CFR limits under part 70. Even though part manner that is consistent with the 70.6(a)(10). See Rule 207, section 308. 70 has not been revised it should be court’s decisions and EPA policies. In Issue (6): The District rule was to read to mean, ‘‘federally enforceable or addition, EPA wants to be certain that explicitly require that the permit legally and practicably enforceable by a absent federal and citizen’s include fugitive emissions in the same state or local air pollution control enforceability, Sacramento’s manner as stack emissions (40 CFR agency.’’ 1 enforcement program still provides 70.3(d)). EPA proposes to approve this revision sufficient incentive for sources to Rule or Program Change: The District because Sacramento’s rule is consistent comply with permit limits. This corrected this deficiency by revising with the current meaning of potential to proposal provides notice to Sacramento Rule 207, section 305.1, to require that emit at 40 CFR 70.2. EPA has issued on our expectations for ensuring the fugitive emissions shall be included in several guidance memoranda that permit limits they impose are the Title V permit in the same manner discuss how the court rulings affect the enforceable as a practical matter (i.e., as stack emissions. The District also definition of potential to emit under practicably enforceable) and that its revised its List and Criteria to require CAA section 112, New Source Review enforcement program will still provide sources to characterize fugitive (NSR) and Prevention of Significant sufficient compliance incentive. In the emissions in the Title V permit Deterioration (PSD) programs, and title future, if Sacramento does not application. V.2 In particular, the memoranda implement the new definition Issue (7): The District rule was reiterate the Agency’s earlier consistent with our guidance, and/or required to state that the District will requirements for practicable has not established a sufficient provide public notice by means other enforceability for purposes of effectively compliance incentive absent Federal than newspaper notice and a mailing limiting a source’s potential to emit.3 and citizen’s enforceability, EPA could list when necessary to ensure that For example, practicable enforceability find that the District has failed to adequate notice is given (40 CFR for a source-specific permit means that administer or enforce its program and 70.7(h)). the permit’s provisions must, at a may take action to notify the District of Rule or Program Change: The District such a finding as authorized by 40 CFR corrected this deficiency by revising 1 See also, National Mining Association (NMA) v. 70.10(b)(1). Rule 207, section 403.1, to match the EPA, 59 F. 3d 1351 (D.C. Cir. July 21, 1995) (Title Sacramento deleted the effective date III) and Chemical Manufacturing Ass’n (CMA) v. language in 40 CFR 70.7(h). The rule EPA, No. 89–1514 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) (Title provision of Rule 207 which stated that now requires for public notice that I). the rule becomes effective on the date it notice also be given by other means 2 See, e.g., January 22, 1996, Memorandum is approved by EPA. EPA is currently such as the District Website, community entitled, ‘‘Release of Interim Policy on Federal evaluating the approvability of this Enforceability of Limitations on Potential to Emit’’ change to Rule 207. Because EPA has groups, and public meetings when from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS and Robert I. Van necessary to ensure that adequate notice Heuvelen, Director, Office of Regulatory not yet determined whether this change is given. Enforcement to EPA Regional Offices; January 31, is approvable under the requirements of 1996 paper to the Members of the Subcommittee on 40 CFR part 70, and since this change What Is Involved in This Proposed Permit, New Source Review and Toxics Integration was not required by EPA for Sacramento Action? from Steve Herman, OECA, and Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator of Air and Radiation; and to receive full program approval, EPA is Sacramento has corrected the the August 27, 1996 Memorandum entitled, taking no action on this change at this deficiencies cited in the interim ‘‘Extension of January 25, 1995 Potential to Emit time. approval on August 4, 1995 (60 FR Transition Policy’’ from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS and Robert Van Heuvelen, Director, Office Request for Public Comment 39862), and EPA proposes full approval of Regulatory Enforcement. the Sacramento operating permit 3 See, e.g., June 13, 1989 Memorandum entitled, EPA requests comments on the program Rule 207. Sacramento made ‘‘Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit in new program revisions discussed in this two additional changes to Rule 207 that Source Permitting, from Terrell F. Hunt, Associate proposed action. Copies of the Enforcement Counsel, OECA, and John Seitz, were not necessary to correct interim Director, OAQPS, to EPA Regional Offices. This Sacramento submittal and other approval issues. EPA is acting to guidance is still the most comprehensive statement supporting documentation used in approve a rule change concerning from EPA on this subject. Further guidance was developing the proposed full approval provided on January 25, 1995 in a memorandum are contained in docket files maintained potential to emit and is not acting on a entitled ‘‘Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit rule change concerning the effective (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under Section 112 and at the EPA Region IX office. The docket date of the rule. Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act),’’ from John Seitz, is an organized and complete file of all EPA proposes to approve a revision to Director, OAQPS and Robert I. Van Heuvelen, the information submitted to, or the Rule 207, Section 226, definition of director, ORE to Regional Air Directors. Also please otherwise considered by, EPA in the refer to the EPA Region 7 database at http:// ‘‘potential to emit.’’ The District revised www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/policy/ development of this proposed full the definition of potential to emit to policy.htm for more information. approval. The primary purposes of the
VerDate 11
docket are: (1) To allow interested Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions ACTION: Proposed rule. parties a means to identify and locate Concerning Regulations That documents so that they can effectively Significantly Affect Energy Supply, SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve participate in the approval process, and Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 on certain revisions of Rule 3000 (General), (2) to serve as the record in case of May 22, 2001), because it is not a Rule 3002 (Requirements), Rule 3004 judicial review. EPA will consider any significantly regulatory action under (Permit Types and Content), and Rule comments received in writing by Executive Order 12866. This action will 3005 (Permit Revisions), which are part November 19, 2001. not impose any collection of of the operating permit program of the South Coast Air Quality Management Administrative Requirements information subject to provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. District (‘‘South Coast’’ or ‘‘District’’). Under Executive Order 12866, 3501 et seq., other than those previously The District operating permit program was submitted in response to the ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 approved and assigned OMB control directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this number 2060–0243. For additional (CAA) Amendments that permitting proposed action is not a ‘‘significant information concerning these authorities develop, and submit to EPA, regulatory action’’ and therefore is not requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An programs for issuing operating permits subject to review by the Office of agency may not conduct or sponsor, and to all major stationary sources and to Management and Budget. Under the a person is not required to respond to, certain other sources within the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 a collection of information unless it permitting authorities’ jurisdictions. et seq.) the Administrator certifies that displays a currently valid OMB control EPA granted interim approval to the this proposed rule will not have a number. District operating permit program on significant economic impact on a In reviewing State operating permit substantial number of small entities August 29, 1996, but listed certain programs submitted pursuant to Title V deficiencies in the program preventing because it merely approves State law as of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve meeting federal requirements and full approval. The District has revised State programs provided that they meet Rules 3000, 3002, 3004, and 3005 to imposes no additional requirements the requirements of the Clean Air Act beyond those imposed by State law. correct the deficiencies of the interim and EPA’s regulations codified at 40 approval and this action proposes full This rule does not contain any CFR part 70. In this context, in the unfunded mandates and does not approval of those revisions. South Coast absence of a prior existing requirement has made other changes to its part 70 significantly or uniquely affect small for the State to use voluntary consensus governments, as described in the program since EPA granted interim standards (VCS), EPA has no authority Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 approval to the program. EPA is not to disapprove a State operating permit (Public Law 104–4), because it proposes taking action on these other changes at program for failure to use VCS. It would to approve pre-existing requirements this time. thus be inconsistent with applicable law under State law and does not impose DATES: Comments on this proposed rule for EPA, when it reviews an operating any additional enforceable duties must be received in writing by permit program, to use VCS in place of beyond that required by State law. This November 19, 2001. a State program that otherwise satisfies rule also does not have tribal ADDRESSES: the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Written comments on this implications because it will not have a action should be addressed to Gerardo Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) substantial direct effect on one or more Rios, Chief, Permits Office, Air Division of the National Technology Transfer and Indian tribes, on the relationship (AIR–3), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. between the Federal Government and Street, San Francisco, California, 94105. 272 note) do not apply. Indian tribes, or on the distribution of You can inspect copies of the South power and responsibilities between the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 Coast submittals, and other supporting Federal Government and Indian tribes, Environmental protection, documentation relevant to this action, as specified by Executive Order 13175, Administrative practice and procedure, during normal business hours at Air ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Air pollution control, Intergovernmental Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR relations, Operating permits, Reporting Street, San Francisco, California 94105. 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule You may also see copies of the District’s and recordkeeping requirements. also does not have Federalism submitted operating permit program at implications because it will not have Dated: October 11, 2001. the following locations: substantial direct effects on the States, Laura Yoshii, California Air Resources Board, on the relationship between the national Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Stationary Source Division, Rule government and the States, or on the [FR Doc. 01–26418 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, distribution of power and BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Sacramento, CA 95814. responsibilities among the various The South Coast Air Quality levels of government, as specified in Management District, 21865 E. Copley Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765– (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The AGENCY 4182. rule merely proposes to approve An electronic copy of South Coast’s existing requirements under State law, 40 CFR Part 70 operating permit program (Regulation and does not alter the relationship or XXX, rules 3000–3007, Title V Permits) the distribution of power and [CA052–OPP; FRL–7086–8] may be available via the Internet at responsibilities between the State and Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/sc/cur.htm. the Federal government established in of Operating Permit Program; South However, the versions of District rules the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule Coast Air Quality Management District, 3000, 3002, 3004, and 3005 may be also is not subject to Executive Order California different from the versions submitted to 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from EPA for approval. Readers are cautioned Environmental Health Risks and Safety AGENCY: Environmental Protection to verify that the adoption dates of rules Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or Agency (EPA). 3000, 3002, 3004, and 3005 are the same
VerDate 11
dates as the rules submitted to EPA for classified as ‘‘extreme,’’ major sources to their allegations within specified time approval. The official submittal is include those with the potential of periods if the comments were made available only at the three addresses emitting 10 tons per year or more of within 90 days of publication of the listed above. volatile organic compounds or nitrogen Federal Register document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: oxides. EPA has classified the South EPA received a comment letter from Mark Sims, EPA Region IX, Permits Coast Air Basin as an extreme one organization on what they believe to Office (AIR–3), U.S. Environmental nonattainment area for ozone and a be deficiencies with respect to Title V Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) serious nonattainment area for PM10 (70 programs in California. EPA takes no 744–1229 or [email protected]. ton per year major source threshold). action on those comments in today’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This (See 40 CFR 81.305). action and will respond to them by December 1, 2001. As stated in the section provides additional information What Is Being Addressed In This by addressing the following questions: Federal Register document published Document? on December 11, 2000, (65 FR 77376) What is the operating permit program? The California Air Resources Board EPA will respond by December 1, 2001 What is being addressed in this document? submitted to EPA the District’s title V to timely public comments on programs Are there other issues with the program? program on December 27, 1993, except that have obtained interim approval; What are the program changes that EPA is for the District permit application forms, approving? and EPA will respond by April 1, 2002 What is involved in this proposed action? which were submitted on March 6, to timely comments on fully approved 1995. On March 30, 1995, EPA deemed programs. We will publish a notice of What Is the Operating Permit Program? the District’s operating permit program deficiency (NOD) when we determine to be administratively complete. that a deficiency exists, or we will Title V of the CAA Amendments of Because the District’s operating permit notify the commenter in writing to 1990 required all state and local program substantially, but not fully, met explain our reasons for not making a permitting authorities to develop the criteria outlined in the finding of deficiency. A NOD will not operating permit programs that met implementing regulations codified at 40 necessarily be limited to deficiencies certain federal criteria. In implementing Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part identified by citizens and may include the operating permit programs, the 70, EPA granted interim approval of the any deficiencies that we have identified permitting authorities require certain program, and conditioned full approval through our program oversight. sources of air pollution to obtain on the District revising its program to permits that contain all applicable correct the deficiencies. Thus, EPA What Are the Program Changes That requirements under the CAA. A goal of granted interim approval to the EPA Is Approving? the operating permit program is to District’s program in a rulemaking As discussed in the August 29, 1996 improve compliance by issuing each published on August 29, 1996 (61 FR (61 FR 45330) rulemaking, full approval source a permit that consolidates all of 45330). The interim approval notice of the South Coast operating permit the applicable CAA requirements into a described the program deficiencies and program was made contingent upon federally enforceable document. By revisions that had to be made in order satisfaction of the following conditions: consolidating all of the applicable for the District program to receive full Issue (1): One of EPA’s conditions for requirements for a facility, the source, approval. Since that time, the District full title V program approval was the the public, and the permitting has revised and the California Air California Legislature’s revision of the authorities can more easily determine Resources Board, on behalf of the Health and Safety Code to eliminate the what CAA requirements apply and how District, has submitted revisions to the provision that exempts ‘‘any equipment compliance with those requirements is District’s operating permit program on used in agricultural operations in the determined. August 2, 2001, and October 2, 2001. growing of crops or the raising of fowl Sources required to obtain an This Federal Register notice describes or animals’’ from the requirement to operating permit under this program the changes that South Coast has made obtain a permit. See California Health include ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution to its operating permit program to and Safety Code section 42310(e). Even and certain other sources specified in correct interim approval deficiencies, though the local Districts have, in many the CAA or in EPA’s implementing and the basis for EPA proposing full cases, removed the title V exemption for regulations. For example, all sources approval of these changes. EPA is not agricultural sources from their own regulated under the acid rain program, taking action on other rule changes rules, the Health and Safety Code has regardless of size, must obtain permits. made since interim approval. not been revised to eliminate this Examples of major sources include provision. those that have the potential to emit 100 Are There Other Issues With The In evaluating the impact of the Health tons per year or more of volatile organic Program? and Safety Code exemption, EPA compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a believes there are a couple of key factors sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides ( NOX), rulemaking that extended the interim to consider. First, many post-harvest or particulate matter (PM10); those that approval period of 86 operating permits activities are not covered by the emit 10 tons per year of any single programs until December 1, 2001. (65 exemption and, thus, are still subject to hazardous air pollutant (specifically FR 32035) The action was subsequently title V permitting. For example, listed under the CAA); or those that challenged by the Sierra Club and the according to the California Air emit 25 tons per year or more of a New York Public Interest Research Resources Board (CARB), the Health and combination of hazardous air pollutants Group (NYPIRG). In settling the Safety Code exemption does not include (HAPs). In areas that are not meeting the litigation, EPA agreed to publish a activities such as milling and crushing, National Ambient Air Quality Standards document in the Federal Register that or canning or cotton ginning operations. for ozone, carbon monoxide, or would alert the public that they may Activities such as these are subject to particulate matter, major sources are identify and bring to EPA’s attention review under the State’s title V defined by the gravity of the alleged programmatic and/or programs. See letter from Michael P. nonattainment classification. For implementation deficiencies in Title V Kenny, Executive Officer, California Air example, in ozone nonattainment areas programs and that EPA would respond Resources Board, to Jack Broadbent,
VerDate 11
Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region remaining legal obstacles, and issue any an installation of a new permit unit 9, dated September 19, 2001. In necessary guidance within the three subject to an NSPS pursuant to 40 CFR addition, since the granting of interim year deferral time frame to be ambitious. part 60, or a NESHAP pursuant to 40 approval, the EPA has discovered that, We welcome comments on other areas CFR part 61 or 63; and is not a in general, there is not a reliable or that might also warrant study, as well as modification or reconstruction of an complete inventory of emissions ways that this work might be done more existing permit unit, resulting in new or associated with agricultural operations quickly. additional NSPS requirements pursuant in California that are subject to the During the interim deferral period, to 40 CFR part 60, or new or additional exemption. Although further research EPA will continue to work with the NESHAP requirements pursuant to 40 on this issue is needed, many sources agricultural industry and our state and CFR part 61 or 63;’’ with activities covered by the federal regulatory partners to pursue, (2) The District revised Rule 3005(c) exemption may not have emission levels wherever possible, voluntary emission to refer to a minor permit revision that would subject them to title V, and reduction strategies. At the end of this definition consistent with 40 CFR part the State and/or individual Districts period, EPA will, taking into 70, and does not allow revisions that may be able to demonstrate that none of consideration the results of these trigger other regulatory requirements the sources that are exempt under the studies, make a determination as to how such as New Source Review. In State law are subject to title V. the title V operating permit program addition, Rule 3005(d), Group Based, in part, on these factors, EPA will be implemented for any potential Processing Procedures for Multiple has tentatively concluded that requiring major agricultural stationary sources. Minor Permit Revisions, only allows the immediate commencement of title V Issue (2): The District was required to minor permit revisions if emissions permitting of the limited types of revise its insignificant activities permit from such changes are collectively agricultural activities presently subject exemption list or submit information or below 5 tons per year of criteria to the exemption, without a better criteria justifying these exemptions. (40 pollutants; and understanding of the sources and their CFR 70.5(c)). (3) District Rule 3000(b)(12)(vii) only emissions, would not be an appropriate Rule or Program Change: In 1998, the allows minor permit revisions for any utilization of limited local, state and District revised its Technical Guidance Title V permit revision that does not federal resources. As a result, despite Document by deleting the List of establish or change a permit condition the State of California’s failure to Insignificant Activities. The District that a facility has assumed to avoid an eliminate the agricultural permitting now requires Title V permit applicants applicable requirement. exemption, EPA is proposing to grant to list all equipment claimed as exempt Issue (4): Initial implementation of the full approval to local Air District from New Source Review permit District program did not include all operating permit programs and allow a requirements (per Rule 219). The Title V sources and the District received deferral of title V permitting of District created Form 500–B, List of source category limited interim agricultural operations involved in the Exempt Equipment, for this purpose. approval. The District’s regulation, growing of crops or the raising of fowl EPA interprets this list of ‘‘exempt’’ however, included language that or animals for a further brief period, not equipment to apply only to New Source expanded the applicability of the to exceed three years. During the Review requirements. Any equipment program three years after the program deferral period, we expect to develop exempt from permitting per Rule 219 is effective date, and ensured that all Title the program infrastructure and not exempt from the Title V permit V sources will be permitted within five experience necessary for effective program, is subject to all applicable years of full, partial, or interim approval implementation of the title V permitting requirements, and must be listed in the by EPA of the District Title V program. program to this limited category of Title V permit along with all applicable Although EPA considered this ‘‘phase- sources. requirements. in’’ to be an interim approval issue, no EPA believes it is appropriate to defer Issue (3): The District was required to change to the regulation is required to permitting for this limited category of revise its minor permit modification resolve the issue. agricultural sources because the procedures to not allow significant Rule or Program Change: No rule currently available techniques for permit modifications to be processed as revision was necessary to correct this determining emissions inventories and minor permit modifications. (40 CFR deficiency, since the phase-in period for monitoring emissions (e.g., from 70.7(e)(2)(i)(3),(4), and (4)(A).) ended in February 2000 and the issue is irrigation pumps and feeding Rule or Program Change: The District now moot. All known Title V sources operations) are problematic and will be revised Rules 3000(b)(12) and 3005(c) to have by this time submitted Title V dramatically enhanced by several efforts correct this deficiency. Rule 3005(c) permit applications as required by Rules currently being undertaken with the now allows minor permit revision 3001(b) and 3003(a)(3). cooperation and participation of the procedures to be used only for permit Issue (5): The District was required to operators and agricultural organizations, revisions described in Rule 3000(b)(12), amend Rule 3005(d), Group Processing as well as EPA, other federal agencies, and does not allow modifications which Procedures for Multiple Minor Permit and the State and local air pollution result in emission increases up to the Revisions, to delete reference to Rule agencies. For example, the National higher ‘‘de minimis’’ emission 3000(b)(6), the District’s higher de Academy of Sciences is undertaking a thresholds contained in Rule 3000(b)(6) minimis significant permit revision study addressing emissions from animal to be processed as minor permit levels when instructing an applicant of feeding operations. Their report is due revisions. The District made the its responsibilities. next year. In addition, EPA’s Office of following three revisions to correct the Rule or Program Change: To correct Air and Radiation is working with the deficiencies specifically cited in the this deficiency, the District revised Rule U.S. Department of Agriculture to better 1996 Federal Register document: 3005(c)(1), Minor Permit Revisions address the impact of agricultural (1) The District added to Rule Applicability, to delete the reference to operations on air quality. We consider 3000(b)(12)—Minor Permit Revision— the higher de minimis significant permit the effort to evaluate the existing sections (viii) and (ix) that allow minor revision levels contained in Rule science, improve on assessment tools, permit revisions for NSPS and NESHAP 3000(b)(6). Rule 3005(d)(1) now clearly collect additional data, remove any sources provided that the source ‘‘is not states that group processing procedures
VerDate 11
for multiple minor permit revision or other credible evidence that 3005(i)(1)(A) requires contemporaneous applications are only valid for emissions demonstrates compliance with the rule notice; and Rule 3005(i)(1)(D) requires collectively below 5 tons per year. are kept at the facility. recordkeeping in that the written notice Although still referencing Rule Issue (10): The District was required must be attached to the relevant permit. 3000(b)(6), Rule 3005(d)(2) now has no to modify the definition of ‘‘renewal’’ in Rule 3005(i)(1) prohibits the violation of bearing on whether applications subject Rule 3000(b)(22) to clarify that permits express permit terms as required under to group processing provisions qualify will be renewed at least every 5 years, 40 CFR 70.4(b)(14). as minor permit revisions. regardless of whether renewal is Issue (14): The District was required Issue (6): The District was required to necessary to incorporate new regulatory to either submit to EPA an approvable amend Rule 3004(a)(4)(C) to conform requirements. version of Rule 430, Breakdown with part 70 language. The rule required Rule or Program Change: To correct Provisions, for inclusion into the State that the permit include periodic this deficiency, the District revised Rule Implementation Plan, or revise Rule monitoring or recordkeeping 3000(b)(22) to reference Rule 3004(f), 3002(g), Emergency Provisions, by representative of the source’s Permit Expiration and Renewal, which deleting the reference to Rule 430 as a compliance for the terms of the permit’’ specifies that except for solid waste requirement a source must meet to avail rather than ‘‘with the terms of the incineration facilities, Title V permits itself of an affirmative defense. 40 CFR permit.’’ 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B). expire 5 years from the date of issuance 70.6(g). Rule or Program Change: To correct unless such permits have been renewed. Rule or Program Change: On October this deficiency, the District revised the Rule 3004(f) further states that Title V 2, 2001, the California Air Resources language of Rule 3004(a)(4)(C) from ‘‘for permits for solid waste incineration Board on behalf of the District requested the term of the permit’’ to ‘‘with the facilities subject to section 129(e) of the to EPA that Rule 3002(g)(6), the terms of the permit.’’ Clean Air Act expire 12 years after reference to Rule 430, be withdrawn Issue (7): The District was required to issuance, but must be reviewed every 5 from the original Title V program and revise Rule 3004(a)(9) to specify that years. See 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(iii) and (iv). from the August 2, 2001, submittal. By any trading of emission increases and Issue (11): The District was required removing Rule 3002(g)(6) from the decreases allowed without changes to to revise Rule 3005(g)(1), changes that federal Title V program, the District the permit must meet the requirements violate an express permit term or corrected this program deficiency. of the part 70 program. 40 CFR condition, to not allow changes that 70.6(a)(10)(iii). would violate compliance certification What Is Involved in This Proposed Rule or Program Change: To correct requirements instead of compliance Action? this deficiency, the District revised Rule plan requirements. Clean Air Act South Coast has corrected the 3004(a)(9)(C) to state that the terms and Section 502(b)(10). deficiencies cited in the interim conditions of emission trades ‘‘must Rule or Program Change: To correct approval on August 29, 1996 (61 FR meet all applicable requirements and this deficiency, the District revised Rule 45330), and EPA proposes full approval requirements of this regulation.’’ 3005(i)(1)(C)(i) from ‘‘compliance plan the South Coast operating permit Issue (8): The District was required to requirements’’ to ‘‘compliance program. EPA is only taking action to amend its operating permit program to certification requirements.’’ The rule approve program changes made by provide that a source that is granted a now correctly states that changes that South Coast to correct interim approval general permit shall be subject to would violate compliance certification deficiencies. EPA is not taking action on enforcement action for operating requirements are not allowed. other program changes made since without a permit if the source is later Issue (12): The District was required interim approval was granted, but will determined not to qualify for the to revise Rule 3005(g) to specify that the evaluate these additional changes and conditions and terms of the general District and the source must attach a take appropriate action at a later date. permit, regardless of any applicable copy of any notice of Clean Air Act shield provisions. 40 CFR 70.6(d)(1). Section 502(b)(10) changes to the Request for Public Comment Rule or Program Change: The District permit. 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12). EPA requests comments on the added Rule 3004(e)(8) to correct this Rule or Program Change: To correct program revisions discussed in this deficiency. The rule states that if the this deficiency, the District added Rule proposed action. Copies of the South equipment that has been approved for 3005(i)(1)(D) which states that the Coast submittals and other supporting coverage under a general permit is later District and the facility have attached documentation used in developing the determined not to qualify for the the written notice to their copy of the proposed full approval are contained in conditions and terms of the general relevant permit. docket files maintained at the EPA permit, the Title V facility shall be Issue (13): The District was required Region IX office. The docket is an subject to enforcement action for to add provisions to Rule 3005(i) to organized and complete file of all the operating without a Title V permit. specify the following: (1) Any change information submitted to, or otherwise Issue (9): The District was required to allowed under this section must meet considered by, EPA in the development amend Rule 3002(g)(1). The rule allows all applicable requirements and shall of this proposed full approval. The an emergency to constitute an not violate existing permit terms; (2) the primary purposes of the docket are: (1) affirmative defense if properly signed, source must provide contemporaneous To allow interested parties a means to contemporaneous operating logs or notice to the District and EPA; and (3) identify and locate documents so that other credible evidence are kept at the the source must keep a record of the they can effectively participate in the facility, but the rule did not require the change. 40 CFR 70.4(b)(14). approval process, and (2) to serve as the logs or other evidence to demonstrate Rule or Program Change: To correct record in case of judicial review. EPA that conditions set out in the rule were this deficiency, the District revised Rule will consider any comments received in met by the facility. 40 CFR 70.6(g)(3). 3005(k), Prohibition on Changes Not writing by November 19, 2001. Rule or Program Change: To correct Specifically Allowed by Permit, and this deficiency, the District revised Rule Rule 3005(i), Operational Flexibility. Administrative Requirements 3002(g)(1) to require that properly Rule 3005(i)(1)(C)(i) requires a change to Under Executive Order 12866, signed, contemporaneous operating logs meet all regulatory requirements; Rule ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58
VerDate 11
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this approved and assigned OMB control certain other sources within the proposed action is not a ‘‘significant number 2060–0243. For additional permitting authorities’ jurisdiction. regulatory action’’ and therefore is not information concerning these On November 1, 1995, EPA granted subject to review by the Office of requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An interim approval to the District’s Management and Budget. Under the agency may not conduct or sponsor, and operating permit program. The District Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 a person is not required to respond to, has revised its operating permit program et seq.) the Administrator certifies that a collection of information unless it (Rule 33) to satisfy the conditions of the this proposed rule will not have a displays a currently valid OMB control interim approval and this action significant economic impact on a number. proposes approval of these revisions substantial number of small entities In reviewing State operating permit made since the interim approval was because it merely approves State law as programs submitted pursuant to Title V granted. meeting federal requirements and of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve DATES: Written comments must be imposes no additional requirements State programs provided that they meet received by November 19, 2001. beyond those imposed by State law. the requirements of the Clean Air Act ADDRESSES: Written comments on this This rule does not contain any and EPA’s regulations codified at 40 action should be addressed to Gerardo unfunded mandates and does not CFR part 70. In this context, in the Rios, Permits Office, Air Division (AIR– significantly or uniquely affect small absence of a prior existing requirement 3), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, governments, as described in the for the State to use voluntary consensus San Francisco, California, 94105. You Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 standards (VCS), EPA has no authority can inspect copies of the District’s (Public Law 104–4), because it proposes to disapprove a State operating permit submittals, and other supporting to approve pre-existing requirements program for failure to use VCS. It would documentation relevant to this action, under State law and does not impose thus be inconsistent with applicable law during normal business hours at Air any additional enforceable duties for EPA, when it reviews an operating Division, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne beyond that required by State law. This permit program, to use VCS in place of Street, San Francisco, California 94105. rule also does not have tribal a State program that otherwise satisfies You may also see copies of the implications because it will not have a the provisions of the Clean Air Act. submitted Title V program at the substantial direct effect on one or more Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) following locations: Indian tribes, on the relationship of the National Technology Transfer and • California Air Resources Board, between the Federal Government and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Stationary Source Division, Rule Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 272 note) do not apply. Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, power and responsibilities between the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 Sacramento, CA 95814. Federal Government and Indian tribes, • Ventura County Air Pollution as specified by Executive Order 13175, Environmental protection, Control District: 669 County Square ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Administrative practice and procedure, Drive, Ventura, CA 93003. Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR Air pollution control, Intergovernmental You may review the District rules by 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule relations, Operating permits, Reporting retrieving them from the California Air also does not have Federalism and recordkeeping requirements. Resources Board (ARB) website. The implications because it will not have Dated: October 12, 2001. location of the District rules is http:// substantial direct effects on the States, Sally Seymour, arbis.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ven/cur.htm. on the relationship between the national Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: government and the States, or on the [FR Doc. 01–26420 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Gerardo Rios, EPA Region IX, at (415) 744–1259 ([email protected]) or distribution of power and BILLING CODE 6560–50–P responsibilities among the various Nahid Zoueshtiagh at (415) 744–1261. levels of government, as specified in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The AGENCY and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. rule merely proposes to approve Table of Contents: existing requirements under State law, 40 CFR Part 70 and does not alter the relationship or I. District’s Part 70 Permits the distribution of power and [CA 043–OPP; FRL–7086–9] A. What Is the Operating Permit Program? B. What Is Being Addressed in This responsibilities between the State and Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval Document? the Federal Government established in of Operating Permit Program; Ventura C. Are There Other Issues With the the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule County Air Pollution Control District Program? also is not subject to Executive Order D. What Are the Program Changes That 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from AGENCY: Environmental Protection EPA Is Proposing To Approve? Environmental Health Risks and Safety Agency (EPA). E. What Is Involved in This Proposed Action? Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or ACTION: Proposed rule. Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions II. Request for Public Comment Concerning Regulations That SUMMARY: EPA proposes to fully I. District’s Part 70 Permits Significantly Affect Energy Supply, approve the operating permit program of Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 on the Ventura County Air Pollution A. What Is the Operating Permit May 22, 2001), because it is not a Control District (District). The program Program? significantly regulatory action under was submitted in response to the Title V of the Clean Air Act Executive Order 12866. This action will directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required all state not impose any collection of (CAA) Amendments that permitting and local permitting authorities to information subject to provisions of the authorities develop, and submit to EPA, develop operating permit programs that Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. programs for issuing operating permits met certain federal criteria. In 3501 et seq., other than those previously to all major stationary sources and to implementing the operating permit
VerDate 11
programs, the permitting authorities operating permit program) since interim EPA on May 21, 2001. We have require certain sources of air pollution approval was granted. included below a discussion of each of to obtain permits that contain all the interim approval deficiency issues C. Are There Other Issues With the applicable requirements under the (as enumerated and explained in EPA’s Program? Clean Air Act (CAA). The focus of the proposed action in 1994 (see 59 FR operating permit program is to improve On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a 60104)), our conditions for correction, enforcement by issuing each source a rulemaking that extended the interim and a summary of how the District has permit that consolidates all of the approval period of 86 operating permits corrected each of these deficiency applicable CAA requirements into a programs until December 1, 2001 (65 FR issues. The Technical Support federally enforceable document. By 32035). The action was subsequently Document (TSD) for this action includes consolidating all of the applicable challenged by the Sierra Club and the the District’s submittal and details of the requirements for a facility, the source, New York Public Interest Research revisions made. the public, and the permitting Group (NYPIRG). In settling the Issue a. Insignificant activities—Rules authorities can more easily determine litigation, EPA agreed to publish a 33.2 and 23 provide the framework for what CAA requirements apply and how document in the Federal Register that Ventura’s insignificant activities compliance with those requirements is would alert the public that they may provisions. For its program to be fully determined. identify and bring to EPA’s attention approvable, Ventura needed to provide Sources required to obtain an alleged programmatic and/or a demonstration that activities classified operating permit under this program implementation deficiencies in title V as ‘‘insignificant’’ are truly insignificant include ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution programs and that EPA would respond and are not likely to be subject to an and certain other sources specified in to their allegations within specified time applicable requirement. Alternatively, the CAA or in EPA’s implementing periods if the comments were made the District could restrict insignificant regulations. For example, all sources within 90 days of publication of the activities to those that are not likely to regulated under the acid rain program, Federal Register document. be subject to an applicable requirement regardless of size, must obtain permits. EPA received a letter from one person and emit less than District-established Examples of major sources include who commented on what he believes to emission levels. The District needed to those that have the potential to emit 100 be deficiencies with respect to title V establish separate emission levels for tons per year or more of volatile organic programs in California. We are not HAPs and for other regulated pollutants compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, taking any actions on those comments and demonstrate that these emission sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides ( NOX), in today’s action and will respond to levels are insignificant compared to the or particulate matter (PM10); those that them by December 1, 2001. As stated in level of emissions from and type of emit 10 tons per year or more of any the Federal Register document units that are required to be permitted single hazardous air pollutant (HAP) published on December 11, 2000, (65 FR or subject to applicable requirements. listed under the CAA; or those that emit 77376) EPA will respond by December (Reference: 40 CFR 70.4(b)(2) and 25 tons per year or more of a 1, 2001 to timely public comments on 70.5(c)) combination of HAPs. In areas that are programs that have obtained interim District’s response to issue a. The not meeting the National Ambient Air approval; and EPA will respond by District revised its Rule 33 to add a new Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, April 1, 2002 to timely comments on term under its Rule 33.1.10. The new carbon monoxide, or particulate matter, fully approved programs. We will term defines and specifies ‘‘Insignificant major sources are defined by the gravity publish a notice of deficiency (NOD) Activity’’ to address EPA’s deficiency of the non-attainment classification. when we determine that a deficiency issue. The revision satisfies the part 70 Ventura County is classified as a exists, or we will notify the commenter requirements. severe non-attainment area for ozone. in writing to explain our reasons for not Issue b. Revision process for Therefore, for reactive organic making a finding of deficiency. A NOD significant changes to monitoring terms compounds or nitrogen oxides, the will not necessarily be limited to and conditions—the definitions of threshold for obtaining an operating deficiencies identified by citizens and ‘‘minor permit modification’’ and permit is 25 tons per year or more of may include any deficiencies that we ‘‘significant part 70 permit either reactive organic compounds or have identified through our program modification’’ in Rule 33.1 needed to be nitrogen oxides. Ventura County meets oversight. revised to ensure that significant changes to existing monitoring permit the NAAQS for all other pollutants. D. What Are the Program Changes That terms or conditions are processed as EPA Is Proposing To Approve? B. What Is Being Addressed in This significant permit modifications. Document? As discussed above, EPA granted final (Reference: 40 CFR 70.7(e)(4)). Where an operating permit program interim approval on November 1, 1995 District’s response to Issue b. The substantially, but not fully, met the (60 FR 55460) to the District’s title V District revised its Rule 33 to address criteria outlined in the implementing program. As stipulated in that EPA’s requirement. The newly adopted regulations codified at 40 Code of rulemaking, full approval of the District Rule 33.1.11.d states that the Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA operating permit program was made modification does not involve any granted interim approval contingent on contingent upon satisfaction of certain significant change to any existing the state revising its program to correct conditions. In response to EPA’s interim federally-enforceable monitoring term or any deficiencies. Because the District’s approval action, the District revised its condition or involve any relaxation of operating permit program substantially, Rule 33 (operating permit program) to reporting or recordkeeping requirements but not fully, met the requirements of remove the deficiencies identified by in the part 70 permit. part 70, EPA granted interim approval to EPA. The District held a workshop Issue c. Operation of modifications the District’s program on November 1, (November 30, 2000), made the draft prior to permit revision—except in the 1995. revised rule available to public review case when a federally enforceable This Federal Register document and comments (March/April 2001), and permit condition would prohibit it, describes the changes that the District adopted the revisions on April 10, 2001. Ventura’s Rule 33.9 A.1. allowed has made to its Rule 33 (District’s The revised program was submitted to sources to make significant
VerDate 11
modifications prior to receiving a part monitoring and analysis procedures, Issue h. Compliance schedule—At the 70 permit revision. In order to be emissions test methods or continuous time of interim approval, Rule 33.3 B.2, consistent with part 70, Ventura was monitoring equipment required under which requires that a schedule of required to revise its rule so that the all applicable requirements, and related compliance be included in the permit, only changes that may be operated prior recordkeeping and reporting did not create an explicit link with Rule to receiving a part 70 permit revision are requirements. It also requires, as 33.9 B.4., which details the contents of those modifications subject to section necessary, conditions concerning the a compliance schedule. Thus, VCAPCD 112(g) and title I, parts C and D of the use, maintenance, and, where needed to revise Rule 33.3’s permit Act, and those that are not prohibited by appropriate, installation of monitoring content requirements to ensure that all the existing part 70 permit. Under part equipment or methods. Further, all elements of the compliance schedule 70, if a proposed change does not meet applicable recordkeeping and under § 70.5(c) are incorporated into the these criteria, the source may not make monitoring requirements must include permit. (Reference: 40 CFR 70.6(c)(3), the change until the permitting details such as date, place and time of 70.6(c)(4)). authority has revised the source’s part sampling or measurements. District’s response to Issue h. The 70 permit. (Reference 40 CFR Issue f. Recordkeeping requirements— District revised its Rule 33.3 to include 70.5(a)(1)(ii)). VCAPCD needed to revise the permit EPA’s requirements. Rule 33.3.A.8 now District’s response to Issue c. The content requirements of Rule 33.3 to requires that if the stationary source is District replaced the last paragraph of its provide adequate specificity with regard not in compliance with any federally- Rule 33.9.A.1 with the following: ‘‘The to the applicable recordkeeping enforceable requirement, it must have a protection granted by this subsection for requirements. (Reference: 40 CFR schedule of compliance that is approved a significant part 70 permit modification 70.6(a)(3)(C)(ii)). by the District Hearing Board, meets all shall not be applicable unless the District’s response to Issue f. The requirements of Rule 33.2.A.7, and modification was subject to section District incorporated all of the above includes a condition that requires 112(g), or part C or D of title I of the requirements in Rule 33.3.A.3. For submittal of a progress report on the federal Clean Air Act and the existing example, the rule now specifies that schedule of compliance at least part 70 permit for the stationary source permits incorporate all applicable data semiannually. does not prohibit the modification. If such as: Issue i. EPA notification of operational flexibility changes—Rule either of these conditions is not met, the • Date, place as defined in the permit, 33.5.D needed to be revised to modified portion of the stationary and time of sampling or measurements; incorporate EPA notification of changes source shall not be operated until the • Date(s) analyses were performed; modified part 70 permit is issued.’’ made under the operational flexibility • Company or entity that performed Issue d. Public notice—VCAPCD provisions, either by providing for it the analyses; needed to revise Rule 33.7 B. to include • within the regulation, or by making the notice ‘‘by other means if necessary to Analytical techniques or methods general permit conditions, which do assure adequate notice to the affected used; specify EPA notification, required • Results of such analyses; and public.’’ (Reference: 40 CFR 70.7(h)(1)). • elements of each permit. (Reference 40 District’s response to Issue d. The Operating conditions as existing at CFR 70.4(b)(14)(ii)). District added a new section to its Rule the time of sampling or measurements. District’s response to Issue i. The 33.7. This new section (33.7.B.2.g) Support information includes all District revised the first paragraph of its requires the District to provide notice by calibration and maintenance records Rule 33.4.D to reflect EPA’s other means if necessary to assure and all original strip chart recordings for requirements. The revised paragraph is adequate notice to the affected public. continuous monitoring instrumentation, as follows: ‘‘The owner or operator of Issue e. Permit Content—Ventura’s and copies of all reports required by the any stationary source required to obtain permit content requirements are found part 70 permit. a part 70 permit will be allowed to in Rules 33.3 and 33.9. At the time of Issue g. Emissions trading under contravene an express part 70 permit interim approval, these regulatory applicable requirements—Ventura condition with 30 days written provisions adequately addressed nearly County needed to add emissions trading notification to both EPA and the District all of the part 70 requirements. Certain provisions consistent with § 70.6(a)(10), unless the District objects in writing to elements (e.g., §§ 70.6(a)(3)(ii)(B) and which requires that trading must be the change within the 30 day notice 70.6(a)(6)(i)), are more fully detailed in allowed where an applicable period.’’ the General Part 70 Permit conditions, requirement provides for trading Issue j. State-wide agricultural which were submitted in Appendix increases and decreases without a case- permitting exemption—one of EPA’s B.2.b. of Ventura’s part 70 program by-case approval. (Reference 40 CFR conditions for full title V program submittal. Ventura needed to establish a 70.6(a)(10)). approval was the California binding requirement that the General District’s response to Issue g. The Legislature’s revision of the Health and Part 70 Permit Conditions will be District included EPA’s requirement in Safety Code to eliminate the provision included in all part 70 permits. Ventura its Rule 33.3.A.6, which states that: that exempts ‘‘any equipment used in could accomplish this by modifying its ‘‘Applicable conditions for allowing agricultural operations in the growing of regulation to reference the general trading under a voluntary emission cap crops or the raising of fowl or animals’’ conditions that were submitted and accepted by the permittee, and for from the requirement to obtain a permit. approved by EPA, or by more fully allowing trading under applicable See California Health and Safety Code addressing the conditions within the requirements to the extent that such section 42310(e). Even though the local regulation. (Reference: 40 CFR 70.6(a)). requirements provide for trading Districts have, in many cases, removed District’s response to Issue e. The emissions without a case by case the title V exemption for agricultural District significantly revised Sections A approval of each trade. Such conditions sources from their own rules, the Health and B of its Rule 33.3 to incorporate shall include all terms required under and Safety Code has not been revised to EPA’s requirements. For example, Rule section A of this rule to determine eliminate this provision. 33.3.A.3 now requires conditions that compliance and shall meet all In evaluating the impact of the Health establish all applicable emissions applicable requirements.’’ and Safety Code exemption, EPA
VerDate 11
believes there are a couple of key factors operators and agricultural organizations, Administrative Requirements to consider. First, many post-harvest as well as EPA, other Federal agencies, Under Executive Order 12866, activities are not covered by the and the State and local air pollution ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 exemption and, thus, are still subject to agencies. For example, the National FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this title V permitting. For example, Academy of Sciences is undertaking a proposed action is not a ‘‘significant according to the California Air study addressing emissions from animal regulatory action’’ and therefore is not Resources Board (CARB), the Health and feeding operations. Their report is due subject to review by the Office of Safety Code exemption does not include next year. In addition, EPA’s Office of Management and Budget. Under the activities such as milling and crushing, Air and Radiation is working with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 or canning or cotton ginning operations. U.S. Department of Agriculture to better et seq.) the Administrator certifies that Activities such as these are subject to address the impact of agricultural this proposed rule will not have a review under the State’s title V operations on air quality. We consider significant economic impact on a programs. See letter from Michael P. the effort to evaluate the existing substantial number of small entities Kenny, Executive Officer, California Air science, improve on assessment tools, because it merely approves state law as Resources Board, to Jack Broadbent, collect additional data, remove any meeting federal requirements and Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region remaining legal obstacles, and issue any imposes no additional requirements 9, dated September 19, 2001. In necessary guidance within the three beyond those imposed by state law. This addition, since the granting of interim year deferral time frame to be ambitious. rule does not contain any unfunded approval, the EPA has discovered that, We welcome comments on other areas mandates and does not significantly or in general, there is not a reliable or that might also warrant study, as well as uniquely affect small governments, as complete inventory of emissions ways that this work might be done more described in the Unfunded Mandates associated with agricultural operations quickly. Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) During the interim deferral period, in California that are subject to the because it proposes to approve pre- EPA will continue to work with the exemption. Although further research existing requirements under state law agricultural industry and our state and on this issue is needed, many sources and does not impose any additional federal regulatory partners to pursue, with activities covered by the enforceable duties beyond that required exemption may not have emission levels wherever possible, voluntary emission by state law. This rule also does not that would subject them to title V, and reduction strategies. At the end of this have tribal implications because it will the State and/or individual Districts period, EPA will, taking into not have a substantial direct effect on may be able to demonstrate that none of consideration the results of these one or more Indian tribes, on the the sources that are exempt under the studies, make a determination as to how relationship between the Federal State law are subject to title V. the title V operating permit program Based, in part, on these factors, EPA will be implemented for any potential Government and Indian tribes, or on the has tentatively concluded that requiring major agricultural stationary sources. distribution of power and the immediate commencement of title V responsibilities between the Federal E. What Is Involved in This Proposed permitting of the limited types of Government and Indian tribes, as Action? agricultural activities presently subject specified by Executive Order 13175, to the exemption, without a better Today, we are proposing to fully ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with understanding of the sources and their approve the District’s revised Rule 33 Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR emissions, would not be an appropriate (operating permit program). We have 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule utilization of limited local, state and determined that the revisions made by also does not have Federalism federal resources. As a result, despite the District remove the deficiencies implications because it will not have the State of California’s failure to identified by us in 1995. We will make substantial direct effects on the States, eliminate the agricultural permitting our final decision on our proposal after on the relationship between the national exemption, EPA is proposing to grant considering public comments submitted government and the States, or on the full approval to local Air District during the 30-day period from this distribution of power and operating permit programs and allow a publication date. responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in deferral of title V permitting of II. Request for Public Comment agricultural operations involved in the Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ growing of crops or the raising of fowl EPA requests comments on the (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The or animals for a further brief period, not program revisions discussed in this rule merely proposes to approve to exceed three years. During the proposed action. Copies of the District existing requirements under state law, deferral period, we expect to develop submittal and other supporting and does not alter the relationship or the program infrastructure and documentation used in developing the the distribution of power and experience necessary for effective proposed full approval are contained in responsibilities between the State and implementation of the title V permitting docket files maintained at the EPA the Federal government established in program to this limited category of Region 9 office. The docket is an the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule sources. organized and complete file of all the also is not subject to Executive Order EPA believes it is appropriate to defer information submitted to, or otherwise 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from permitting for this limited category of considered by EPA in the development Environmental Health Risks and Safety agricultural sources because the of this proposed full approval. The Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or currently available techniques for primary purposes of the docket are: (1) Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions determining emissions inventories and To allow interested parties a means to Concerning Regulations That for monitoring emissions (e.g., from identify and locate documents so that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, irrigation pumps and feeding they can effectively participate in the Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May operations) are problematic and will be approval process, and (2) to serve as the 22, 2001), because it is not a significant dramatically enhanced by several efforts record in case of judicial review. EPA regulatory action under Executive Order currently being undertaken with the will consider any comments received in 12866. This action will not impose any cooperation and participation of the writing by November 19, 2001. collection of information subject to the
VerDate 11
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 6, 1995 Interim Approval Rulemaking. What is being addressed in this document? Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other than In addition, EPA is proposing to Are there other issues with the program? those previously approved and assigned approve, as a Title V operating permit What are the program changes that EPA is OMB control number 2060–0243. For program revision, changes to District proposing to approve? What is involved in this proposed action? additional information concerning these Rule 218, Title V: Federal Operating requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An Permits, adopted by MBUAPCD on What Is the Operating Permit Program? agency may not conduct or sponsor, and February 21, 1996 and March 26, 1997. The CAA Amendments of 1990 a person is not required to respond to, The MBUAPCD operating permit required all state and local permitting a collection of information unless it program was submitted in response to authorities to develop operating permit displays a currently valid OMB control the directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act programs that met certain federal number. (CAA) Amendments that permitting criteria. In implementing the operating In reviewing State operating permit authorities develop, and submit to EPA, permit programs, the permitting programs submitted pursuant to title V programs for issuing operating permits authorities require certain sources of air of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve to all major stationary sources and to State programs provided that they meet pollution to obtain permits that contain certain other sources within the all applicable requirements under the the requirements of the Clean Air Act permitting authorities’ jurisdiction. EPA and EPA’s regulations codified at 40 CAA. The focus of the operating permit granted interim approval to program is to improve enforcement by CFR part 70. In this context, in the MBUAPCD’s operating permit program absence of a prior existing requirement issuing each source a permit that on October 6, 1995. MBUAPCD revised consolidates all of the applicable CAA for the State to use voluntary consensus its program to satisfy the conditions of standards (VCS), EPA has no authority requirements into a federally the interim approval and this action enforceable document. By consolidating to disapprove a State operating permit approves those revisions. program for failure to use VCS. It would all of the applicable requirements for a DATES: Written comments on today’s thus be inconsistent with applicable law facility, the source, the public, and the proposal must be received by November for EPA, when it reviews an operating permitting authorities can more easily 19, 2001. permit program, to use VCS in place of determine what CAA requirements a State program that otherwise satisfies ADDRESSES: Written comments on this apply and how compliance with those the provisions of the Clean Air Act. action should be addressed to Gerardo requirements is determined. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) Rios, Acting Chief, Permits Office, Air Sources required to obtain an of the National Technology Transfer and Division (AIR–3), EPA Region IX, 75 operating permit under this program Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, include ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution 272 note) do not apply. California, 94105. You can inspect and certain other sources specified in copies of the MBUAPCD submittal, and the CAA or in EPA’s implementing List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 other supporting documentation regulations. For example, all sources Environmental protection, relevant to this action, during normal regulated under the acid rain program, Administrative practice and procedure, business hours at EPA Region 9, Air regardless of size, must obtain permits. Air pollution control, Intergovernmental Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Examples of major sources include relations, Operating permits, Reporting Francisco, California, 94105. those that have the potential to emit 100 and recordkeeping requirements. You may also see copies of the tons per year or more of volatile organic submitted Title V program at the compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, Dated: October 11, 2001. following locations: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides ( NO ), Laura Yoshii, X California Air Resources Board, or particulate matter (PM10); those that Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Stationary Source Division, Rule emit 10 tons per year of any single [FR Doc. 01–26421 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, hazardous air pollutant (specifically BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Sacramento, CA 95814 listed under the CAA); or those that Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution emit 25 tons per year or more of a Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud combination of hazardous air pollutants ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Court, Monterey CA 93940 (HAPs). In areas that are not meeting the AGENCY A courtesy copy of MBUAPCD’s title National Ambient Air Quality Standards 40 CFR Part 70 V rule, Rule 218, may be available via for ozone, carbon monoxide, or the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ particulate matter, major sources are [CA 047–OPP; FRL–7087–4] drdb/mbu/cur.htm. However, the defined by the gravity of the version of District Rule 218 at the above nonattainment classification. For Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval example, in ozone nonattainment areas of Operating Permit Program; internet address may be different from the version submitted to EPA for classified as ‘‘serious,’’ major sources Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution include those with the potential of Control District approval. Readers are cautioned to verify that the adoption date of the rule emitting 50 tons per year or more of AGENCY: Environmental Protection listed is the same as the rule submitted volatile organic compounds or nitrogen Agency (EPA). to EPA for approval (April 18, 2001). oxides. ACTION: Proposed rule. The official submittal is available only What Is Being Addressed in This at the three addresses listed above. SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to fully Document? FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: approve the operating permits program Where an operating permit program Roger Kohn, EPA Region IX, at (415) submitted by the Monterey Bay Unified substantially, but not fully, met the 744–1238 or [email protected]. Air Pollution Control District criteria outlined in the implementing (MBUAPCD) based on the revisions SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This regulations codified at 40 Code of submitted on May 9, 2001, which section provides additional information Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA satisfactorily address the program by addressing the following questions: granted interim approval contingent on deficiencies identified in EPA’s October What is the operating permit program? the state revising its program to correct
VerDate 11
the deficiencies. Because the MBUAPCD that have obtained interim approval; 40 CFR 70.7(d)(1)(iii) and 40 CFR operating permit program substantially, and EPA will respond by April 1, 2002 70.7(e)(4)). but not fully, met the requirements of to timely comments on fully approved MBUAPCD revised this definition, part 70, EPA granted interim approval to programs. We will publish a notice of which now states that an administrative the program in a rulemaking published deficiency (NOD) when we determine amendment ‘‘requires more frequent on October 6, 1995 (60 FR 52332). The that a deficiency exists, or we will monitoring or reporting requirements interim approval notice described the notify the commenter in writing to for the stationary source. * * *’’ This conditions that had to be met in order explain our reasons for not making a definition distinguishes administrative for the MBUAPCD program to receive finding of deficiency. A NOD will not amendments from permit modifications full approval. Since that time, necessarily be limited to deficiencies that increase monitoring or reporting MBUAPCD has submitted one revision identified by citizens and may include requirements, which must be processed of its interimly approved operating any deficiencies that we have identified as significant permit modifications. permit program, on May 9, 2001. This through our program oversight. (3) Revise the definition of ‘‘Federally Federal Register document describes Enforceable Requirement’’ to be What Are the Program Changes That the changes that have been made to the consistent with 40 CFR 70.2. EPA Is Proposing To Approve? MBUAPCD operating permit program MBUAPCD revised this definition so since interim approval was granted. A. Changes Required to Receive Full Program that instead of referring to ‘‘District To solicit citizens comments on the Approval prohibitory rules that are in the State operating permit programs, on Implementation Plan (SIP),’’ it now B. Other Changes December 11, 2000, EPA published a refers to ‘‘any standard or other document to announce a 90-day A. Changes Required To Receive Full requirement provided for in the State comment period for members of the Program Approval Implementation Plan (SIP) approved or public to identify deficiencies they promulgated by USEPA.’’ perceive exist in State and local agency As stipulated in the October 6, 1995 (4) Revise of the definition of ‘‘Minor operating permits programs (see 65 FR rulemaking, full approval of the Permit Modification’’ to require that a 77376). The deficiencies the public MBUAPCD operating permit program minor permit modification may not claims exist could be either deficiencies was made contingent upon correction of establish or change a permit condition in the substance of the approved deficiencies identified by EPA. used to avoid a federally enforceable program or deficiencies in how a MBUAPCD corrected all of these requirement to which the source would permitting authority is implementing its deficiencies in the revised title V otherwise be subject, in accordance with program. Where EPA agrees that there is program submitted to EPA on May 9, 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(4). deficiency, it will publish a notice of 2001. The corrections consist of the MBUAPCD revised this definition so deficiency on or before December 1, addition of new rule language, the that a permit modification that would 2001, and establish a time frame for the deletion of problematic old rule ‘‘establish or change any permit permitting authority to take action to language, or in one case, a commitment condition used to avoid a federally correct the deficiency. in the May 9, 2001 submittal to revise enforceable requirement to which the Rule 218 upon being notified by EPA of source would otherwise be subject’’ Are There Other Issues With the an application by an affected tribe for cannot be processed as a minor permit Program? state status. The deficiencies identified modification. On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a by EPA when interim approval of the (5) Require the compliance rulemaking that extended the interim MBUAPCD title V program was granted, certification within the permit approval period of 86 operating permits as well as the corrections made by application to indicate the source’s programs until December 1, 2001 (65 FR MBUAPCD to address these compliance status with any applicable 32035). The action was subsequently deficiencies, are summarized below. enhanced monitoring and compliance challenged by the Sierra Club and the The Technical Support Document (TSD) certification requirements of the Act, in New York Public Interest Research in the Docket for this rulemaking accordance with 40 CFR 70.5(c)(9)(iv). Group (NYPIRG). In settling the contains the full text of EPA’s MBUAPCD revised the permit litigation, EPA agreed to publish a description of each deficiency in the application section of Rule 218 to document in the Federal Register that 1995 rulemaking, as well as complete require that permit applications include would alert the public that they may descriptions of how MBUAPCD ‘‘a description of the compliance status identify and bring to EPA’s attention corrected the deficiencies, including the of each emissions unit within the alleged programmatic and/or revised rule language. stationary source with respect to implementation deficiencies in Title V (1) Acid rain sources and solid waste federally enforceable requirements programs and that EPA would respond incineration units are required to obtain including any applicable enhanced to their allegations within specified time a permit pursuant to section 129(e) of monitoring and compliance certification periods if the comments were made the Act and may not be exempted from requirements of the Act.’’ within 90 days of publication of the the requirement to obtain a title V (6) Revise the application compliance Federal Register document. permit, in accordance with 40 CFR certification requirement to be EPA received a comment letter from 70.3(b). consistent with 40 CFR 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C). one person on what he believes to be MBUAPCD revised Rule 218 so that it MBUAPCD has modified Rule 218 by deficiencies with respect to Title V no longer exempts these types of incorporating the exact language of 40 programs in California. EPA takes no sources from the requirement to obtain CFR 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C). action on those comments in today’s a title V permit. Under the revised rule, (7) Provide a demonstration that action and will respond to them by these sources must obtain title V activities that are exempt from title V December 1, 2001. As stated in the permits even if they otherwise qualify permitting are truly insignificant and Federal Register document published for one of the exemptions listed in Rule are not likely to be subject to an on December 11, 2000, (65 FR 77376) 218. applicable requirement. Alternatively, EPA will respond by December 1, 2001 (2) Revise the definition of Rule 218 may restrict the exemptions to to timely public comments on programs ‘‘Administrative Permit Amendments.’’ activities that are not likely to be subject
VerDate 11
to an applicable requirement and emit permit that the District proposes to issue One of EPA’s conditions for full title less than District-established emission that has been revised as a result of V program approval was the California levels (40 CFR 70.5(c) and 40 CFR comments received from the public Legislature’s revision of the Health and 70.4(b)(2)). during concurrent public and EPA Safety Code to eliminate the provision MBUAPCD added a new definition of review of the proposed permit (40 CFR that exempts ‘‘any equipment used in ‘‘insignificant activity’’ to Rule 218 that 70.8(a)(1)). agricultural operations in the growing of establishes emission levels that are used MBUAPCD added new language to crops or the raising of fowl or animals’’ to determine whether or not an activity Rule 218 that states that ‘‘If the permit from the requirement to obtain a permit. qualifies as insignificant. The emission is revised due to comments received See California Health and Safety Code levels are two tons per year of any from the public, the revised permit will section 42310(e). Even though the local criteria pollutant, and the lesser of 1,000 be forwarded to USEPA for an Districts have, in many cases, removed pounds per year, the section 112(g) de additional 45-day review period.’’ the title V exemption for agricultural minimis levels, or other Title I (12) Revise Rule 218 to define and sources from their own rules, the Health significant modification levels for provide for giving notice to affected and Safety Code has not been revised to Hazardous Air Pollutants and other states per 40 CFR 70.2 and 70.8(b). eliminate this provision. toxics as identified in 40 CFR Alternatively, MBUAPCD may make a In evaluating the impact of the Health 52.21(b)(23)(i). EPA and the District commitment to: (1) Initiate rule and Safety Code exemption, EPA agree that an activity that is subject to revisions upon being notified by EPA of believes there are a couple of key factors a source-specific applicable requirement an application by an affected tribe for to consider. First, many post-harvest does not qualify as insignificant, even if state status, and (2) provide affected activities are not covered by the its emissions are less than the District- state notice to tribes upon their filing for exemption and, thus, are still subject to established emission levels. state status (i.e., prior to Monterey’s title V permitting. For example, (8) Revise Rule 218 to provide that the adopting affected state notice rules). according to the California Air APCO shall also give public notice ‘‘by MBUAPCD addressed this deficiency Resources Board (CARB), the Health and other means if necessary to assure by making a formal commitment in its Safety Code exemption does not include adequate notice to the affected public,’’ May 9, 2001 submittal of its title V activities such as milling and crushing, in accordance with 40 CFR 70.7(h)(1). program to EPA to revise Rule 218 upon or canning or cotton ginning operations. MBUAPCD revised Rule 218, which notification by EPA of an affected state Activities such as these are subject to now states that the ‘‘notification shall be within 50 miles of the District. review under the State’s title V published in at least one newspaper of (13) Revise Rule 218 to require that programs. See letter from Michael P. general circulation within the District permits shall be reopened under Kenny, Executive Officer, California Air and by other means if necessary to specific circumstances as required by 40 Resources Board, to Jack Broadbent, assure adequate notice to the affected CFR 70.7(f). Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region public. * * *’’ MBUAPCD revised Rule 218 to 9, dated September 19, 2001. In (9) Revise Rule 218 to include the require that permits be reopened under addition, since the granting of interim contents of the public notice as specific circumstances described in the approval, the EPA has discovered that, specified by 40 CFR 70.7(h)(2). Rule, which are based on the in general, there is not a reliable or MBUAPCD revised Rule 218 to requirements in 40 CFR 70.7(f). complete inventory of emissions explicitly require that the information (14) Revise Rule 218 to provide, associated with agricultural operations required by 40 CFR 70.7(h)(2) be consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(iv), in California that are subject to the included in each public notice of the that the District shall take action on a exemption. Although further research District’s intent to issue, significantly minor permit modification application on this issue is needed, many sources modify, or renew a permit. This section within 90 days of receipt of the with activities covered by the of part 70 requires that public notices application or 15 days after the end of exemption may not have emission levels identify specific information, including the 45-day EPA review period, that would subject them to title V, and the affected facility, the name and whichever is later. the State and/or individual Districts address of the permittee, the activities MBUAPCD revised Rule 218 to may be able to demonstrate that none of involved in the permitting action, and incorporate these time frames. the sources that are exempt under the name, address, and telephone number of (15) Revise Rule 218 to specify the State law are subject to title V. a person whom citizens may contact for possible actions that may be taken on a Based, in part, on these factors, EPA additional information. minor permit modification application has tentatively concluded that requiring (10) Revise Rule 218 to provide that (40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(iv)). the immediate commencement of title V the District shall keep a record of the MBUAPCD added new language to permitting of the limited types of commenters and of the issues raised Rule 218 that describes four possible agricultural activities presently subject during the public participation process actions that may be taken on a minor to the exemption, without a better so that the Administrator may fulfill her permit modification. The possible understanding of the sources and their obligation to determine whether a actions include issuing the permit emissions, would not be an appropriate citizen petition may be granted (40 CFR modification, denying the application, utilization of limited local, state and 70.7(h)(5)). determining that the application must federal resources. As a result, despite MBUAPCD added new language to be processed according to significant the State of California’s failure to Rule 218 that states that the ‘‘APCO modification procedures, or revising the eliminate the agricultural permitting shall keep a record of the commenters draft permit modification and exemption, EPA is proposing to grant and of the issues raised during the submitting it to EPA as a proposed full approval to local Air District public participation process so that the permit modification. operating permit programs and allow a Administrator of the USEPA may fulfill (16) The California Legislature must deferral of title V permitting of their obligation to determine whether a revise state law to eliminate the agricultural operations involved in the citizen petition may be granted.’’ exemption of agricultural production growing of crops or the raising of fowl (11) Revise Rule 218 to provide EPA sources from the requirement to obtain or animals for a further brief period, not with an additional 45 days to review a a title V permit. to exceed three years. During the
VerDate 11
deferral period, we expect to develop date of revised Rule 218. The reader imposes no additional requirements the program infrastructure and should refer to the TSD for additional beyond those imposed by state law. This experience necessary for effective information on the nature of the rule rule does not contain any unfunded implementation of the title V permitting changes EPA is proposing to approve mandates and does not significantly or program to this limited category of and the basis for EPA’s proposed uniquely affect small governments, as sources. approval, as well as EPA’s reasons for described in the Unfunded Mandates EPA believes it is appropriate to defer not taking action on the definition of Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) permitting for this limited category of ‘‘major source’’ and the effective date because it proposes to approve pre- agricultural sources because the change. EPA is proposing to approve the existing requirements under state law currently available techniques for following changes to Rule 218: and does not impose any additional determining emissions inventories and • Replace the term ‘‘reactive organic enforceable duties beyond that required for monitoring emissions (e.g., from compounds’’ with ‘‘volatile organic by state law. This rule also does not irrigation pumps and feeding compounds’’ (Sections 2.2.4 and 4.3.4) have tribal implications because it will operations) are problematic and will be and refer to District Rule 101. not have a substantial direct effect on dramatically enhanced by several efforts • Delete the definitions for one or more Indian tribes, on the currently being undertaken with the ‘‘halogenated hydrocarbons’’ and relationship between the Federal cooperation and participation of the ‘‘reactive organic compound’’. Government and Indian tribes, or on the • operators and agricultural organizations, Add a permit shield provision. distribution of power and as well as EPA, other federal agencies, (Section 4.4) responsibilities between the Federal and the State and local air pollution What Is Involved in This Proposed Government and Indian tribes, as agencies. For example, the National Action? specified by Executive Order 13175, Academy of Sciences is undertaking a ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with study addressing emissions from animal The EPA proposes full approval of the Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR feeding operations. Their report is due operating permits program submitted by 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule next year. In addition, EPA’s Office of MBUAPCD based on the revisions also does not have Federalism Air and Radiation is working with the submitted on May 9, 2001, which implications because it will not have U.S. Department of Agriculture to better satisfactorily address the program substantial direct effects on the States, address the impact of agricultural deficiencies identified in EPA’s October on the relationship between the national operations on air quality. We consider 6, 1995 Interim Approval Rulemaking. government and the States, or on the the effort to evaluate the existing See 60 FR 52332. distribution of power and science, improve on assessment tools, Request for Public Comment responsibilities among the various collect additional data, remove any EPA requests comments on the levels of government, as specified in remaining legal obstacles, and issue any Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ necessary guidance within the three program revisions discussed in this proposed action. Copies of the (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The year deferral time frame to be ambitious. rule merely proposes to approve We welcome comments on other areas MBUAPCD submittal and other supporting documentation used in existing requirements under state law, that might also warrant study, as well as and does not alter the relationship or ways that this work might be done more developing the proposed full approval are contained in docket files maintained the distribution of power and quickly. responsibilities between the State and During the interim deferral period, at the EPA Region 9 office. The docket the Federal government established in EPA will continue to work with the is an organized and complete file of all the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule agricultural industry and our state and the information submitted to, or federal regulatory partners to pursue, otherwise considered by, EPA in the also is not subject to Executive Order wherever possible, voluntary emission development of this proposed full 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children From reduction strategies. At the end of this approval. The primary purposes of the Environmental Health Risks and Safety period, EPA will, taking into docket are: (1) To allow interested Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or consideration the results of these parties a means to identify and locate Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions studies, make a determination as to how documents so that they can effectively Concerning Regulations That the title V operating permit program participate in the approval process, and Significantly Affect Energy Supply, will be implemented for any potential (2) to serve as the record in case of Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May major agricultural stationary sources. judicial review. EPA will consider any 22, 2001), because it is not a comments received in writing by significantly regulatory action under B. Other Changes November 19, 2001. Executive Order 12866. This action will MBUAPCD adopted revisions to not impose any collection of District Rule 218, Title V: Federal Administrative Requirements information subject to the provisions of Operating Permits, on February 21, Under Executive Order 12866, the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 1996, March 26, 1997, and April 18, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 3501 et seq., other than those previously 2001. These revisions are unrelated to FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this approved and assigned OMB control the rule revisions made to address proposed action is not a ‘‘significant number 2060–0243. For additional interim approval deficiencies, which are regulatory action’’ and therefore is not information concerning these described in section A above. With two subject to review by the Office of requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An exceptions, EPA is proposing to approve Management and Budget. Under the agency may not conduct or sponsor, and the rule changes made by MBUAPCD in Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 a person is not required to respond to, 1996, 1997, and 2001. The changes that et seq.) the Administrator certifies that a collection of information unless it we are proposing to approve are this proposed rule will not have a displays a currently valid OMB control summarized below. EPA is not taking significant economic impact on a number. action at this time on MBUAPCD’s substantial number of small entities In reviewing State operating permit revision of the definition of ‘‘major because it merely approves state law as programs submitted pursuant to Title V source’’ in Rule 218 and the effective meeting federal requirements and of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve
VerDate 11
State programs provided that they meet National Flood Insurance Program Consideration. No environmental the requirements of the Clean Air Act (NFIP). impact assessment has been prepared. and EPA’s regulations codified at 40 DATES: The comment period is ninety Regulatory Flexibility Act CFR part 70. In this context, in the (90) days following the second absence of a prior existing requirement publication of this proposed rule in a The Acting Administrator for Federal for the State to use voluntary consensus newspaper of local circulation in each Insurance and Mitigation standards (VCS), EPA has no authority community. Administration certifies that this to disapprove a State operating permit proposed rule is exempt from the ADDRESSES: program for failure to use VCS. It would The proposed base flood requirements of the Regulatory thus be inconsistent with applicable law elevations for each community are Flexibility Act because proposed or for EPA, when it reviews an operating available for inspection at the office of modified base flood elevations are permit program , to use VCS in place of the Chief Executive Officer of each required by the Flood Disaster a State program that otherwise satisfies community. The respective addresses Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, are listed in the following table. the provisions of the Clean Air Act. and are required to establish and Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: maintain community eligibility in the of the National Technology Transfer and Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards NFIP. As a result, a regulatory flexibility Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Study Branch, Federal Insurance and analysis has not been prepared. 272 note) do not apply. Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Regulatory Classification List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, This proposed rule is not a significant Environmental protection, (202) 646–3461, or (email) regulatory action under the criteria of Administrative practice and procedure, [email protected]. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of Air pollution control, Intergovernmental SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The September 30, 1993, Regulatory relations, Operating permits, Reporting Federal Emergency Management Agency Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. and recordkeeping requirements. (FEMA or Agency) proposes to make Executive Order 12612, Federalism Dated: October 11, 2001. determinations of base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations for Laura Yoshii, This proposed rule involves no each community listed below, in policies that have federalism Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. accordance with Section 110 of the implications under Executive Order [FR Doc. 01–26416 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 1987. These proposed base flood and modified base flood elevations, together Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice FEDERAL EMERGENCY with the floodplain management criteria Reform MANAGEMENT AGENCY required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the This proposed rule meets the minimum that are required. They applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) 44 CFR Part 67 should not be construed to mean that of Executive Order 12778. the community must change any [Docket No. FEMA–D–7514] existing ordinances that are more List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Proposed Flood Elevation stringent in their floodplain Administrative practice and Determinations management requirements. The procedure, flood insurance, reporting community may at any time enact and recordkeeping requirements. AGENCY: Federal Emergency stricter requirements of its own, or Management Agency, FEMA. Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is pursuant to policies established by other proposed to be amended as follows: ACTION: Proposed rule. Federal, state or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet PART 67—[AMENDED] SUMMARY: Technical information or the floodplain management comments are requested on the requirements of the NFIP and are also 1. The authority citation for Part 67 proposed base (1% annual chance) flood used to calculate the appropriate flood continues to read as follows: elevations and proposed base flood insurance premium rates for new Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; elevation modifications for the buildings built after these elevations are Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, communities listed below. The base made final, and for the contents in these 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, flood elevations are the basis for the buildings. 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. floodplain management measures that the community is required either to National Environmental Policy Act § 67.4 [Amended] adopt or to show evidence of being This proposed rule is categorically 2. The tables published under the already in effect in order to qualify or excluded from the requirements of 44 authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be remain qualified for participation in the CFR Part 10, Environmental amended as follows:
#Depth in feet above ground. Elevation in feet (*NGVD) State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (•NAVD) Existing Modified
Alabama ...... Baldwin County Fish River...... Approximately 420 feet upstream of •105 •104 (Unincorporated Threemile Creek. Areas).
VerDate 11
#Depth in feet above ground. Elevation in feet (*NGVD) State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (•NAVD) Existing Modified
At the upstream side of U.S. Route 51 None •196 (State Highway 59). Perone Branch ...... At confluence with Fish River ...... •35 •34 At State Highway 59 ...... None •145 Styx River ...... At confluence with Perdido River ...... •6 •9 At Brady Road (Truck Route 17) ...... None •77 Mobile Bay ...... Approximately 200 feet south of intersec- None •7 tion of Fort Morgan Road and Dune Drive. Approximately 0.6 mile west of the inter- •17 •19 section of Main Street and Bel Air Drive. Bon Secour Bay ...... Southeast corner of intersection of Vet- •10 •9 erans Road and State Route 180. Approximately 300 feet west of the inter- •13 •15 section of Bay Road North and Beach Road. Gulf of Mexico...... At intersection of Ono Boulevard and None •7 Pompano Key Drive. Approximately 500 feet south of the inter- •12 •15 section of Ponce de Leon Court and Choctow Road. Perdido Bay ...... Approximately 250 feet northwest of the None •4 intersection of Magnolia Street and Mo- bile Avenue. Approximately 1.1 miles east of the inter- •8 •9 section of Boykin Boulevard and Aza- lea Street. Wolf Bay ...... Approximately 500 feet south of the inter- None •5 section of State Route 95 and East Quarry Drive. Approximately 0.9 mile north of the inter- •8 •9 section of Gulf Bay Road and Wolf Bay Terrace. Weeks Bay ...... Approximately 1,000 feet south of inter- •10 •11 section of Yupon Lane and Gavin Lane. Approximately 500 feet west of intersec- •12 •11 tion of Yupon Lane and Gavin Lane. Oyster Bay ...... Approximately 2,750 feet north of inter- None •10 section of Old Fort Morgan Trail. Approximately 0.6 mile north of intersec- •10 •14 tion of Quail Run and Oyster Bay Lane. Maps available for inspection at the Baldwin County Building Department, 201 East Section Street, Bay Minette, Alabama. Send comments to Mr. Joe Faust, Chairman of the Baldwin County Commission, P.O. Box 1488, Bay Minette, Alabama 36507.
Alabama ...... Elmore County (Un- Tributary to Mill Creek ..... At a point approximately 1,000 feet up- None •204 incorporated stream of the confluence with Mill Areas). Creek. At a point approximately 2,500 feet up- None •214 stream of the confluence with Mill Creek. Alabama River ...... Approximately 950 feet downstream of None •161 Interstate 31. Approximately 3,700 feet downstream of None •168 the confluence of Tallapoosa River. Tallapoosa River ...... Approximately 3.3 miles River upstream None •169 of the confluence of Gravel Pit Creek. Approximately 4.6 miles downstream of None •176 the confluence of Chubbehatchee Creek. Maps available for inspection at the Office of the Elmore County Engineer, 155 County Shop Road, Wetumpka, Alabama. Send comments to Mr. Don Whorton, Chairman of the Board of Elmore County Commissioners, 100 Commerce Street, Room 207, Wetumpka, Alabama 36092.
Connecticut ...... Enfield (Town), Waterworks Brook...... Approximately 140 feet downstream of *55 *54 Hartford County. breached dam. Approximately 500 feet upstream of Elm *121 *124 Avenue.
VerDate 11
#Depth in feet above ground. Elevation in feet (*NGVD) State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (•NAVD) Existing Modified
Terry Brook ...... At the confluence with the Scantic River None *117 Approximately 250 feet upstream of None *204 Somers Road. Maps available for inspection at the Enfield Town Engineer’s Office, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Send comments to Mr. Scott Shanley, Enfield Town Manager, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut 06082–2997.
Connecticut ...... Marlborough Blackledge River...... Approximately 2,620 feet upstream of *351 *352 (Town), Hartford West Road. County. Approximately 550 feet upstream of None *384 Jones Hollow Bridge. Fawn Brook...... Approximately 210 feet upstream of *179 *180 South Main Street. Approximately 2,925 feet upstream of None *193 South Main Street. Unnamed Tributary of At confluence with Dickinson Creek ...... None *419 Dickinson Creek. A point approximately 660 feet upstream None *423 of State Route 2. Maps available for inspection at the Marlborough Town Planner’s Office, Town Hall, 26 North Main Street, Marlborough, Connecticut. Send comments to Mr. Howard Dean, Jr., Town of Marlborough First Selectman, Town Hall, 26 North Main Street, P.O. Box 29, Marlborough, Connecticut 06447.
Florida ...... Daytona Beach Eleventh Street Canal ...... At confluence with Tomoka River ...... *15 *16 (City) Volusia County. Approximately 2,810 feet upstream of None *26 Clyde Morris Boulevard North. Eleventh Street Canal At confluence with Eleventh Street ...... *27 *26 Tributary No. 2. Approximately 2,800 feet 2 upstream of *28 *26 LPGA Boulevard. Just upstream of Clyde Morris Boulevard *28 *26 North. At confluence of Eleventh Street Canal *28 *26 Tributary No. 2A. Eleventh Street Canal At confluence with Eleventh Street Canal *28 *26 Tributary No. 2A. Tributary No. 2. Approximately 2,600 feet upstream of *29 *26 confluence with Eleventh Street Canal Tributary No. 2. Shooting Range Canal ..... At confluence with Tomoka River ...... *12 *13 At a point just upstream of Clyde Morris *28 *26 Boulevard North. Maps available for inspection at the City of Daytona Beach Public Works Complex, Engineering Department, 950 Bellevue Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida. Send comments to Mr. Carey F. Smith, Daytona Beach City Manager, P.O. Box 2451, Daytona Beach, Florida 32115.
Florida ...... Ormond Beach Eleventh Street Canal At confluence with Eleventh ...... *27 *26 (City), Volusia Tributary No. 2. County. Approximately 2,800 feet 2 upstream of *28 *26 LPGA Boulevard. Just upstream of Clyde Morris Boulevard *28 *26 North. At confluence of Eleventh Street Canal *28 *26 Tributary No. 2A. Eleventh Street Canal At confluence with Eleventh Street Canal *28 *26 Tributary No. 2A. Tributary No. 2. Approximately 2,600 feet upstream of *29 *26 confluence with Eleventh Street Canal Tributary No. 2. Maps available for inspection at the City of Ormond Beach Planning Department, Room 104, 22 South Beach Street, Ormond Beach, Florida. Send comments to Mr. Ted MacLeod, City of Ormond Beach Interim Manager, P.O. Box 277, Ormond Beach, Florida 32175–0277.
Florida ...... Volusia County Eleventh Street Canal At confluence with Eleventh Street ...... *27 *26 (Unincorporated Tributary No. 2. Areas).
VerDate 11
#Depth in feet above ground. Elevation in feet (*NGVD) State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (•NAVD) Existing Modified
Approximately 2,800 feet upstream of *28 *26 LPGA Boulevard. Just upstream of Clyde Morris Boulevard *28 *26 North At confluence of Eleventh Street Canal Tributary No. 2A. Eleventh Street Canal At confluence with Eleventh Street Canal *28 *26 Tributary No. 2A. Tributary No. 2. Approximately 2,600 feet upstream of *29 *26 confluence with Eleventh Street Canal Tributary No. 2. Shooting Range Canal ..... At confluence with Tomoka River ...... *12 *13 At a point just upstream of Clyde Morris *28 *26 Boulevard North. Maps available for inspection at the Volusia County Emergency Operations Center, 49 Keyton Drive, Daytona, Florida. Send comments to Ms. Cynthia Coto, Volusia County Manager, 123 West Indiana Avenue, Deland, Florida 32720–4612.
Florida ...... Jupiter Island Atlantic Ocean ...... Approximately 0.94 mile east of intersec- *10 *13 (Town), Martin tion of Suddard Drive and Williams County. Drive. Approximately 1.32 miles north-northwest *10 *6 of intersection of Beach Road and Har- mony Avenue. Maps available for inspection at the Jupiter Town Hall, Building Department, 103 Bunker Hill Road, Hobe Sound, Florida. Send comments to Mr. James R. Spurgeon, Jupiter Island Town Manager, P.O. Box 7, Hobe Sound, Florida 33475–0007.
Florida ...... Martin County (Un- Bessey Creek ...... Approximately 1,100 feet downstream of *7 *8 incorporated Andrews Drive. Areas). At 84th Avenue ...... None *26 Danforth Creek ...... At Martin Downs Boulevard ...... *7 *8 Approxiamtely 1,600 feet upstream of None *23 State Route 76A. South Fork St. Lucie River Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of *7 *8 State Route 76. Approximately 4.9 miles upstream of None *10 State Route 76. Roebuck Creek ...... Approximately 700 feet downstream of *7 *8 Buckskin Trail. Approximately 0.78 mile upstream of None *19 State Route 76A. Manatee Creek ...... At State Route A1A ...... *8 *9 Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of None *15 Twin Lakes Drive. East Fork Creek ...... Approxiamtely 400 feet upstream of Cove *8 *9 Road. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Mar- None *15 iner Sands Drive. Atlantic Ocean ...... Approximately 600 feet east of the inter- *9 *14 section of A1A and 42nd Street. Approximately 1.1 miles northeast of *10 *6 intersection of Golfhouse Drive and Hill Terrace. Maps available for inspection at the Martin County Engineer’s Office, 2401 South East Monterey Road, Stuart, Florida. Send comments to Mr. Russ Blackburn, Martin County Administrator, 2401 South East Monterey Road, Stuart, Florida 34996.
Georgia ...... White County (Un- Blue Creek ...... Approximately 300 feet upstream of the None *1,268 incorporated confluence with Chattahoochee River. Areas). Approximately 2.5 miles upstream of None *1,372 Duncan Bridge Road. Brasstown Creek ...... Approximately 800 feet upstream of the None *1,271 confluence with Chattahoochee River. Approximately 3.2 miles upstream of Roy None *1,391 Powers Road. Brasstown Creek Tribu- At confluence with Brasstown Creek ...... None *1,322 tary No. 1. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the None *1,386 confluence with Brasstown Creek.
VerDate 11
#Depth in feet above ground. Elevation in feet (*NGVD) State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (•NAVD) Existing Modified
Brasstown Creek Tribu- At the confluence with Brasstown Creek None *1,341 tary No. 2. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the None *1,394 confluence with Brasstown Creek. White Creek ...... Approximately 200 feet upstream of the None *1,133 confluence with Chattahoochee River. At State Route 254 ...... None *1,317 Chattahoochee ...... Approximately 1.7 miles downstream of None *1,390 State Route 75. Approximately 1.5 miles downstream of None *1,394 State Route. Maps available for inspection at the White County Planning Commission Director’s Office, 59 South Main Street, Cleveland, Georgia. Send comments to Mr. Paul Bryan, White County Manager, 59 South Main Street, Cleveland, Georgia 30528.
Illinois ...... Elburn (Village), Blackberry Creek ...... At the confluence of Blackberry Creek None *741 Kane County. Tributary D. Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of None *747 Hughes Road. Blackberry Creek Tribu- Approximately 600 feet upstream of con- None *742 tary D. fluence with Blackberry Creek. Approximately 2,550 fee downstream of None *799 Keslinger Road. Maps available for inspection at the Elburn Village Hall, 301 East North Street, Elburn, Illinois. Send comments to Mr. James Willey, President of the Village of Elburn Board of Trustees, 301 East North Street, Elburn, Illinois 60119.
Illinois ...... Elgin (City), Kane Sandy Creek ...... At Randall Road ...... *821 *826 County. Approximately 325 feet upstream of Ran- None *826 dall Road. Tyler Creek ...... Approximately 500 feet upstream of con- *716 *715 fluence with Fox River. Approximately 120 feet downstream of None *839 Soo Line Railroad. Maps available for inspection at City of Elgin Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, Illinois. Send comments to Ms. Joyce Parker, Elgin City Manager, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin, Illinois 60120.
Illinois ...... Gilberts (Village) Tyler Creek ...... Just upstream of Big Timber Road ...... None *867 Kane County. Approximately 200 feet downstream of None *886 McCornack Road. Maps available for inspection at the Gilberts Village Hall, 86 Railroad Street, Gilberts, Illinois. Send comments to Mr. Mike Isitoro, Gilberts Village President, 86 Railroad Street, Gilberts, Illinois 60136.
Illinois ...... Kane County (Unin- Blackberry Creek Tribu- Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of con- *704 *703 corporated tary F. fluence with Blackberry Creek Tributary Areas). B. Approximately 250 feet downstream of *728 *727 Bliss Road. Main Street Ditch ...... At confluence with Blackberry Creek Trib- None *707 utary F. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Main None *709 Street. Tyler Creek ...... Approximately 375 downstream of Eagle *791 *793 Road East. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Illi- None *898 nois Route 72. Pingree Creek ...... At confluence with Tyler Creek ...... None *893 Approximately 325 feet upstream of U.S. None *906 Route 20. Mastadon Lake ...... Approximately 300 feet southeast of the None *662 intersection of Parker Avenue and Hinman Street. Sandy Creek ...... Approximately 130 feet downstream of *820 *821 Randall Road. Just downstream of U.S. Route 20 ...... None *889 Indian Creek...... Approximately 0.41 mile upstream of None *676 Wood Street. At downstream side of East-West Tollway None *717
VerDate 11
#Depth in feet above ground. Elevation in feet (*NGVD) State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (•NAVD) Existing Modified
Indian Creek Tributary B .. Approximately 0.61 mile upstream of con- None *716 fluence with Indian Creek. Approximately 0.86 mile upstream of con- None *716 fluence with Indian Creek. South Tributary ...... At confluence with Indian Creek ...... None *684 Approximately 680 feet upstream of con- None *688 fluence with Indian Creek. Welch Creek ...... Approximately 1,110 feet downstream of None *680 Fay’s Lane. Just upstream of Burlington Northern None *692 Railroad. Welch Creek Tributary 1 .. Just upstream of Aurora Municipal Airport None *693 Approximately 2,600 feet upstream of Au- None *694 rora Municipal Airport. Blackberry Creek Tribu- Approximately 750 feet southwest of None *670 tary H. Lake View Court and Lake View Drive intersection. Selmarten Creek ...... At confluence with Indian Creek ...... *715 *716 At county boundary ...... *718 *720 Maps available for inspection at the Kane County Water Resources Department, Kane County Government Center Building ‘‘A,’’ 719 Batavia Avenue, Geneva, Illinois. Send comments to Mr. Michael W. McCoy, Chairman of the Kane County Board of Commissioners, 719 Batavia Avenue, Geneva, Illinois 60134.
Illinois ...... Kendall County Harvey Creek ...... From county boundary ...... None *638 (Unincorporated Areas). At approximately 775 feet upstream of None *617 confluence with Little Rock Creek. Maps available for inspection at the Kendall County Planning and Zoning Department, 111 West Fox Street, Yorkville, Illinois. Send comments to Mr. John Church, Chairman of the Kendall County Board, 111 West Fox Street, Yorkville, Illinois 60560.
Illinois ...... Lily Lake (Village), Ferson Creek ...... Approximately 100 feet downstream of None *802 Kane County. Great Western Trail Railroad. Just downstream of Route 64 ...... None *872 Maps available for inspection at the Lily Lake Village Hall, 43W680 Empire Road, St. Charles, Illinois. Send comments to Mr. Glenn Bork, Lily Lake Village President, 44W508 I.C. Trail, Lily Lake, Illinois 60151.
Illinois ...... Montgomery (Vil- Blackberry Creek Tribu- Approximately 2,050 feet downstream of None *661 lage), Kane tary G. Aucutt Road. County. Approximately 550 feet downstream of None *666 Jericho Road. Blackberry Creek ...... Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of None *664 Jericho Road. At Jericho Road ...... None *666 Maps available for inspection at the Montgomery Village Clerk’s Office, 1300 South Broadway, Montgomery, Illinois. Send comments to Ms. Marilyn Michelini, Montgomery Village President, 1300 South Broadway, Montgomery, Illinois 60538.
Illinois ...... Newark (Village), Dave-Bob Creek ...... Approximately 175 feet upstream of con- None *620 Kendall County. fluence with Clear Creek. Approximately 560 feet upstream of Chi- None *663 cago Road. Maps available for inspection at the Village of Newark Building Department, 101 West Lions Street, Newark, Illinois. Send comments to Mr. Roger Ness, Village President, P.O. Box 445, Newark, Illinois 60541–0001.
Illinois ...... Pingree Grove (Vil- Pingree Creek...... Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of None *901 lage), Kane Highland Avenue. County. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Soo None *902 Line Railroad. Maps available for inspection at the Pingree Grove Village Hall, 14N042 Reinking Road, Hampshire, Illinois. Send comments to Mr. Vern Wester, President of the Village of Pingree Grove Board, 14N042 Reinking Road, Hampshire, Illinois 60140.
Illinois ...... Sandwich (City), Harvey Creek ...... Approximately 775 feet upstream of Little None *617 DeKalb County. Rock Creek. At Dayton Street ...... None *640
VerDate 11
#Depth in feet above ground. Elevation in feet (*NGVD) State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (•NAVD) Existing Modified
Maps available for inspection at the City Engineering Office, 144 East Railroad Street, Sandwich, Illinois. Send comments to Mr. Tom Thomas, Mayor of the City of Sandwich, 144 East Railroad Street, Sandwich, Illinois 60548.
Illinois ...... Sugar Grove (Vil- Blackberry Creek ...... Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of None *678 lage), Kane Densmore Road. County. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of None *690 Bliss Road. Blackberry Creek ...... At confluence with Blackberry Creek ...... None *680 Tributary E ...... At Mankes Road ...... None *680 Maps available for inspection at the Sugar Grove Village Office, 10 Municipal Drive, Sugar Grove, Illinois. Send comments to Mr. P. Sean Michels, Sugar Grove Village President, 10 Municipal Drive, Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554.
Maine ...... Lebanon (Town), Salmon Falls River ...... At downstream corporate limits ...... None *190 York County. At upstream corporate limits ...... None *421 Maps available for inspection at the Lebanon Code Enforcement Office, 655 Upper Guinea Road, Lebanon, Maine. Send comments to Mr. Gilber Zinck, Chairman of the Town of Lebanon Selectmen, P.O. Box 339, Lebanon, Maine 04027.
Maine ...... Princeton (Town), Grand Falls Flowage...... Entire shoreline within the Town of None *204 Washington Princeton. County. Lewy Lake...... Entire shoreline within the Town of None *204 Princeton. Long Lake...... Entire shoreline within the Town of None *204 Princeton. Maps available for inspection at the Princeton Town Office, 15 Depot Street, Princeton, Maine. Send comments to Mr. Greg Monk, Chairman of the Town of Princeton Board of Selectmen, P.O. Box 408, Princeton, Maine 04668.
New Hampshire ..... Nashua (City), Nashua River ...... At the downstream side of B&M Railroad *115 *114 Hillsborough bridge. County. Approximately 0.75 mile upstream of *177 *176 State Route 111. Bartemus Brook ...... At confluence with Nashua River ...... *167 *165 At upstream corporate limits ...... *168 *166 Lyle Reed Brook ...... At confluence with Nashua River ...... *169 *167 Approximately 0.75 mile upstream of *169 *167 State Route 11. Maps available for inspection at the Nashua City Hall, 229 Main Street, Nashua, New Hampshire. Send comments to The Honorable Bernard A. Streeter, Mayor of the City of Nashua, City Hall, 229 Main Street, Nashua, New Hampshire 03061–2019.
New Jersey ...... Deal (Borough), Poplar Brook ...... Approximately 20 feet upstream of New *15 *29 Monmouth Coun- York and Long Branch Railroad. ty. Approximately 480 feet downstream of *10 *11 Ocean Avenue. Maps available for inspection at the Deal Borough Municipal Building, Durant Square, Deal, New Jersey. Send comments to Mr. James Rogers, Borough of Deal Clerk and Administrator, Municipal Building, Durant Square, Deal, New Jersey 07723.
New York ...... Angola (Village), Big Sister Creek ...... Upstream corporate limits ...... None *622 Erie County. Downstream corporate limits ...... None *644 Unnamed Tributary to Big At confluence with Big Sister Creek ...... None *643 Sister Creek. Approximately 750 feet upstream of con- None *643 fluence with Big Sister Creek. Maps available for inspection at the Angola Village Office, 41 Commercial Street, Angola, New York. Send comments to The Honorable Jim Carlson, Mayor of the Village of Angola, 41 Commercial Street, Angola, New York 14006.
New York ...... East Aurora (Vil- Tannery Brook...... At the confluence of East Branch *867 *866 lage), Erie Coun- Cazenovia Creek. ty. Approximately 710 feet upstream of *943 *944 Brooklea Drive.
VerDate 11
#Depth in feet above ground. Elevation in feet (*NGVD) State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (•NAVD) Existing Modified
Maps available for inspection at the East Aurora Village Hall, 571 Main Street, East Aurora, New York. Send comments to The Honorable John V. Pagliaccio, Mayor of the Village of East Aurora, 571 Main Street, East Aurora, New York 14052.
New York ...... Fort Plain (Village), Otsquago Creek ...... Approximately 540 feet upstream of the *305 *306 Montgomery confluence with the Mohawk River. County. Approximately 50 feet upstream of State *335 *336 Route 80. Maps available for inspection at the Fort Plain Village Hall, 168 Canal Street, Fort Plain, New York. Send comments to The Honorable Thomas L. Quackenbush, Mayor of the Village of Fort Plain, Fort Plain Village Hall, 168 Canal Street, Fort Plain, New York 13339.
New York ...... Herkimer (Village), West Canada Creek ...... Approximately 600 feet downstream of *388 *387 Herkimer County. East State Street (State Route 5). At the upstream corporate limits with the *414 *413 Town of Herkimer (approximately 1.36 miles upstream of East State Street). Maps available for inspection at the Herkimer Village Municipal Hall, 120 Green Street, Herkimer, New York. Send comments to Mr. Jams Franco, Herkimer County Department of Public Works, South Washington Street, Herkimer, New York 13350.
New York ...... Jay (Town), Essex East Branch Ausable At the confluence with Ausable River ...... *551 *550 County. River. At the upstream corporate limits (approxi- None *724 mately 2.24 miles upstream of NYS Route 9N). Ausable River ...... At the downstream corporate limits ...... None *491 At the confluence of East and West *551 *550 Branches of Ausable River. Tributary to East Branch At the confluence with East Branch Ausa- None *589 Ausable River. ble River. At NYS Route 9R ...... None *765 West Branch ...... At the confluence with the Ausable ...... *551 *550 Ausable River ...... River and East Branch Ausable River Ap- *553 *552 proximately 250 feet upstream of the confluence with the Ausable River. Maps available for inspection at the Jay Town Hall, School Street, Ausable Forks, New York. Send comments to Mr. Thomas O’Neill, Jay Town Supervisor, P.O. Box 730, Ausable Forks, New York 12912.
New York ...... Lisle (Town), Dudley Creek ...... Approximately 650 feet downstream of None *1,044 Broome County. Owen Hill Road. At Popple Hill Road ...... None *1,097 Culver Creek ...... At the confluence with Dudley Creek ...... None *1,075 At Hunts Corners Road ...... None *1,106 Tioughnioga River ...... Approximately 3.12 miles downstream of None *979 Main Street. A point approximately 1.19 miles up- None *1,003 stream of Main Street. Maps available for inspection at the Lisle Town Office, 9234 NYS Route 79, Lisle, New York. Send comments to Mr. James C. Dunham, Lisle Town Supervisor, P.O. Box 98, Lisle, New York 13797.
New York ...... Tusten (Town), Sul- Delaware River ...... At the corporate limits ...... None *629 livan County. Approximately 2.03 miles downstream of None *665 the CONRAIL bridge. Maps available for inspection at the Tusten Town Hall, 210 Bridge Street, Narrowsburg, New York. Send comments to Mr. Richard Crandell, Tusten Town Supervisor, P.O. Box 195, Narrowsburg, New York 12764.
Virginia ...... Franklin (City), Blackwater River ...... At downstream corporate limits ...... None *17 Independent City. At upstream corporate limits ...... *18 *22 Maps available for inspection at Franklin City Office, 207 West Second Avenue, Franklin, Virginia. Send comments to The Honorable James P. Councill, III, Mayor of the City of Franklin, 207 West Second Avenue, Franklin, Virginia 23851.
Virginia ...... Isle of Wight Coun- Blackwater River ...... Approximately 3.7 miles downstream of None *16 ty (Unincor- CSX Transportation. porated Areas).
VerDate 11
#Depth in feet above ground. Elevation in feet (*NGVD) State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (•NAVD) Existing Modified
Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of *33 *36 Broadwater Road (State Route 629). Maps available for inspection at the Isle of Wight County Administrator’s Office, 17130 Monument Circle, Suite A, Isle of Wight, Virginia. Send comments to Mr. W. Douglas Caskey, Isle of Wight County Administrator, P.O. Box 80, Isle of Wight, Virginia 23397.
Virginia ...... Monterey (Town) West Strait ...... Approximately 650 feet downstream of *2,849 *2,853 Highland County. U.S. Route 220. Approximately 630 feet upstream of the *2,965 *2,967 west stream crossing of Mill Alley. Maps available for inspection at the Monterey Building and Zoning Department, Main Street, Monterey, Virginia. Send comments to The Honorable Janice Warner, Mayor of the Town of Monterey, P.O. Box 26, Monterey, Virginia 24465.
Virginia ...... Suffolk (City), Inde- Blackwater ...... At downstream corporate limits ...... None *15 pendent City. At upstream corporate limits ...... None *16 Maps available for inspection at the Suffolk City Manager’s Office, 441 Market Street, Suffolk, Virginia. Send comments to The Honorable Curtis R. Milteer, Sr., Mayor of the City of Suffolk, P.O. Box 1858, Suffolk, Virginia 23439.
Vermont ...... Hardwick (Town/Vil- Lamoille River Divergence Approximately 460 feet upstream of the *793 *794 lage), Caledonia confluence with Lamoille River. County. At the divergence from Lamoille River ..... *805 *804 Maps available for inspection at the Hardwick Town Hall, 20 Church Street, Hardwick, Vermont. Send comments to Mr. Daniel P. Hill, Hardwick Town/Village Manager, P.O. Box 523, 20 Church Street, Hardwick, Vermont 05843.
West Virginia ...... Berkeley County Evans Run ...... A point approximately 300 feet down- *489 *488 (Unincorporated stream of U.S. Route 11. Areas). A point approximately 300 feet down- *558 *556 stream of State Route 45. Maps available for inspection at the Berkeley County Planning Commission, 119 West King Street, Martinsburg, West Virginia. Send comments to Mr. Howard Strauss, President of the Berkeley County Board of Commissioners, 126 West King Street, Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. BFEs are the basis for the floodplain SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’). management measures that the proposes to make determinations of Dated: October 9, 2001. community is required either to adopt BFEs and modified BFEs for each Robert F. Shea, or to show evidence of being already in community listed below, in accordance Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and effect in order to qualify or remain with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Mitigation Administration. qualified for participation in the Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, [FR Doc. 01–26427 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] National Flood Insurance Program and 44 CFR 67.4(a). BILLING CODE 6718–04–P (NFIP). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain DATES: The comment period is ninety management criteria required by 44 CFR FEDERAL EMERGENCY (90) days following the second MANAGEMENT AGENCY 60.3, are the minimum that are required. publication of this proposed rule in a They should not be construed to mean newspaper of local circulation in each 44 CFR Part 67 that the community must change any community. existing ordinances that are more [Docket No. FEMA–P–7601] ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each stringent in their floodplain community are available for inspection management requirements. The Proposed Flood Elevation community may at any time enact Determinations at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The stricter requirements of its own, or AGENCY: Federal Emergency respective addresses are listed in the pursuant to policies established by other Management Agency (FEMA). table below. Federal, State, or regional entities. ACTION: Proposed rule. These proposed elevations are used to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: meet the floodplain management SUMMARY: Technical information or Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards requirements of the NFIP and are also comments are requested on the Study Branch, Federal Insurance and used to calculate the appropriate flood proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 insurance premium rates for new Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, buildings built after these elevations are BFE modifications for the communities (202) 646–3461 or (e-mail) made final, and for the contents in these listed below. The BFEs and modified [email protected]. buildings.
VerDate 11
National Environmental Policy Act Regulatory Classification List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 This proposed rule is categorically This proposed rule is not a significant Administrative practice and excluded from the requirements of 44 regulatory action under the criteria of procedure, Flood insurance, reporting CFR Part 10, Environmental Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of and recordkeeping requirements. Consideration. No environmental September 30, 1993, Regulatory Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is impact assessment has been prepared. Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. proposed to be amended as follows: Regulatory Flexibility Act Executive Order 12612, Federalism PART 67—[AMENDED] The Acting Administrator for Federal Insurance and Mitigation This proposed rule involves no 1. The authority citation for Part 67 Administration certifies that this policies that have federalism continues to read as follows: implications under Executive Order proposed rule is exempt from the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; requirements of the Regulatory 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, Flexibility Act because proposed or 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, modified BFEs are required by the Flood Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 Reform U.S.C. 4104, and are required to § 67.4 [Amended] establish and maintain community This proposed rule meets the 2. The tables published under the eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be flexibility analysis has been prepared. of Executive Order 12778. amended as follows:
# Depth in feet above ground. * Elevation in feet. State City/town/county Source of flooding Location •(NAVD) Existing Modified
AR ...... Patterson, City of Cache River ...... U.S. Highway 64 Bridge (COE Gage) ...... NONE *197 Woodruff County. Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 123 South Main, Patterson, Arkansas. Send comments to the Honorable Charles Dallas, Mayor, City of Patterson, 123 South Main, Patterson, Arkansas 72123.
IA ...... Council Bluffs, City Indian Creek ...... At approximately 1600 feet downstream 976 977 of Pottawattamie of U.S. Highway 275. County. At approximately 100 feet downstream of 1026 1023 Frank Street. Maps are available for inspection at the Building Division, City Hall, 209 Pearl Street, Room 207, Council Bluffs, Iowa. Send comments to the Honorable Thomas P. Hanafan, Mayor, City of Council Bluffs, City Hall, 209 Pearl Street, Council Bluffs, Iowa 51503
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’ comment period. Breck Blalock, 202–418–8191. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: October 3, 2001. This is a SUMMARY: In this document, the summary of the Order Extending Robert F. Shea, Commission extends the period for Comment Period in IB Docket No. 01– Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and comment and reply comment in the 185, ET Docket No. 95–18, DA 01–2314, Mitigation Administration. proceeding that it initiated to explore adopted October 4, 2001. The complete [FR Doc. 01–26428 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] proposals to bring flexibility to the text of this Order is available for BILLING CODE 6718–04–P delivery of communications by Mobile inspection and copying during normal Satellite Service (‘‘MSS’’) providers. The business hours in the FCC Reference Commission extends the period for Information Center, Courtyard Level, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS comment at the request of the Cellular 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC COMMISSION Telecommunications & Internet 20554 and also may be purchased from Association (CTIA) in order to allow the Commission’s copy contractor, 47 CFR Part 2 sufficient time to establish the most Qualex International, Portals II, 445 complete and well-developed record 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, [IB Docket No. 01–185, ET Docket No. 95– possible on which to base a decision. Washington, DC 20554. 18, DA #01–2314] 1. The Commission extends the DATES: Comments are due October 19, comment period deadlines established Flexibility for Delivery of 2001, and Reply Comments are due in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Communications by Mobile Satellite November 5, 2001. Service Providers in the 2 GHz band, this proceeding (66 FR 47621, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Band ADDRESSES: Send comments and reply September 13, 2001) from October 11, comments to the Office of the Secretary, 2001 to October 19, 2001, and the reply AGENCY: Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission, comment period from October 25, 2001 Commission. Washington, DC 20554. to November 5, 2001.
VerDate 11
Ordering Clause Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Companies, Inc., licensee of Station 2. The request of CTIA to extend the Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. WXKT (FM), Channel 261A, deadline for filing comments in this This document may also be purchased Washington, Georgia, requesting the proceeding, filed September 25, 2001, is from the Commission’s duplicating reallotment of Channel 261A from granted to the extent indicated, contractor, Qualex International Portals Washington to Watkinsville, Georgia, pursuant to § 1.46 of the Commission’s II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY–B402, and modification of its authorization accordingly, pursuant to the provisions Rules, 47 CFR 1.46. Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202– 863–2893, facsimile 202–863–2898, or of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission’s Federal Communications Commission. via e-mail [email protected]. Rules. The coordinates for requested John V. Giusti, Provisions of the Regulatory Channel 261A at Watkinsville, Georgia, Chief, International Spectrum and Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to are 33–52–19 and 83–15–19. Communications Policy Branch. this proceeding. Petitioner’s reallotment proposal [FR Doc. 01–26508 Filed 10–17–01; 12:58 Members of the public should note complies with the provisions of Section pm] that from the time a Notice of Proposed 1.420(i) of the Commission’s Rules, and BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Rule Making is issued until the matter therefore, the Commission will not is no longer subject to Commission accept competing expressions of interest consideration or court review, all ex in the use of Channel 261A at FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS parte contacts are prohibited in Watkinsville, Georgia, or require the COMMISSION Commission proceedings, such as this petitioner to demonstrate the one, which involve channel allotments. availability of an additional equivalent 47 CFR Part 73 See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules class channel. [DA No. 01–2319, MM Docket No. 01–279, governing permissible ex parte contact. DATES: Comments must be filed on or RM–10290] For information regarding proper before November 26, 2001, and reply filing procedures for comments, see 47 comments on or before December 11, Radio Broadcasting Services; CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 2001. Rocksprings, TX List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal AGENCY: Federal Communications Communications Commission, 445 12th Radio broadcasting. Commission. Street, SW., Room TW–A325, For the reasons discussed in the ACTION: Proposed rule. Washington, DC 20554. In addition to preamble, the Federal Communications filing comments with the FCC, SUMMARY: This document requests Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR interested parties should serve the comments on a petition filed by Linda part 73 as follows: petitioner’s counsel, as follows: Gary S. Crawford proposing the allotment of Smithwick, Esq., Smithwick & PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST Channel 235C3 at Rocksprings, Texas. Belendiuk, P.C.; 5028 Wisconsin SERVICES The coordinates for Channel 235C3 at Avenue, NW., Suite 301; Washington, Rocksprings are 30–07–06 and 100–19– 1.The authority citation for part 73 DC 20016. 18. There is a site restriction 16 continues to read as follows: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. kilometers (9.9 miles) northwest of the Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. Barthen Gorman, Mass Media Bureau, community. Since Rocksprings is (202) 418–2180. located within 320 kilometers of the § 73.202 [Amended] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a U.S.-Mexican border, concurrence of the 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of Mexican Government will be requested Allotments under Texas, is amended by Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. for the allotment at Rocksprings. adding Channel 235C3 at Rocksprings. 01–281 adopted September 26, 2001, DATES: Comments must be filed on or Federal Communications Commission. and released October 5, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is before November 26, 2001, and reply John A. Karousos, comments on or before December 11, available for inspection and copying Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules during regular business hours in the 2001. Division, Mass Media Bureau. FCC’s Reference Information Center at ADDRESSES: Federal Communications [FR Doc. 01–26373 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., CY– Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Washington, DC. 20554. In addition to A257, Washington, DC 20554. This filing comments with the FCC, document may also be purchased from interested parties should serve the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS the Commission’s duplicating petitioner, as follows: Linda Crawford, COMMISSION contractors, Qualex International, 3500 Maple Avenue, No. 1320, Dallas, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room Texas 75219. 47 CFR Part 73 CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202–863–2893, facsimile FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [DA 01–2320; MM Docket No. 01–281; RM– 202–863–2898, or via e-mail Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media 10287] [email protected]. Bureau, (202) 418–2180. Radio Broadcasting Services; The provisions of the Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Washington and Watkinsville, GA Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to summary of the Commission’s Notice of this proceeding. Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. AGENCY: Federal Communications Members of the public should note 01–279, adopted September 26, 2001, Commission. that from the time a Notice of Proposed and released October 5, 2001. The full ACTION: Proposed rule. Rule Making is issued until the matter text of this Commission decision is is no longer subject to Commission available for inspection and copying SUMMARY: This document requests consideration or court review, all ex during normal business hours in the comments on a petition for rule making parte contacts are prohibited in FCC Reference Information Center, filed on behalf of Southern Broadcasting Commission proceedings, such as this
VerDate 11
one, which involve channel allotments. publication schedules contact Mr. districts. GSA believed that this would See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules Hopkins at (202) 501–1448. For more appropriately reflect the relatively governing permissible ex parte contacts. clarification of content, contact Ms. Julia higher cost of rehabilitating, altering, For information regarding proper Wise, Procurement Analyst, at (202) and maintaining existing historic filing procedures for comments, See 47 208–1168. buildings as opposed to constructing CFR 1.415 and 1.420. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and maintaining new buildings or List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 altering existing non-historic buildings A. Background within a historic district. Accordingly, Radio broadcasting. Executive Order (EO) 13006, dated the historic preference provision has For the reasons discussed in the May 21, 1996, requires that the Federal been revised to provide that historic preamble, the Federal Communications Government utilize and maintain, properties within and outside of historic Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR wherever operationally appropriate and districts may be eligible for a 10 percent Part 73 as follows: economically prudent, historic price preference; non-historic developed properties and districts, in order to help and undeveloped sites within historic PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST revitalize the nation’s central cities. The districts may be eligible for a 2.5 percent SERVICES EO requires that, subject to the price preference. requirements of the Rural Development 1. The authority citation for Part 73 Finally, the provision has been Act and EO 12072, when locating continues to read as follows: revised to state that the Government Federal facilities, Federal agencies give will compute the price evaluation Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and first consideration to historic properties 336. preferences by reducing the price(s) of within historic districts. If no such the offerors qualifying for a price § 73.202 [Amended] property is suitable, then Federal evaluation preference by the applicable 1. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM agencies must consider other developed or undeveloped sites within historic percentage provided in the historic Allotments under Georgia, is amended preference provision. by adding Watkinsville, Channel 261A, districts. Federal agencies must then and removing Washington, Channel consider historic properties outside This regulatory action was not subject 261A. historic districts, if no suitable site to Office of Management and Budget within a district exists. Based on the review under Executive Order 12866, Federal Communications Commission. requirements of EO 13006, the GSAR dated September 30, 1993, and is not a John A. Karousos, provision has been revised to establish major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules a hierarchy of consideration that is B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Division, Mass Media Bureau. facilitated by giving a price evaluation [FR Doc. 01–26374 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] preference to offers of space falling This rule is not expected to have a BILLING CODE 6712–01–P within the hierarchy. significant economic impact on a A proposed rule implementing a substantial number of small entities historic preference provision for within the meaning of the Regulatory GENERAL SERVICES leasehold interests in real property was Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , ADMINISTRATION published in the Federal Register for because the rule implements an existing comments on June 30, 1999. GSA 48 CFR Part 552 Executive Order (EO) and does not received comments and the proposed impose any new requirements. This rule RIN 3090–AH01 rule has been revised. Because requires the Federal Government to numerous changes have been made to utilize and maintain historic properties General Services Administration the proposed historic preference and districts, wherever possible, to aid Acquisition Regulation; Acquisition of provision, GSA is publishing it again as in the revitalization of the nation’s Leasehold Interests in Real Property; a proposed rule. central cities. This rule establishes a Historic Preference The comments received by GSA and price evaluation preference and order the changes made to the historic AGENCY: General Services preference for properties in these preference provision are summarized as specific areas. Administration (GSA), Office of follows. The Advisory Council on Acquisition Policy. Historic Preservation recommended that C. Paperwork Reduction Act ACTION: Proposed rule. the definitions of historic property and The Paperwork Reduction Act does SUMMARY: The General Services historic district be made consistent with other existing regulations and statutory not apply because the changes to the Administration amends the GSA GSAR do not impose recordkeeping or Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) by definitions and that the hierarchical preferences be stated more clearly. The information collection requirements, or revising the provision on Historic otherwise collect information from Preference. proposed historic preference provision has been revised to incorporate offerors, contractors, or members of the DATES: Interested parties should submit appropriate definitions from the public that require approval of the comments in writing on or before National Historic Preservation Act and Office of Management and Budget under December 18, 2001 to be considered in implementing regulations in Title 36 of 44 U.S.C.3501 et seq. the formulation of a final rule. the Code of Federal Regulations, and to List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 552 ADDRESSES: Submit written comments clarify how the historic preference will to: General Services Administration, be applied. Government procurement. Office of Acquisition Policy, 1800 F GSA also considered whether the Accordingly, it is proposed that 48 Street, NW., Room 4035, ATTN: price preference for non-historic CFR part 552 be amended as follows: Michael Hopkins, Washington, DC developed and undeveloped sites 20405. Please submit comments only. within historic districts should be less 1. The authority citation for part 552 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For than the price preference for historic continues to read as follows: information pertaining to status or properties within and outside of historic Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c).
VerDate 11
PART 552—SOLICITATION integrity of an historic building, such as (f) The Government will compute PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT high ceilings and wooden floors, or to price evaluation preferences by CLAUSES maintain the integrity of an historic reducing the price(s) of the offerors district, such as setbacks, floor-to- qualifying for a price evaluation 2. Section 552.270–2 is revised to read ceiling heights, and location and preference by the applicable percentage as follows: appearance of parking. provided in this provision. The price 552.270–2 Historic Preference. (d) When award will be based on the evaluation preference will be used for lowest price technically acceptable price evaluation purposes only. The As prescribed in 570.602, insert the source selection process, the Government will award a contract in the following provision: Government will give a price evaluation amount of the actual price(s) proposed Historic Preference October 2001 preference, based on the total annual by the successful offeror and accepted (a) The Government will give square foot (ANSI/BOMA Office Area) by the Government. preference to offers of space in historic cost to the Government, to historic (g) To qualify for a price evaluation properties following this hierarchy of properties as follows: preference, offerors must provide (1) First to suitable historic properties consideration: satisfactory documentation in their offer within historic districts, a 10 percent (1) Historic properties within historic that their property is qualifies as one of price preference. the following: districts. (2) If no suitable historic property (2) Non-historic developed and non- (1) An historic property within an within an historic district is offered, or historic undeveloped sites within historic district. the 10 percent preference does not historic districts. (2) A non-historic developed or result in such property being the lowest (3) Historic properties outside of undeveloped site within an historic price technically acceptable offer, the historic districts. district. Government will give a 2.5 percent (b) Definitions. (1) Determination of (3) An historic property outside of an price preference to suitable non-historic eligibility means a decision by the historic district. (End of provision) developed or undeveloped sites within Department of the Interior that a district, Dated: May 30, 2001. historic districts. site, building, structure or object meets (3) If no suitable non-historic David A. Drabkin, the National Register criteria for developed or undeveloped site within Deputy Associate Administrator for evaluation although the property is not an historic district is offered, or the 2.5 Acquisition Policy. formally listed in the National Register. percent preference does not result in [FR Doc. 01–26446 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] (36 CFR 60.3(c)) such property being the lowest price BILLING CODE 6820–61–P (2) Historic district means a technically acceptable offer, the geographically definable area, urban or Government will give a 10 percent price rural, possessing a significant preference to suitable historic properties DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE concentration, linkage, or continuity of outside of historic districts. sites, buildings, structures, or objects (4) Finally, if no suitable historic National Oceanic and Atmospheric united by past events or aesthetically by property outside of historic districts is Administration plan or physical development. A district offered, no historic price preference will may also comprise individual elements be given to any property offered. 50 CFR Parts 222 and 223 separated geographically but linked by (e) When award will be based on the [Docket No. 000320077–1177–02; I.D. association or history. (36 CFR 60.3(d)) best value tradeoff source selection 062501B] The historic district must be included in process, which permits tradeoffs among or be determined eligible for inclusion price and non-price factors, the RIN 0648–AN62 in the National Register of Historic Government will give a price evaluation Places. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; preference, based on the total annual Sea Turtle Conservation Requirements (3) Historic property means any pre- square foot (ANSI/BOMA Office Area) historic or historic district, site, cost to the Government, to historic AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries building, structure, or object included in properties as follows: Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and or been determined eligible for (1) First to suitable historic properties Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), inclusion in the National Register of within historic districts, a 10 percent Commerce. Historic Places maintained by the price preference. ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. Secretary of the Interior. (36 CFR (2) If no suitable historic property 800.16(l)) within a historic district is offered or SUMMARY: This document, filed October (4) National Register of Historic remains in the competition, the 1, 2001, and published in the Federal Places means the National Register of Government will give a 2.5 percent Register on October 2, 2001, has districts, sites, buildings, structures and price preference to suitable non-historic inadverdently published without a RIN. objects significant in American history, developed or undeveloped sites within This correction corrects that omission. architecture, archeology, engineering historic districts. DATES: Written comments will be and culture that the Secretary of the (3) If no suitable non-historic accepted on or before November 19, Interior is authorized to expand and developed or undeveloped site within 2001. maintain under the National Historic an historic district is offered or remains FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Preservation Act. (36 CFR 60.1) in the competition, the Government will (c) The offer of space must meet the give a 10 percent price preference to Robert Hoffman (ph. 727–570–5312, fax terms and conditions of this solicitation. suitable historic properties outside of 727–570–5517, e-mail The Contracting Officer has discretion historic districts. [email protected]), or Therese to accept alternatives to certain (4) Finally, if no suitable historic A. Conant (ph. 301–713–1401, fax 301– architectural characteristics and safety property outside of historic districts is 713–0376, e-mail features defined elsewhere in this offered, no historic price preference will [email protected]). solicitation to maintain the historical be given to any property offered. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate 11
Background 20910; or NMFS, Northeast Region, One changes have been made to the final This document, published at 66 FR Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930- report of the status review since 50148, October 2, 2001, inadvertently 2298. publication of the draft in the Federal omitted the RIN. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Register on August 2, 2001. The final Emily Hanson, Office of Protected status review is available to the public Correction Resources, 301–713–2322 ext. 101; or as a separate document. See ADDRESSES Accordingly, the RIN is corrected to Kim Thounhurst, Northeast Region, or information on Electronic Access in read as set forth above. 978–281–9138. Individuals who use a the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section telecommunications device for the deaf of this notice for information on Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; and 16 obtaining a copy of the final status U.S.C. 742a et seq., unless otherwise noted. may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 review. Dated: October 15, 2001. a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday Comments and Responses William T. Hogarth, through Friday, excluding Federal Assistant Administrator of Fisheries, National holidays. A summary of the comments on the Marine Fisheries Service. status review and NMFS responses SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 01–26455 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] follows. BILLING CODE 3510–22–S Electronic Access Comments on the Need for Listing The final report of the status review on the GOM/BOF population of harbor Comment 1: Three commenters DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE porpoise is accessible by the Internet at supported NMFS’ decision not to list http://www.nero.nmfs.gov/porptrp/. harbor porpoise as threatened or National Oceanic and Atmospheric endangered under the ESA. Administration Background Response: No information has been received since the publication of the 50 CFR Part 223 On August 2, 2001 (66 FR 40176), NMFS published a draft review of the draft status review to change NMFS’ [Docket No.010723187–1241–02, I.D. biological status of the Gulf of Maine/ preliminary determination that listing is 061101I] Bay of Fundy (GOM/BOF) harbor not warranted at this time. RIN 0648–AP33 porpoise stock. In the draft status Comments on the Status of Harbor review, NMFS made the preliminary Porpoise Threatened Fish and Wildlife; Status determination that listing the GOM/BOF Review of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of stock as threatened under the ESA was Comment 2: One commenter, citing Fundy Population of Harbor Porpoise not warranted and that NMFS intended various potential negative biases in the under the Endangered Species Act to remove the GOM/BOF harbor mortality estimate, stated that actual (ESA) porpoise stock from the ESA candidate mortality of harbor porpoise is likely to species list. In a status review be higher than the annual estimated AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries completed in 1999 (64 FR 465, January average mortality presented in the draft Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 5, 1999), NMFS determined that listing status review. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the GOM/BOF population of harbor Response: NMFS recognizes that Commerce. porpoise as threatened under the ESA mortality estimates contain ACTION: Notice of final determination was not warranted. NMFS also uncertainties. However, the estimates of and response to comments; notice of published a notice retaining the mortality in U.S. and Canadian waters availability of final harbor porpoise population on the ESA candidate presented in the draft status review are status review; removal from candidate species list to continue to monitor the the best available estimates. species list. species status and the results of Additionally, these uncertainties are implementation of the Harbor Porpoise incorporated into the population SUMMARY: The National Marine Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP)(64 FR viability analysis, as discussed in the Fisheries Service (NMFS) has completed 480, January 5, 1999). The 1999 status draft status review, which predicted no a status review of the Gulf of Maine/Bay review notice and the August 2001 draft chance of extinction in 100 years. These of Fundy (GOM/BOF) stock of harbor status review notice also provided mortality estimates are reviewed and porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Based information on the background of ESA updated annually in NMFS Marine on analysis of the best scientific and actions involving the GOM/BOF Mammal Stock Assessment Reports. The commercial data available, as required population of harbor porpoise, reviewed draft revised stock assessment for harbor by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), available scientific and commercial porpoise, including mortality data from NMFS determined that listing this stock fishery information affecting the 1999 and 2000, is expected to be of harbor porpoise as threatened or species, evaluated the status of the reviewed by the Atlantic Marine endangered is not warranted at this species according to criteria listed in the Mammal Scientific Review Group in time. In addition, based on the current ESA, and described regulatory November of 2001. The draft estimates status of the GOM/BOF stock, NMFS is mechanisms in place to address harbor will also be made available for public removing this stock from the ESA porpoise mortality and serious injury review and comment in the 2002 Stock candidate species list. This notice also incidental to commercial fishing Assessment Reports. announces the availability of the final activities. Comment 3: One commenter stated status review. After consideration of the draft status that NMFS must undertake the research DATES: This determination was made on review and public comments received, recommended by the take reduction September 28, 2001. NMFS has determined not to list the team to: (1) determine whether pingers ADDRESSES: Copies of the final report of harbor porpoise as threatened or were functioning on both sides of an the status review can be obtained from: endangered under the ESA and to actual take; and (2) randomly test net NMFS, Marine Mammal Division, 1315 remove the species from the ESA strings to determine the proportion of East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD candidate species list. No significant functioning versus deployed pingers.
VerDate 11
Response: NMFS is preparing to commenter noted that if closures are the HPTRP. At-sea boardings and direct conduct this research and anticipates lifted or re-configured, the mortality of observations of violations by NMFS conducting preliminary testing of harbor porpoise is likely to increase enforcement and U.S. Coast Guard pingers in the fall of 2001. once again. These questions about the officers are the primary source of Comment 4: One commenter stability of the Fishery Management enforcement evidence used to develop a discussed the maximum rate of increase Council actions lead, as a consequence, case. Observer data are used to provide and recovery factor parameters, which to doubts about their adequacy over the a measure of overall compliance with are used to assess the status of harbor long term. Take Reduction Plan requirements and porpoise. Response: NMFS and the New aid in focusing enforcement efforts. Response: The maximum rate of England Fishery Management Council Comment 9: One commenter noted increase and recovery factor that NMFS (Council) are responsible for meeting that while NMFS states in the draft used in conducting the harbor porpoise the objectives of the Multispecies FMP, status review that the agency will status review have been reviewed by the which include harbor porpoise monitor actions taken by the Council, Atlantic Marine Mammal Scientific conservation goals parallel to those and ‘‘may also revise the HPTRP to Review Group and the public through under the MMPA. In addition, a incorporate all measures necessary to the annual Stock Assessment Report member of the Council staff also sits on ensure reduced harbor porpoise bycatch (SAR) process as mandated by section each of the two Harbor Porpoise Take rather than relying on FMP time-area 117 of the MMPA. These values are the Reduction Teams. closures’’, it makes no commitment to best available for the assessment of the The history of implementation of do so. harbor porpoise population. NMFS will harbor porpoise conservation measures Response: As described in the consider this comment in its review of under the Multispecies FMP, as response to Comment 6, NMFS is the SAR. described in the draft status review, actively involved in the Council clearly demonstrates the commitment of process. The Council is also directly Comments on the Adequacy of both NMFS and the Council to conserve involved in the harbor porpoise take Regulatory Mechanisms harbor porpoise by restricting the reduction process through membership Comment 5: One commenter stated Northeast sink gillnet fishery for of Council staff on the Harbor Porpoise that any changes in Fishery groundfish as appropriate. NMFS has Take Reduction Teams. Management Council actions are likely multiple options to address any risks to It is appropriate to manage harbor to result in an increase in harbor harbor porpoise that might arise through porpoise bycatch through both the porpoise mortality, and there is no plan proposed changes to the Multispecies Magnuson-Stevens Act and MMPA as in place to prevent this from happening. FMP. In addition, NMFS is a member of described in the response to Comment Therefore, the commenter concluded the Council, including the Council’s 6. NMFS has the authority to adjust the that current regulatory mechanisms are Plan Development team, and works U.S. harbor porpoise bycatch reduction not adequate to protect harbor porpoise. cooperatively with the Council staff in program through the MMPA and/or the Response: NMFS’ current strategy for developing changes to the FMP. Magnuson-Stevens Act if the agency reducing serious injury and mortality of Therefore, NMFS will be aware of any determines that proposed changes to harbor porpoise in commercial fisheries of the Council’s proposed groundfish FMPs would reduce harbor porpoise is to combine measures promulgated regulatory changes that may directly or protection. It is important to emphasize under the Marine Mammal Protection indirectly affect harbor porpoise, and that the Multispecies FMP also includes Act (MMPA) and the Magnuson-Stevens NMFS will work with the Council and an objective requiring the reduction of Fishery Conservation and Management the two Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction harbor porpoise bycatch. Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). In the Teams to determine whether any Comment 10: One commenter stated final rule implementing the HPTRP (63 changes to the Multispecies FMP would that the increase in harbor porpoise FR 66464, December 2, 1998), NMFS require additional measures to protect mortality between 1999 and 2000 may considered the cumulative scope of harbor porpoise in the HPTRP be an indication that mitigation management actions under the regulations. measures are not sufficient. Magnuson-Stevens Act and MMPA that Comment 7: One commenter stated Response: For both years the bycatch would affect harbor porpoise bycatch that fishery-related management actions is below the PBR level. However, NMFS and determined that a combined have had a positive impact on harbor agrees that increases in bycatch are a strategy was the best administrative porpoise bycatch, and that effect cannot concern and will continue to monitor approach. This strategy has reduced the be understated. the harbor porpoise bycatch and the bycatch to below the PBR level in both Response: See responses to Comments effectiveness of the HPTRP. 1999 and 2000. If Fishery Management 5 and 6. Comment 11: One commenter stated Plan (FMP) changes that may increase Comment 8: One commenter stated that NMFS must revise the HPTRP to harbor porpoise bycatch are proposed, that if mortality of harbor porpoise is to incorporate as requirements, not merely NMFS has authority under the MMPA be curtailed, then it is critical to enforce by reference, all of the measures to implement measures to reduce the laws and regulations protecting necessary to achieve both a take level bycatch to appropriate levels. This them. The commenter also stated that below PBR and the zero mortality rate adaptive strategy is adequate to address the current level of enforcement is goal. potential increases in harbor porpoise inadequate. Another commenter stated Response: The current suite of bycatch. that NMFS must seriously consider measures under the MMPA and Comment 6: One commenter stated using observer data to identify Magnuson-Stevens Act have already that if NMFS is considering the individual violators. reduced the bycatch of harbor porpoise reduction in mortality that is gained Response: Increased enforcement to below the PBR level. If the level of through fishery management actions as presence was also recommended by the bycatch increases such that it exceeds a means of assessing the efficacy of Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Take PBR or does not continue toward the management measures, NMFS must also Reduction Team. At the Team’s zero mortality rate goal, the agency will consider the result if these temporary recommendation, NMFS is working on reconvene the take reduction team to actions are altered or removed. The a compliance and enforcement plan for address the issue.
VerDate 11
Comment 12: NMFS’ bycatch determination solely on the basis of the for amending these mechanisms to reduction strategy is strongly predicated best scientific and commercial data address bycatch in commercial fisheries on a calculated level of pinger available and after taking into account are adequate to ensure that bycatch in effectiveness for various areas and efforts being made to protect the commercial fisheries do not cause seasons. This calculation does not species. Therefore, in reviewing the harbor porpoise to be in danger of accommodate any variation due to status of the GOM/BOF population of extinction throughout all or a significant harbor porpoise habituation to pingers harbor porpoise, NMFS has assessed the portion of its range, and it is not likely or the catch of harbor porpoise in status of the species according to the to become endangered in the foreseeable pingered nets as a result of the failure criteria in the ESA. future. of fishermen to fully comply with the Since 1999, NMFS has obtained no Although the HPTRP and other pinger requirements. information demonstrating that factors Response: The expected level of bycatch reduction efforts have reduced other than mortality incidental to the incidental take of harbor porpoise in pinger effectiveness does not consider commercial fishing could cause the habituation or non-compliance. gillnet fisheries to below the PBR level stock to be in danger of extinction or in both 1999 and 2000, it is clear that However, it is not currently possible to likely to become so in the foreseeable quantify these potential effects. harbor porpoise bycatch must continue future or that available regulatory to be monitored. NMFS has documented Furthermore, through the Harbor mechanisms are inadequate to reduce Porpoise Take Reduction Teams, NMFS non-compliance with HPTRP harbor porpoise mortality and serious regulations that may have reduced its has the authority to modify the HPTRP injury. After analysis of the GOM/BOF based on a new expected level of pinger effectiveness, requiring additional population of harbor porpoise under the outreach and enforcement measures. effectiveness should such information five ESA listing factors, NMFS has become available. Furthermore, fishery management determined that the stock is not in measures have changed since the Comments on the Removal of Harbor danger of extinction throughout all or a implementation of the HPTRP and may Porpoise from the Candidate Species significant portion of its range, and it is continue to change via the annual List not likely to become endangered in the adjustment process in the Multispecies foreseeable future. Therefore, listing the Comment 13: Two commenters FMP. It is possible that closures GOM/BOF population of harbor supported and two commenters implemented for fish conservation will porpoise as threatened or endangered is opposed removal of harbor porpoise be removed when fish stocks reach their not warranted at this time. In addition, from the ESA candidate species list. rebuilding targets, which could result in Response: NMFS is removing the because of the current status of the an increased risk to harbor porpoise and GOM/BOF stock of harbor porpoise species it is appropriate to remove the may require adjustment of the HPTRP. GOM/BOF harbor porpoise population from the ESA candidate species list. NMFS will continue to monitor This action is appropriate because of the from the ESA candidate species list. The most significant factors that bycatch levels and will adjust the current status of the species and the HPTRP as necessary to maintain bycatch adequacy of regulatory mechanisms NMFS considered in making this determination are the new abundance levels within the goals established by available to address risks to the section 118 of the MMPA. NMFS will population. NMFS will continue to estimate from the 1999 survey and the results of measures promulgated under also monitor any proposed regulations monitor the status of harbor porpoise and proposed changes to existing pursuant to the stock assessment the MMPA through the HPTRP and under the Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations that may affect harbor process mandated under section 117 of porpoise bycatch and consider whether the MMPA. In addition, NMFS will through the Northeast Multispecies FMP that directly or indirectly reduce the management measures need to be continue to monitor harbor porpoise changed. NMFS intends to reconvene bycatch, compliance with the HPTRP, level of harbor porpoise mortality incidental to commercial fishing in U.S. the two Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction and the potential effect of changes in Teams as necessary to monitor the FMPs on harbor porpoise bycatch. The waters, the Harbor Porpoise implementation of the HPTRP relative removal of this stock from the ESA Conservation Strategy implemented by to MMPA goals. candidate species list does not change the Canada Department of Fisheries and NMFS’ mandates under the MMPA with Oceans, and the existing authority by Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. which regulatory agencies can adapt regard to harbor porpoise protection Dated: October 12, 2001. under the HPTRP or other MMPA management measures if unanticipated William T. Hogarth programs. changes in porpoise bycatch patterns occur. Although it is likely that porpoise Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, Final Determination mortality will continue to occur National Marine Fisheries Service. Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires the incidental to fishery operation, existing [FR Doc. 01–26454 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Secretary of Commerce to make a listing regulatory mechanisms and authority BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
VerDate 11
Notices Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 203
Friday, October 19, 2001
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 800.14(e). Instead of going through each assembly and archiving of historical contains documents other than rules or of the steps detailed in subpart B of the documentation, and retention and proposed rules that are applicable to the Section 106 regulations, an agency can curation of artifacts from or associated public. Notices of hearings and investigations, meet its Section 106 responsibilities for with the historic pipeline. committee meetings, agency decisions and a specific program by taking into Although most historic natural gas rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency account the Council’s program pipelines could be treated fairly statements of organization and functions are comments and following the steps set expeditiously during compliance with examples of documents appearing in this forth in those comments. Section 106, under Commission section. The Council is now proposing a regulations the occurrence of an effect program comment to help the Federal on a historic natural gas pipeline as a Energy Regulatory Commission practical matter disqualifies the pipeline ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC (‘‘Commission’’) meet its Section 106 company from completing the project PRESERVATION responsibilities regarding natural gas under a blanket certificate. 18 CFR part pipelines. Specifically, the program 157, subpart F, Appendix II, and 18 CFR Draft Program Comment Regarding comment deals with authorizations to part 284. This creates delays since, Historic Preservation Review Process construct, operate, and abandon natural absent the ability to proceed under a for Projects Involving Historic Natural gas pipelines and related pipeline blanket certificate, a fuller Gas Pipelines facilities under Section 7 of the Natural environmental review must be AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Gas Act, 5 U.S.C. 717f, including the conducted and completed by the Preservation. blanket authorizations under 18 CFR Commission, which may take parts 157 and 284 of the Commission’s substantially more time and resources. ACTION: Notice of Intent to issue regulations. The Commission’s part 157, The potential for delay can impede program comments on Historic Natural subpart F blanket authorization program necessary maintenance, repair and Gas Pipelines. applies to specified projects below a set replacement actions that are essential to SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on cost level. Projects above that cost are protect public health, ensure pipeline Historic Preservation proposes a processed pursuant to part 157, subpart safety and provide essential energy Program Comment to streamline the A. Part 284 applies to activities resources. Absent an effect finding, historic preservation review process for conducted pursuant to section 311 of pipeline companies can proceed under projects involving historic natural gas the Natural Gas Policy Act. a blanket certificate for many types of pipelines. Consistent with Section 106, it is the projects, substantially simplifying the Commission’s responsibility to take into approval process, reducing required DATES: Submit comments on or before account the effect that issuing such documentation, and expediting the November 9, 2001. authorizations has on historic necessary work undertaken by the ADDRESSES: Address all comments properties. Due to the planning process pipeline company. These program concerning this proposed program for some pipeline projects, such as comments give certificate holders the comment to Don Klima, Director, Office construction, many historic properties ability to stay within their blanket of Planning and Review, Advisory that might be affected by the certificate, so long as the relevant Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 construction can be avoided during historic natural gas pipeline is Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 809, right-of-way selection or during the appropriately documented. Washington, DC 20004. Fax (202) 606– construction process itself. However, in For applicants who are unable to 8672. You may submit electronic some pipeline projects, the historic proceed under a blanket certificate, but comments to: [email protected]. properties simply cannot be avoided. who appropriately document the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Such is the case regarding existing relevant historic natural gas pipeline, Klima, 202–606–8505. natural gas pipelines and related these program comments provide a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section pipeline facilities that are listed, or more efficient and predictable process 106 of the National Historic eligible for listing, in the National that also results in an acceptable Preservation Act requires Federal Register of Historic Places (‘‘historic preservation outcome. agencies to consider the effects of their natural gas pipelines’’). Natural gas This streamlining initiative is undertakings on historic properties and pipelines and related pipeline facilities consistent with the Administration’s provide the Advisory Council on may be historic due to such things as National Energy Policy (Report of the Historic Preservation (‘‘Council’’) a their particular design and engineering National Energy Policy Group, May reasonable opportunity to comment features, or their association with 2001), and Executive order 13212 (May with regard to such undertakings. The important national or regional historic 18, 2001), which requires agencies to Council has issued the regulations that events and well-known persons. It is the ‘‘expedite their review of permits or take set forth the process through which Council’s belief that the historic other actions as necessary to accelerate Federal agencies comply with these significance of historic natural gas the completion of (projects that will duties. Those regulations are codified pipelines is appropriately preserved increase the production, transmission, under 36 CFR part 800 (‘‘Section 106 through recordation of their historic or conservation of energy), while regulations’’). attributes. This may include maintaining safety, public health, and The Council can streamline the preservation of original construction environmental protections.’’ regular Section 106 review process drawings and documents, photographic Once issued, these program comments through program comments. 36 CFR recordation of current conditions, will remain in effect unless the Council
VerDate 11
determines that the consideration of treated as a historic property for Section depository, then these Program effects to historic natural gas pipelines 106 purposes. Comments will not be applicable. is not being carried out in a manner (2) If the applicant/certificate holder III. Effects on Other Historic Properties consistent with these program and SHPO agree that the pipeline is comments and withdraws the eligible for listing in the National These program Comments address comments. 36 CFR 800.14(e)(6). Register, proceed to subparagraph (b), only pipeline project effects to historic These program comments will not below. pipelines. These program comments do apply to tribal land without the consent (3) If the applicant/certificate holder not apply to potential effects to other of the relevant tribe. The Council and the SHPO cannot agree on the properties listed in, or eligible for believes that these program comments eligibility of the pipeline, these program inclusion in, the National Register. comments will not be applicable to the have no consequences for historic IV. Applicability properties of religious and cultural pipeline project. These Program Comments are not significance, regardless of location, to b. Treatment any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian applicable on tribal lands, as defined organization since they are limited to (1) For pipelines already listed or under 36 CFR 800.16(x) (‘‘all lands effects on only one type of historic determined to be eligible for listing in within the exterior boundaries of any property (i.e., historic natural gas the National Register and for those Indian reservation and all dependent pipelines). The Council is not aware of determined to be eligible for National Indian communities’’), unless the any historic natural gas pipelines that Register listing pursuant to relevant tribe consents. Federal agencies are of such significance to tribes or subparagraph (a)(2) (‘‘historic other than the Commission may use Native Hawaiian organizations. pipelines’’), the applicant/certificate these program comments for pipeline holder will consult with the appropriate The Council is seeking comments projects that take place on federally SHPO to determine the appropriate regarding the proposed program administered lands under their level and type of documentation. In comments. Such comments must be jurisdiction. determining what is appropriate, the received by the deadline set forth above Authority: 36 CFR 800.14(e) applicant/certificate holder and the in order to be considered by the SHPO should consider the likelihood Dated: October 16, 2001. Council. and magnitude of future impacts. Ronald D. Anzalone, The full text of the proposed program (2) If the applicant/certificate holder Acting Executive Director. comment is reproduced below. and SHPO agree regarding [FR Doc. 01–26437 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Program Comment for Historic Natural documentation, the applicant/certificate BILLING CODE 4310–10–M Gas Pipelines holder will document the historic pipeline, or relevant portion thereof, I. Introduction and contributing features as follows: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE These program comments provide the (i) Documentation will be carried out Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in accordance with the Secretary of the Office of the Secretary (‘‘Commission’’) with an alternate way Interior’s Guidelines for Architectural to comply with its responsibilities and Engineering Documentation to Notice of the National Agricultural under Section 106 of the National meet, at a minimum, the Documentation Research, Extension, Education, and Historic Preservation Act (‘‘Section Level IV Standard. Economics Advisory Board Meeting 106’’), with regard to effects on natural (ii) The documentation will be placed in an appropriate depository as AGENCY: Research, Education, and gas pipelines and related pipeline Economics, USDA. facilities (‘‘pipelines’’) when authorizing recommended by the SHPO. ACTION: projects under Section 7 of the Natural (iii) Once the applicant/certificate Notice of meeting. holder and the SHPO have agreed Gas Act by either (a) applicants SUMMARY: In accordance with the pursuant to 18 CFR part 157, subpart A, regarding this documentation and deposit, the project cannot be found to Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 or (b) certificate holders pursuant to 18 U.S.C. App., the United States CFR part 157, subpart F and 18 CFR part have an effect (as defined under 36 CFR part 800) upon the characteristics that Department of Agriculture announces a 284 of the Commission’s regulations meeting of the National Agricultural (‘‘pipeline projects’’). make the pipeline eligible for National Register listing, and the requirements of Research, Extension, Education, and II. Effects on Historic Natural Gas Section 106 with regard to the historic Economics Advisory Board. Pipelines pipeline will be deemed to have been SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Agricultural Research, a. Evaluation met. Documentation and deposit need not be completed for this provision to Extension, Education, and Economics For pipeline projects affecting apply, except to the extent that Advisory Board, which represents 30 pipelines 50 years old or older not modification of the historic pipeline constituent categories, as specified in previously evaluated for eligibility for would preclude the subsequent section 802 of the Federal Agriculture listing in the National Register of completion of the agreed-upon Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 Historic Places (‘‘National Register’’), documentation and deposit. (Pub. L. No. 104–127), has scheduled a the applicant/certificate holder will (iv) For those pipeline projects carried National Agricultural Research, consult with the appropriate State out by an applicant under 18 CFR part Extension, Education, and Economics Historic Preservation Officer (‘‘SHPO’’) 157, subpart A, the applicant will also Advisory Board Meeting, October 30, to apply the National Register Criteria to submit to the Commission the 2001–November 1, 2001. the pipeline. information necessary to comply with On Tuesday, October 30, 2001, (1) If the applicant/certificate holder 18 CFR 380.12 (f). through Thursday, November 1, 2001, and SHPO agree that the pipeline is not (3) If the applicant/certificate holder the Advisory Board will hold a general eligible for listing in the National and the SHPO cannot agree on the level meeting at the Washington Court Hotel Register, then the pipeline will not be and type of documentation and/or the in Washington, DC. An Orientation
VerDate 11
Session for newly appointed Advisory public record up to two weeks following DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Board members will be held, on the Advisory Board meeting. The Tuesday, October 30, 2001, from 9:00 findings of the Focus Session, based on Food and Nutrition Service a.m. until 12:00 p.m. The afternoon input from speakers and other session will include remarks by the stakeholders, will be consolidated into Agency Information Collection Secretary of Agriculture (invited) and an recommendations to the Secretary of Activities: Proposed Collection; opening address by the Honorable Agriculture. Comment Request; Form FNS–135, Affidavit of Return or Exchange of Clayton Yeutter, former Secretary of Dates: Agriculture and former U.S. Trade Food Coupons • October 30, 2001, 9 a.m.–12 p.m., Representative. The theme of the AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, afternoon’s Focus Session is Global Orientation for New Board members USDA. Agricultural Trade and Policy: U.S. • October 30, 2001, 1 p.m.–5:30 p.m., ACTION: Notice. Research Implications. From 2:30 p.m.– Focus Session 5:30 p.m., a panel will be held on SUMMARY: • October 30, 2001, 6 p.m.–7:30 p.m., In accordance with the international trade policies, which will Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this consist of several international trade Working Reception with Guest Speaker notice invites the general public and representatives to the United States other public agencies to comment on a • including the European Union, Brazil, October 31, 2001, 8 a.m.–6 p.m., proposed revision of a currently and China. An evening session from 6 Advisory Board Meeting and Focus approved information collection p.m.–7:30 p.m. will have two guest Session contained in form FNS–135, Affidavit of speakers, who will talk about the • October 31, 2001, 12 p.m.–1:30 p.m., Return or Exchange of Food Coupons. National Coalition on Food and Working Lunch with Speaker DATES: Written comments must be Agricultural Research (N–CFAR) and • November 1, 2001, 8 a.m.–12 p.m., submitted on or before December 18, the National Association of State 2001. Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Focus Session, Special Reports of (NASULGU) Food and Society Interest, Discussion, and Wrap-up ADDRESSES: Send comments and Initiative. Place: Washington Court Hotel, 525 requests for copies of this information On Wednesday, October 31, 2001, the New Jersey Avenue, NW.; Washington, collection to: Jeffrey N. Cohen, Branch Advisory Board will conduct general DC; Atrium Ballroom and Executive Chief, Electronic Benefit Transfer business, hear remarks from Dr. Joseph Room (Reception Only). Branch, Benefit Redemption Division, Jen, USDA Under Secretary, Research, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Education, and Economics, and Type of Meeting: Open to the Public. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park continue with special panels throughout Comments: The public may file Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302. the day on Global Agricultural Trade written comments before or after the Comments are invited on: (a) Whether and Policy: U.S. Research Implications. meeting (up to two weeks after the the proposed collection of information Topics will include an overview of U.S. meeting) with the contact person. All is necessary for the proper performance trade in agriculture, understanding statements will become part of the of the functions of the agency, including impediments to global trade, and World official records of the National whether the information will have Bank perspectives on currency exchange Agricultural Research, Extension, practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the issues and other economic factors. Education, and Economics Advisory agency’s estimate of the burden of the Congressional panels held in the Board and will be kept on file for public proposed collection of information, afternoon will include Marketing U.S. review in the Office of the Advisory including the validity of the Food and Agriculture and the Board; Research, Education, and methodology and assumptions used; (c) implications for research and education. Economics; U.S. Department of ways to enhance the quality, utility, and On Thursday, November 1, 2001, from Agriculture; Washington, DC 20250– clarity of the information to be 8 a.m.–12 p.m., special reports of 2255. collected; and (d) ways to minimize the interest (e.g., results of the Blue Ribbon For Further Information Contact: burden of the collection of information Panel study on USDA’s National Deborah Hanfman, Executive Director, on those who are to respond, including Agricultural Library; an update on the National Agricultural Research, through the use of appropriate reorganization of USDA’s Cooperative Extension, Education, and Economics automated, electronic, mechanical, or State Research, Education, and Advisory Board; Research, Education, other technological collection Extension Service; and Research, and Economics Advisory Board Office; techniques or other forms of information Education, and Economics agency Room 344–A, Jamie L. Whitten technology. updates) will be presented to the All responses to this notice will be Building; U.S. Department of Advisory Board. Detailed discussion summarized and included in the request Agriculture; STOP 2255; 1400 and wrap-up of the Focus Session will for OMB approval. All comments will Independence Avenue, SW.; be addressed by Board members. also become a matter of public record. Washington, DC 20250–2255; Ambassador Allen Johnson, Chief Telephone: (202) 720–3684; FAX: (202) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Agriculture Negotiator for Office of the 720–6199; E-mail: Jeffrey N. Cohen, (703) 305–2523. United States Trade Representative, has [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: been invited to speak about ‘‘What’s on Title: Affidavit of Return or Exchange the Horizon for Research on Done at Washington, DC, this 16th day of of Food Coupons. Agricultural World Trade.’’ New October, 2001. OMB Number: 0584–0052. members to the 9-member Executive Joseph J. Jen, Form Number: FNS–135. Committee will be determined by Board Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Expiration Date: 11/30/2001. vote. Limited time each day will be Economics. Type of Request: Revision of a provided for comments from the public [FR Doc. 01–26478 Filed 10–17–01; 12:29 currently approved collection. as noted in a forthcoming agenda. Also, pm] Abstract: Section 7(d) of the Food written comments will be accepted for BILLING CODE 3410–22–P Stamp Act of 1977, as amended, (7
VerDate 11
U.S.C.2016(d)) requires that State FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 3. There are no known regulatory agencies determine and monitor food Sheryl D. Kennerly (703) 603–7740 alternatives which would accomplish stamp coupon inventories. The Food SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This the objectives of the Javits-Wagner- Stamp Program regulations at 7 CFR notice is published pursuant to 41 O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46—48c) in 274.6(f) require that State agencies U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its connection with the commodities replace improperly manufactured or purpose is to provide interested persons proposed for deletion from the mutilated coupons after the recipient an opportunity to submit comments on Procurement List. requesting replacement completes an the possible impact of the proposed The following commodities are FNS–135, Affidavit of Return or actions. proposed for deletion from the Exchange of Food Coupons. The form Procurement List: must also be used when coupons are Addition returned for other reasons such as the If the Committee approves the Commodities return of found coupons. The forms proposed addition, the entities of the Adhesive Tape, Surgical document the return of coupons and Federal Government identified in this 6510–01–060–1639 provides an audit trail for their notice for each service will be required 6510–01–107–0223 to procure the service listed below from 6510–01–284–5110 processing within State agency offices. 6510–01–285–3896 The proposed revision reflects the fact nonprofit agencies employing persons 6510–01–368–2659 that the expected number of who are blind or have other severe 6510–01–368–2660 respondents should be less than in disabilities. 6510–01–370–4099 previous years because the number of I certify that the following action will 6510–01–370–4100 food stamp coupons has declined over not have a significant impact on a 6510–00–926–8882 the past several years with the substantial number of small entities. 6510–00–926–8883 implementation of electronic benefit The major factors considered for this Government Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs delivery systems. certification were: 1. The action will not result in any Adhesive Tape, Surgical Affected Public: State and local 6510–01–060–1639 government employees and recipients. additional reporting, recordkeeping or 6510–01–107–0223 Estimated Number of Respondents: other compliance requirements for small 6510–01–284–5110 30,000. entities other than the small 6510–01–285–3896 Estimated Number of Responses per organizations that will furnish the 6510–01–368–2659 respondent: 1. service to the Government. 6510–01–368–2660 Estimated Time per Response: .25 2. The action will result in 6510–01–370–4099 hours. authorizing small entities to furnish the 6510–01–370–4100 6510–00–926–8882 Estimated Total Annual Burden: service to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory 6510–00–926–8883 7,500 hours annually. Government Agency: Defense Supply Center alternatives which would accomplish Dated; October 10, 2001. Philadelphia the objectives of the Javits-Wagner- George A. Braley, Penetrating Fluid O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in 6850–00–973–9091 Acting Administrator. connection with the service proposed [FR Doc. 01–26466 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] for addition to the Procurement List. Sheryl D. Kennerly, BILLING CODE 3410–30–P Comments on this certification are Director, Information Management. invited. Commenters should identify the [FR Doc. 01–26403 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] statement(s) underlying the certification BILLING CODE 6353–01–P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM on which they are providing additional PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR information. The following service is SEVERELY DISABLED proposed for addition to Procurement COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM List for production by the nonprofit PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR Procurement List; Proposed Addition agencies listed: SEVERELY DISABLED and Deletions Services Procurement List; Additions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From Janitorial/Custodial, U.S. Army Reserve People Who Are Blind or Severely AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From Disabled. Center, Newington, Connecticut NPA: Greater Enfield Allied Rehabilitation People Who Are Blind or Severely ACTION: Proposed addition to and Centers, Inc., Enfield, Connecticut Disabled. deletions from Procurement List. Government Agency: Fort Devens Reserve ACTION: Additions to the Procurement Forces Training Center List. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List a service Deletions SUMMARY: This action adds to the to be furnished by a nonprofit agency Procurement List commodities and I certify that the following action will employing persons who are blind or services to be furnished by nonprofit not have a significant impact on a have other severe disabilities, and to agencies employing persons who are substantial number of small entities. delete commodities previously blind or have other severe disabilities. The major factors considered for this furnished by such agencies. certification were: EFFECTIVE DATE: November 19, 2001. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED ON OR 1. The action will not result in any ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase BEFORE: November 19, 2001. additional reporting, recordkeeping or From People Who Are Blind or Severely ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase other compliance requirements for small Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, From People Who Are Blind or Severely entities. 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 2. The action will result in Arlington, Virginia 22202–3259. 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, authorizing small entities to furnish the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arlington, Virginia 22202–3259. commodities to the Government. Sheryl D. Kennerly (703) 603–7740.
VerDate 11
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April This action does not affect current other compliance requirements for small 13, May 11, July 27, August 10 and contracts awarded prior to the effective entities other than the small August 31, 2001, the Committee for date of this addition or options that may organizations that will furnish the Purchase From People Who Are Blind be exercised under those contracts. commodity to the Government. or Severely Disabled published notices 2. The action will result in Sheryl D. Kennerly, (66 FR 19136, 24100, 39142, 42198 and authorizing small entities to furnish the 45960) of proposed additions to the Director, Information Management. commodity to the Government. Procurement List. After consideration of [FR Doc. 01–26404 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] 3. There are no known regulatory the material presented to it concerning BILLING CODE 6353–01–P alternatives which would accomplish capability of qualified nonprofit the objectives of the Javits-Wagner- agencies to provide the commodities O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46—48c) in and services and impact of the additions COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM connection with the commodity on the current or most recent PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR proposed for addition to the contractors, the Committee has SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List. Comments on this determined that the commodities and Procurement List Proposed Addition; certification are invited. Commenters services listed below are suitable for Correction should identify the statement(s) procurement by the Federal Government underlying the certification on which under 41 U.S.C. 46–48c and 41 CFR 51– AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From they are providing additional 2.4. People Who Are Blind or Severely information. I certify that the following action will Disabled. The following commodity is proposed not have a significant impact on a ACTION: Proposed addition to for addition to Procurement List for substantial number of small entities. procurement list. production by the nonprofit agencies The major factors considered for this listed: certification were: SUMMARY: In the document appearing on 1. The action will not result in any page 51005, FR Doc. 01–25042, in the Commodity additional reporting, recordkeeping or issue of October 5, 2001, in the third Shirt, Sleeping other compliance requirements for small column the Committee published a 8415–00–890–2099 entities other than the small notice of proposed addition to the 8415–00–890–2100 organizations that will furnish the Procurement List of, among other 8415–00–890–2101 commodities and services to the things, Shirt, Sleeping, 8415–00–890– 8415–00–890–2102 Government. 2099, 8415–00–890–2101, 8415–00– 8415–00–890–2203 2. The action will not have a severe 890–2102 and 8415–00–890–2013. This 8515–00–935–6855 (Remaining 50% of the Government economic impact on current contractors notice is amended to include 8415–00– Requirement) for the commodities and services. 890–2100 and 8415–00–935–6855, NPA: BOST Human Development Services 3. The action will result in which was omitted from original notice, Fort Smith, Arkansas. authorizing small entities to furnish the and to correct the omission that this Government Agency: Defense Supply commodities and services to the proposed addition is for the Remaining Center Philadelphia. Government. 50% of the Governments Requirement. 4. There are no known regulatory Comments Must be Received on or Sheryl D. Kennerly, alternatives which would accomplish Before: November 19, 2001. Director, Information Management. the objectives of the Javits-Wagner- ADDRESS: Committee for Purchase From [FR Doc. 01–26402 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in People Who Are Blind or Severely BILLING CODE 6353–01–P connection with the commodities and Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, services proposed for addition to the 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Procurement List. Arlington, Virginia 22202–3259. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Accordingly, the following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: commodities and services are added to Sheryl D. Kennerly (703) 603–7740. International Trade Administration the Procurement List: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This [A–580–815, A–580–816] Commodities notice is published pursuant to 41 Shaft, Propeller U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its Cold-Rolled and Corrosion Resistant 2520–01–171–4844 purpose is to provide interested persons Carbon Steel Flat Products From Paper, Xerographic an opportunity to submit comments on Korea: Extension of Time Limits for the 7530–01–398–2652 the possible impact of the proposed Final Results of Antidumping Services actions. If the Committee approves the Administrative Review proposed addition, the entities of the Base Supply Center, United States Coast AGENCY: Import Administration, Guard, Integrated Support Command, Federal Government identified in this notice for each commodity will be International Trade Administration, Alameda, California Department of Commerce. Base Supply Center, Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, required to procure the commodity Facilities Management, Television Audio listed below from nonprofit agencies ACTION: Notice of extension of time Support Activity (TASA), McClellan employing persons who are blind or limits for the final results of AFB, California have other severe disabilities. antidumping duty administrative Grounds Maintenance, Naval Base, Ventura I certify that the following action will review. County, California not have a significant impact on a Janitorial/Custodial, Eielson Air Force Base, EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19, 2001. Alaska substantial number of small entities. Manufacturing and Development Assistance, The major factors considered for this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Army Natick Research Development certification were: James Doyle at (202) 482–0159; Import & Engineering Center, Natick, 1. The action will not result in any Administration, International Trade Massachusetts additional reporting, recordkeeping or Administration, U.S. Department of
VerDate 11
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE duplication, or the like, and any other Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. similar type of unintentional error International Trade Administration which the Secretary considers Statutory Time Limits [A–122–837] ministerial. See 19 CFR 351.224(f). A Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act significant ministerial error is defined as of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), Notice of Amended Preliminary an error, the correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, requires the Department of Commerce Determination of Sales at Less Than would result in (1) a change of at least (‘‘the Department’’) to issue the final Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Greenhouse Tomatoes five absolute percentage points in, but results of an antidumping duty From Canada not less than 25 percent of, the investigation within 120 days of the weighted-average dumping margin date the preliminary results are issued. AGENCY: Import Administration, calculated in the original (erroneous) However, if the Department concludes International Trade Administration, preliminary determination; or (2) a that it is not practicable to issue the Department of Commerce. difference between a weighted-average results by the original deadline, it may ACTION: Notice of amended preliminary dumping margin of zero or de minimis extend the 120-day period to 180 days. determination of sales at less than fair and a weighted-average dumping value and postponement of final margin of greater than de minimis or Background determination. vice versa. See 19 CFR 351.224(g). We are publishing this amendment to the On October 2, 2000, the Department SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce preliminary determination pursuant to initiated the above-referenced review. is amending the preliminary See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 19 CFR 351.224(e). As a result of this determination of sales at less than fair amended preliminary determination, we and Countervailing Duty Administrative value in the antidumping duty Reviews and Requests for Revocation in have revised the weighted-average investigation of greenhouse tomatoes dumping margin for BC Hot House Part, 65 FR 58733 (October 2, 2000). The from Canada to reflect the correction of Foods, Inc. preliminary results were published in a significant ministerial error made in the Federal Register on September 11, the dumping-margin calculation Scope of Investigation 2001. See Certain Cold-Rolled and regarding BC Hot House Foods, Inc., and The merchandise subject to this Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat is postponing the final determination. investigation consists of all fresh or Products From the Republic of Korea: EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19, 2001. chilled tomatoes grown in greenhouses Notice of Preliminary Results of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: in Canada, e.g., common round Antidumping Duty Administrative Mark Ross or Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD tomatoes, cherry tomatoes, plum or pear Review (‘‘Preliminary Results’’), 66 FR Enforcement 3, Import Administration, tomatoes, and cluster or ‘‘on-the-vine’’ 47163 (September 11, 2001). The International Trade Administration, tomatoes. Specifically excluded from current due date for the final results is U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th the scope of this investigation are all January 9, 2001. Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., field-grown tomatoes. Washington, DC 20230; telephone; (202) The merchandise subject to this Extension of Time Limits for the Final 482–4794 or (202) 482–0410, investigation may enter under item Results respectively. numbers 0702.00.2000, 0702.00.2010, 0702.00.2030, 0702.00.2035, Due to the complexity of issues The Applicable Statute and Regulations 0702.00.2060, 0702.00.2065, involved in these cases, such as Unless otherwise indicated, all 0702.00.2090, 0702.00.2095, complicated cost accounting, citations to the statute are references to 0702.00.4000, 0702.00.4030, downstream home market affiliated the provisions effective January 1, 1995, 0702.00.4060, 0702.00.4090, parties, and the addition of a new the effective date of the amendments 0702.00.6000, 0702.00.6010, respondent in this seventh made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) 0702.00.6030, 0702.00.6035, administrative review, it is not by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. 0702.00.6060, 0702.00.6065, practicable to complete these reviews In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 0702.00.6090, and 0702.00.6095 of the within the original time limit. all citations to the Department of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the Therefore, the Department has Commerce’s (the Department’s) United States (HTSUS). These postponed the deadline for issuing the regulations refer to 19 CFR part 351 subheadings may also cover products final results until March 11, 2002, (April 2000). that are outside the scope of this investigation, i.e., field-grown tomatoes. which is 180 days after publication of Significant Ministerial Error the Preliminary Results. Although the HTSUS subheadings are The Department of Commerce (the provided for convenience and customs Dated: October 12, 2001. Department) is amending the purposes, our written description of the Richard O. Weible, preliminary determination of sales at scope of this investigation is dispositive. Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD less than fair value in the antidumping Enforcement Group III. duty investigation of greenhouse Ministerial-Error Allegation [FR Doc. 01–26447 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] tomatoes from Canada to reflect the On October 1, 2001, the Department BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P correction of a significant ministerial issued its affirmative preliminary error made in the dumping-margin determination in this proceeding. See calculation regarding BC Hot House Notice of Preliminary Determination of Foods, Inc., in that determination, Sales at Less Than Fair Value: pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(g)(1) and Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada, 66 (g)(2). A ministerial error is defined as FR 51010 (October 5, 2001) (Preliminary an error in addition, subtraction, or Determination). The following five other arithmetic function, clerical error companies are respondents in this resulting from inaccurate copying, investigation: BC Hot House Foods, Inc.,
VerDate 11
Red Zoo Marketing (a.k.a. Produce 2001, supplemental questionnaire exceed gross unit price, we included Distributors, Inc.), Veg Gro Sales, Inc. response. This supports that BC Hot such transactions in the dumping- (a.k.a. K & M Produce Distributors), J-D House Foods, Inc., calculated and margin calculation because there is no Marketing, Inc., and Mastronardi reported the warehousing expense information on the record that supports Produce Ltd. adjustment on a per-case basis. their exclusion. On October 5 and 9, 2001, the Furthermore, we determine that this As noted above, Red Zoo Marketing Department received timely allegations ministerial error rises to the level of a alleges that the Department made a of ministerial errors in the Preliminary ‘‘significant error’’ pursuant to 19 CFR ministerial error in calculating separate Determination from BC Hot House 351.224(g)(1) and (g)(2), and we are costs for roma tomatoes-on-the-vine Foods, Inc., and Red Zoo Marketing, amending the Preliminary (TOVs) and cherry TOVs produced by respectively. BC Hot House Foods, Inc., Determination to reflect the correction Great Northern Hydroponics. Red Zoo alleged three ministerial errors: (1) The of this significant ministerial error made Marketing claims that the cost figures Department used arithmetically in the dumping-margin calculations for the Department calculated are ‘‘so incorrect conversion factors in BC Hot House Foods, Inc., pursuant to grossly overstated and unrealistic as to calculating the warehousing expense 19 CFR 351.224(e). See the BC Hot be clear error’’ and that the costs the adjustment, (2) the Department House Foods, Inc., Amended Department calculated for these incorrectly used a simple average, not a Preliminary Determination Analysis tomatoes are many times greater than weighted average, to combine certain Memorandum dated October 15, 2001. the next highest cost of any type of growers’ costs, and (3) the Department We have corrected this ministerial error tomato produced by any other Canadian incorrectly eliminated transactions with by treating the warehousing expense producer. Red Zoo Marketing further billing adjustments that exceed gross adjustment as a per-case amount in the claims that the vast majority of its unit price only if the adjustments bore dumping-margin calculation. production is of round red TOVs and a negative value rather than eliminating alleges that cost differences between After analyzing the other two billing adjustments with both positive different varieties of TOVs are not ministerial errors alleged by BC Hot and negative vales that exceed gross significant because, according to Red House Foods, Inc., we have determined unit price. See October 5, 2001, letter Zoo Marketing, all require the same that the alleged ‘‘errors’’ the respondent from BC Hot House Foods, Inc., alleging inputs and have comparable describes are not ministerial errors, and ministerial errors in the Preliminary productivity and vine life. that the allegations are more properly Determination. Red Zoo Marketing Red Zoo Marketing further contends alleges that the Department made a classified as comments on our that the error was caused in large part ministerial error in calculating separate methodology. With regard to the by the Department’s faulty question in costs for roma tomatoes-on-the-vine allegation that we incorrectly used a its supplemental questionnaire. Because (TOVs) and cherry TOVs produced by simple average, not a weighted average, of the way the question was worded and Great Northern Hydroponics. See to combine certain growers’ costs, on because Red Zoo Marketing did not October 9, 2001, letter from Red Zoo page 6 of our October 1, 2001, know the reason the Department asked Marketing alleging ministerial errors in Preliminary Determination Analysis the question, Red Zoo Marketing states the Preliminary Determination. Memorandum for BC Hot House Foods, that it reported the product-specific We have reviewed our preliminary Inc., we specifically stated that this is areas as of December 31, 1999, and dumping-margin calculations for BC Hot the methodology we intended to use December 31, 2000. Red Zoo Marketing House Foods, Inc., and agree that only where more than one of the ‘‘cost claims that the areas do not and were one of the three errors that the respondents’’ provided costs for a given not intended to represent actual usage of respondent alleges is a ministerial error product. This was not a ministerial the available greenhouse facilities within the meaning of 19 CFR error. Similarly, with regard to BC Hot throughout the year. 351.224(f). Specifically, we agree that House Foods, Inc.’s, allegations that we Red Zoo Marketing suggests two we used arithmetically incorrect incorrectly eliminated transactions with methods for fixing the alleged conversion factors in calculating the billing adjustments that exceed gross ministerial error. First, it suggests that warehousing expense adjustment. In the unit price only if the adjustments bore the Department should use a single per- Preliminary Determination we treated a negative value, rather than eliminating unit cost calculated for all of Great the warehousing expense adjustment as billing adjustments with both positive Northern Hydroponics’s production. if the respondent reported it on a per and negative values that exceed gross Alternatively, if the Department finds it kilogram basis. After further analyzing unit price, we do not find this to be a necessary to continue calculating costs the record in response to the ministerial error. The elimination of for each type, Red Zoo Marketing ministerial-error allegation, we find that transactions with negative billing suggests that the Department use the the record indicates that BC Hot House adjustments that exceed gross unit price data it attached to its October 9, 2001, Foods, Inc., reported the warehousing is consistent with our practice of ministerial-error allegation which expense adjustment on a per-case basis disregarding transactions with would provide a more accurate as claimed in its ministerial-error adjustments that result in negative measurement of the areas under allegation. For example, in the prices. See, e.g., Gray Portland Cement production throughout the period of respondent’s August 31, 2001, and and Clinker From Mexico: Final Results investigation rather than the year-end September 5, 2001, submissions, it of Antidumping Duty Administrative snapshot the Department used for the specifically stated that the unit basis for Review, 63 FR 12764, 12781 (March 16, preliminary determination. these warehousing expenses is Canadian 1998). Further, the methodology we After analyzing Red Zoo Marketing’s dollars per case. Further, the figure BC applied is consistent with the comments, we have determined that the Hot House Foods, Inc., used as the explanation provided on page 10 of our alleged ‘‘error’’ Red Zoo Marketing denominator for calculating the October 1, 2001, Preliminary describes is not a ministerial error. We warehousing expense adjustment is only Determination Analysis Memorandum made our decisions for the preliminary one third the size of the kilogram value for BC Hot House Foods, Inc. With determination based on the record that it reported in the volume and value regard to billing adjustments where the before us. Red Zoo Marketing’s table at Exhibit A–24 of its August 23, positive values of such adjustments comments about our segregation of
VerDate 11
Great Northern Hydroponics’s costs Service to suspend liquidation on Ontario companies because such between tomato types and our use of the imports of subject merchandise. The concerns are not different from those year-end product-specific area usage are suspension-of-liquidation instructions faced by any of the other companies that more properly classified as comments will remain in effect until further notice. we preliminarily determined to be on our methodology and not ministerial making sales at less than fair value. Postponement of Final Determination errors. In accordance with 19 CFR Further, to the extent the costs we and Extension of Provisional Measures 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our calculated are ‘‘absurdly’’ high, it is not Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act preliminary determination is primarily a result of our methodology or provides that a final determination may affirmative, (2) the respondents the area data we used in calculating the be postponed until not later than 135 requesting the postponement account costs but, rather, it overwhelmingly days after the publication of the for a significant proportion of exports of depends on the production quantities preliminary determination if, in the the subject merchandise, and (3) no Great Northern Hydroponics reported. event of an affirmative determination, a compelling reasons for denial exist, we In examining Red Zoo Marketing’s request for such postponement is made are granting the Ontario companies’ October 9, 2001, ministerial-error by exporters which account for a request and are postponing the final allegation, we found that Red Zoo significant proportion of exports of the determination until not later than 135 Marketing used new production subject merchandise. The Department’s days after the date of the publication of quantities for roma TOVs and cherry regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), the preliminary determination in the TOVs because ‘‘certain products were require that requests by respondents for Federal Register. Because February 17, misclassified.’’ See Red Zoo Marketing’s postponement of a final determination 2002, is a Sunday, and February 18, October 9, 2001, ministerial-error be accompanied by a request for 2002, is a federal holiday, we are allegation submission at page 10. This extension of provisional measures from postponing the final determination until misclassification relates to how Red Zoo a four-month period to not more than no later than Tuesday, February 19, Marketing reported product-specific six months. 2002. Suspension of liquidation, where production quantities prior to the On October 9, 2001, Red Zoo applicable, will be extended preliminary determination, not how the Marketing, Veg Gro Sales, Inc., J–D accordingly. Department made adjustments in Marketing, Inc., Mastronardi Produce International Trade Commission calculating the respondent’s Ltd., and all Ontario companies subject Notification antidumping margin. The production to the ‘‘all others’’ rate (collectively quantities for these tomato types, which referred to as the ‘‘Ontario companies’’) In accordance with section 733(f) of Red Zoo Marketing submitted after the requested that the Department postpone the Act, we have notified the preliminary determination in its its final determination until not later International Trade Commission (ITC) of ministerial error allegation, are than 135 days after the date of the our amended preliminary approximately ten times greater than publication of the preliminary determination. If our final those production quantities Great determination in the Federal Register. determination is affirmative, the ITC Northern Hydroponics reported in its On the same day the parties making this will determine before the later of 120 August 28, 2001, supplemental request also requested an extension of days after the date of the preliminary response. To the extent that there was the provisional measures from a four- determination or 45 days after our final an error in data the company submitted month period to not more than six determination whether the domestic to us for use in the preliminary months. See 19 CFR 351.201(e). industry in the United States is determination, it was not an error on According to Attachment III of the materially injured, or threatened with our part. Accordingly, we have not ‘‘Selection of Respondents’’ material injury, by reason of imports, or recalculated Red Zoo Marketing’s memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to sales (or the likelihood of sales) for dumping margin for this amended Richard W. Moreland dated May 15, importation, of the subject merchandise. 2001, during 2000 the Ontario preliminary determination. We intend, Public Comment however, to examine this issue closely companies accounted for more than 60 at verification. percent of exports of tomatoes from Case briefs or other written comments The collection of bonds or cash Canada. For the reasons explained on in at least ten copies must be submitted deposits and suspension of liquidation page 2 of the same memorandum, we to the Assistant Secretary for Import will be revised accordingly and parties determine that these export statistics Administration no later than one week will be notified of this determination in which we obtained from the Customs after the issuance of the Department’s accordance with sections 733(d) and (f) Service provide a reasonable basis for verification reports. A list of authorities of the Act. concluding that the Ontario companies used, a table of contents, and an account for a significant proportion of executive summary of issues should Amended Preliminary Determination exports of the subject merchandise. accompany any briefs submitted to the As a result of our correction of a On October 11, 2001, BC Hot House Department. Executive summaries ministerial error for BC Hot House Foods, Inc., filed a letter stating that it should be limited to five pages total, Foods, Inc., we have determined that a opposes postponement of the final including footnotes. In accordance with revised weighted-average dumping determination. The respondent claims section 774 of the Act, we will hold a margin of 33.95 percent applies to this that its high preliminary dumping public hearing to afford interested company. In addition, we have margin will adversely affect its parties an opportunity to comment on recalculated the ‘‘all others’’ dumping suppliers’ ability to obtain financing for arguments raised in case or rebuttal margin to reflect the change to BC Hot the upcoming season, jeopardize briefs, provided that such a hearing is House Foods, Inc.’s weighted-average commercial relationships with its requested by an interested party. If a dumping margin. The revised ‘‘all- customers, and make it difficult to request for a hearing is made, the others’’ dumping margin is 24.04 coordinate marketing and planting hearing will be tentatively held three percent. strategies for next year. We do not find days after the deadline for submission of We are issuing an amendment to our this to be a compelling reason for the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. instructions directing the Customs denying the extension requested by the Department of Commerce, 14th Street
VerDate 11
and Constitution Avenue, NW., Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., (i) The case is extraordinarily Washington, DC 20230. Parties should Washington DC 20230. complicated by reason of: confirm by telephone the time, date, and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (I) The number and complexity of the place of the hearing 48 hours before the transactions to be investigated or scheduled time. Applicable Statute and Regulations adjustments to be considered; Interested parties who wish to request Unless otherwise indicated, all (II) The novelty of the issues a hearing, or to participate if one is citations to the statute are references to presented; requested, must submit a written the provisions effective January 1, 1995, (III) The number of firms whose request to the Assistant Secretary for the effective date of the amendments activities must be investigated; and Import Administration, U.S. Department made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) (ii) Additional time is necessary to of Commerce, Room 1870, by November by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. make the preliminary determination. 5, 2001. Requests should contain the In addition, unless otherwise indicated, Regarding the first requirement, we following information: (1) The party’s all citations to the Department’s find that in each case all concerned name, address, and telephone number; regulations are to the regulations parties are cooperating. Regarding the (2) the number of participants; and (3) codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000). second requirement, we find that each a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral of these four cases is extraordinarily presentations will be limited to issues Postponement of Due Date for complicated for the following reasons: Preliminary Determinations raised in the briefs. Kazakhstan This determination is issued and On April 26, 2001, the Department published in accordance with sections initiated antidumping duty The Kazakhstani investigation is 733(f), 735(a)(2), and 777(i)(1) of the Act investigations of imports of extraordinarily complicated because the and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2). silicomanganese from Kazakhstan, Government of Kazakhstan and Transnational Co. Kazchrome and Aksu Dated: October 15, 2001. India, and Venezuela. The notice of initiation stated that we would issue our Ferroalloy Plant (‘‘Kazchrome’’), the Faryar Shirzad, producer, requested that the Department Assistant Secretary for Import preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of initiation. revoke Kazakhstan’s non-market Administration. economy status or determine that the [FR Doc. 01–26538 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] See 66 FR 22209 (May 3, 2001). On August 17, 2001, petitioners made a silicomanganese industry in Kazakhstan BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P timely request pursuant to 19 CFR is a ‘‘market oriented industry.’’ In 351.205(e) for a 30-day postponement, addition, Kazchrome claims it does not have knowledge of which of its export DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act. On September 17, Universal Ferro sales to Alloy 2000, a trading company, International Trade Administration & Allied Chemical, Ltd. from India are destined to the United States. The submitted a request that the Department Department is considering other complex issues such as the relationship [A–307–820, A–533–823, and A–834–807] fully extend the preliminary determination because of the time between Considar, a U.S.-based selling Silicomanganese From Kazakhstan, constraints. On September 24, agent, and Alloy 2000, as well as the India and Venezuela; Notice of Kazchrome and Considar submitted a appropriate date of sale. Postponement of Preliminary request that the Department determine India Determinations in Antidumping Duty that the investigation on The Indian investigation is Investigations silicomanganese from Kazakhstan was extraordinarily complicated and extraordinarily complicated because of AGENCY: Import Administration, postpone the preliminary determination certain sales and cost issues including International Trade Administration, to the full extent possible. On August depreciation, date of sale, and cost of Department of Commerce. 31, 2001, in accordance with production. In addition, one of the ACTION: Notice of postponement of petitioners’ request for a postponement, companies is not represented by preliminary determinations in the Department postponed the counsel. The Department has just sent antidumping duty investigations. preliminary determinations in these out extensive supplemental investigations for 30 days. See 66 FR questionnaires for each of the two SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 45964. Currently, the preliminary companies, and we consider the (the Department) is postponing the determinations in these investigations information to be analyzed for these two preliminary determinations in the are due on October 15, 2001. companies within the time constraints antidumping duty investigations of However, pursuant to section of this investigation to be voluminous. silicomanganese from Kazakhstan, 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we have Venezuela India, and Venezuela from October 15, determined that these investigations are The Venezuelan investigation is 2001, until no later than November 2, ‘‘extraordinarily complicated’’ and are extraordinarily complicated due to 2001. This postponement is made therefore fully extending the due date complex issues related to date of sale, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the for the preliminary determinations to no cost of production, and affiliation. Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the later than November 2, 2001. This notice is issued and published Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Under section 733(c)(1)(B), the EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19, 2001. pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act Department can extend the period for and 19 CFR 351.205(f). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean reaching a preliminary determination Kemp (Kazakhstan), at (202) 482–4037, until not later than the 190th day after Dated: October 10, 2001. Sally Gannon (India), at (202) 482–0162, the date on which the administering Faryar Shirzad, and Robert James (Venezuela), at (202) authority initiates an investigation if: Assistant Secretary for Import 482–0649, Import Administration, (B) The administering authority Administration. International Trade Administration, concludes that the parties concerned are [FR Doc. 01–26448 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th cooperating and determines that: BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE issue a preliminary critical reason to believe, at some time prior to circumstances determination prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a International Trade Administration the date of the preliminary proceeding was likely, the Department determinations of sales at less than fair may consider a period of not less than [A–533–823] value, assuming sufficient evidence of three months from that earlier time. Notice of Preliminary Determination of critical circumstances is available (see In determining whether the above Critical Circumstances: Policy Bulletin 98/4: Timing of Issuance criteria have been satisfied, we Silicomanganese From India of Critical Circumstances examined: (1) The evidence presented Determinations (63 FR 55364)). In by petitioners in their July 16, 2001 and AGENCY: Import Administration, accordance with this policy, at this time September 7, 2001 letters; (2) exporter- International Trade Administration, we are issuing the preliminary critical specific shipment data requested by the Department of Commerce. circumstances decision in the Department on August 2, 2001; (3) ACTION: Notice of preliminary investigation of silicomanganese from United States Customs Service import determination of critical circumstances; India for the reasons discussed below statistics available after the initiation of silicomanganese from India and in the concurrent Memorandum the LTFV investigation; and, (4) the from Elfi Blum through Sally Gannon to International Trade Commission (ITC) EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19, 2001. Barbara Tillman: Antidumping Duty preliminary injury determinations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Investigation of Silicomanganese from History of Dumping Blum or Abdelali Elouaradia at (202) India-Preliminary Affirmative Determinations of Critical To determine whether there is a 482–0197 and (202) 482–1374, history of injurious dumping of the respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, Circumstances, dated October 4, 2001 (Critical Circumstances Preliminary merchandise under investigation, in Group III, Import Administration, accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) International Trade Administration, Determinations Memorandum), on file in Import Administration’s Central of the Act, the Department normally U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th considers evidence of an existing Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Records Unit (CRU), Room B–099, of the Department of Commerce building. antidumping duty order on the subject Washington, DC 20230. merchandise in the United States or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Critical Circumstances elsewhere to be sufficient. The The Applicable Statute and Regulations Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides Department’s practice has been to rely that the Department will preliminarily on the existence of evidence that there Unless otherwise indicated, all determine that critical circumstances is a history of dumping of subject citations to the statute are references to exist if there is a reasonable basis to merchandise from the country in the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a question to either the United States or Act). In addition, unless otherwise history of dumping and material injury any other countries. See Preliminary indicated, all citations to the by reason of dumped imports in the Determination of Critical Department’s regulations are references United States or elsewhere of the subject Circumstances: Steel Concrete to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part merchandise; or (ii) the person by reinforcing Bars From Ukraine and 351 (2000). whom, or for whose account, the Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27, Background merchandise was imported knew or 2000). In this case, we are not aware of should have known that the exporter any dumping order in any country on On May 3, 2001, the Department of was selling the subject merchandise at silicomanganese from India. For this Commerce (the Department) initiated an less than its fair value and that there reason, we do not find a history of investigation to determine whether was likely to be material injury by injurious dumping of the subject imports of silicomanganese from India reason of such sales; and, (B) there have merchandise from India pursuant to are being, or are likely to be, sold in the been massive imports of the subject section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. United States at less than fair value merchandise over a relatively short (LTFV) (66 FR 22209, May 3, 2001). On period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Importer Knowledge June 11, 2001, the International Trade Department’s regulations provides that, To determine whether there is a Commission (ITC) published its in determining whether imports of the reasonable basis to believe or suspect determination that there is a reasonable subject merchandise have been that an importer knew or should have indication of material injury to the ‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally known that the exporter was selling domestic industry from imports of will examine: (i) The volume and value silicomanganese at LTFV, in accordance silicomanganese from India. On July 16, of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and with section 733(e)(1)(ii) of the Act, the 2001, the petitioners alleged that there (iii) the share of domestic consumption Department normally considers margins is a reasonable basis to believe or accounted for by the imports. In of 25 percent or more for EP sales suspect that critical circumstances exist addition, § 351.206(h)(2) of the sufficient to impute knowledge of with respect to imports of Department’s regulations provides that dumping. See, e.g., Preliminary silicomanganese from India. In an increase in imports of 15 percent Determination of Critical accordance with 19 CFR during the ‘‘relatively short period’’ of Circumstances: Certain Small Diameter 351.206(c)(2)(i), because the petitioners time may be considered ‘‘massive.’’ Carbon and Alloy Steel Seamless submitted critical circumstances Section 351.206(i) of the Department’s Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from allegations more than 20 days before the regulations defines ‘‘relatively short the Czech Republic, 65 FR 33803 (May scheduled date of the preliminary period’’ as normally being the period 25, 2000). The Department normally determination, the Department must beginning on the date the proceeding bases its preliminary decision with issue preliminary critical circumstances begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) respect to knowledge on the margins determinations not later than the date of and ending at least three months later. determined in the preliminary the preliminary determination. In a The regulations also provide, however, determination. policy bulletin issued on October 8, that if the Department finds that In this case, because we are issuing 1998, the Department stated that it may importers, exporters, or producers had our preliminary critical circumstance
VerDate 11
determination prior to our preliminary stated in § 351.206(i) of the an increase in imports exceeding the LTFV determination, the Department Department’s regulations, if the required 15 percent, but no massive has relied on margin information Secretary finds that importers, imports for the other respondent, Nava provided in the petition to determine if exporters, or producers had reason to Bharat Ferro Alloys (Nava Bharat). there is a reasonable basis to believe or believe, at some time prior to the With respect to the ‘‘all others’’ suspect that the importers knew or beginning of the proceeding, that a category, we considered the fact that we should have known that the subject proceeding was likely, then the found massive imports for one of the merchandise was being sold at LTFV. In Secretary may consider a time period of investigated exporters but not the other. the petition, the estimated dumping not less than three months from that We also considered whether U.S. margin, based on a comparison between earlier time. Imports normally will be Customs Service data, as available on adjusted U.S. price based on average considered massive when imports the International Trade Commission’s unit value and price(s) in India, is 5.89 during the comparison period have Dataweb, would permit the Department percent. The estimated dumping margin increased by 15 percent or more to analyze imports of subject for price-to-constructed value (CV) compared to imports during the base merchandise. The U.S. Customs import comparisons is 86.98 percent. Because period. data does include low-carbon the highest estimated dumping margin In the Critical Circumstances silicomanganese, which is excluded calculated in the petition for India is Allegation submitted on July 16, 2001, from the scope. However, the PIERS greater than 25 percent, there is a petitioners cite an industry publication information submitted by petitioners reasonable basis to impute knowledge of to document that importers, exporters indicates that low-carbon imports make dumping with respect to imports from and producers had reason to believe that up a low percentage of total imports. this country. Therefore, we have a proceeding was likely prior to the Thus, we believe it is appropriate to use imputed to importers knowledge of filing of the petition on April 6, 2001. the aggregate import data in our analysis dumping of the subject merchandise Petitioners state that, on March 8, 2001, of whether there have been massive from each of the two cooperating a month before filing the petition, imports from ‘‘all others.’’ This data exporters and to importers of subject Eramet (a petitioner) issued a press shows massive imports of the subject merchandise from all other producers/ release confirming that it intended to merchandise from India. Even if we exporters in India. file an antidumping petition covering were to subtract the shipment data Regarding knowledge of material imports of silicomanganese. This intent provided by the two respondents from injury by reason of the LTFV sales, the was discussed in an industry the aggregate data and to compare the Department normally will look to the publication, ‘‘Ryan’s Notes,’’ on March remaining volume of imports in the base preliminary injury determination of the 12, 2001, which specified India as a period to the remaining imports in the ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable likely target. On March 5, 2001, the comparison period, this would indicate indication of present material injury to same industry publication had already that massive imports occurred. See the relevant U.S. industry, the reported that petitioner ‘‘was on the Memorandum to Barbara Tillman Department will determine that a verge of launching a dumping case.’’ through Sally Gannon from Elfi Blum: reasonable basis exists to impute (See ‘‘Ryan’s Notes,’’ March 5, 2001, p. Antidumping Duty Investigation of importer knowledge that there was 5.) According to petitioners, numerous Silicomanganese from India-Preliminary likely to be material injury by reason of other articles in other industry Affirmative and Negative dumped imports. In this case, the ITC publications demonstrate that, in early Determinations of Critical has found that a reasonable indication March 2001, importers and exporters of Circumstances, dated October 4, 2001 of present material injury due to Indian silicomanganese had reason to (Critical Circumstances Memorandum). dumping exists for subject imports of believe that an antidumping petition Therefore, we find that there is a silicomanganese from India. See covering India was likely. We examined reasonable basis to believe or suspect Silicomanganese From India, the sources cited by petitioners to that there were massive imports from Kazakhstan, and Venezuela, 66 FR determine whether they provide a basis ‘‘all others.’’ 31258 (June 11, 2001). As a result, the for inferring knowledge that a Department has determined that there is proceeding was likely. We find that Conclusion a reasonable basis to believe or suspect such industry publications, particularly Given the above-referenced analysis, that importers of silicomanganese from the one cited above, are sufficient to we preliminarily determine that critical India from all exporters knew or should establish that, by early March 2001, circumstances exist for Universal Ferro have known that there was likely to be importers, exporters, and producers and for companies in the ‘‘all others’’ material injury by reason of dumped knew or should have known that a category, but not for Nava Bharat. imports of the subject merchandise from proceeding was likely concerning Suspension of Liquidation India, in accordance with section silicomanganese from India. 733(e)(1)(ii) of the Act. With regard to the issue of massive In accordance with section 733(e)(2) imports, in accordance with our current of the Act, if the Department issues an Massive Imports practice (see Notice of Final affirmative preliminary determination of In determining whether there are Determination of Sales at Less Than sales at LTFV in the investigation with ‘‘massive imports’’ over a ‘‘relatively Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon- respect to Universal Ferro or the ‘‘all short period,’’ pursuant to section Quality Steel Products From Brazil, 65 others’’ category, the Department, at that 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department FR 5554 (February 4, 2000)), we first time, will direct Customs to suspend normally compares the import volume considered the shipment data reported liquidation of all entries of of the subject merchandise for three by the mandatory respondents for the silicomanganese from India from these months immediately preceding the base and comparison periods (October exporters that are entered, or withdrawn filing of the petition (i.e., the base 2000 through February 2001 and March from warehouse, for consumption on or period), to the import volume of subject 2001 through July 2001, respectively). after 90 days prior to the date of merchandise in the three months We found massive imports for one publication in the Federal Register of following the filing of the petition (i.e., respondent, Universal Ferro & Allied our preliminary determination of sales the comparison period). However, as Chemicals (Universal Ferro), based on at LTFV. Customs shall require a cash
VerDate 11
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the extent to which processors utilize helicopter or skiff. The requirement is estimated preliminary dumping margins domestic harvest. These analyses are necessary to aid enforcement of fishery reflected in the preliminary necessary to carry out the provision of regulations. determination of sales at LTFV the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Affected Public: Business or other for- published in the Federal Register. The Conservation and Management Act. profit organizations, individuals or suspension of liquidation to be issued Affected Public: Business and other households. after our preliminary determination of for-profit organizations. Frequency: Third party disclosure. sales at LTFV will remain in effect until Frequency: Annual. Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. further notice. Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395–3897. Final Critical Circumstances (202) 395–3897. Copies of the above information Determination Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by We will make a final determination collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, concerning critical circumstances for calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Paperwork Clearance India when we make our final Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482–3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and determination regarding sales at LTFV Officer, (202) 482–3129, Department of Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, in the investigation, which will be 75 Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and DC 20230 (or via the Internet at days (unless extended) after the Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, preliminary LTFV determination. [email protected]). DC 20230 (or via the Internet at Written comments and [email protected]). ITC Notification recommendations for the proposed Written comments and information collection should be sent In accordance with section 733(f) of recommendations for the proposed the Act, we have notified the ITC of our within 30 days of publication of this information collection should be sent notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk determination. within 30 days of publication of this Officer, Room 10202, New Executive This notice is issued and published notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Dated: October 12, 2001. Dated: October 10, 2001. Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Madeleine Clayton, Faryar Shirzad, Dated: October 11, 2001. Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Assistant Secretary for Import Madeleine Clayton, Office of the Chief Information Officer. Administration. Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, [FR Doc. 01–26453 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 01–26449 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Office of the Chief Information Officer. BILLING CODE 3510–22–S BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P [FR Doc. 01–26452 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [I.D. 101501C] National Oceanic and Atmospheric [I.D. 101501D] Administration Submission for OMB Review; [I.D. 101201C] Comment Request Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request New England Fishery Management The Department of Commerce has Council; Public Meetings submitted to the Office of Management The Department of Commerce has and Budget (OMB) for clearance the submitted to the Office of Management AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries following proposal for collection of and Budget (OMB) for clearance the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and information under the provisions of the following proposal for collection of Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. information under the provisions of the Commerce. Chapter 35). Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. Agency: National Oceanic and Chapter 35). Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Agency: National Oceanic and SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Title: Processed Products Family of Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Management Council (Council) is Forms. Title: Southwest Region Vessel scheduling a public meeting of its Form Number(s): NOAA Forms 88–13 Identification Requirements. Habitat Oversight Committee in and 88–13c. Form Number(s): None. November, 2001. Recommendations OMB Approval Number: 0648–0018. OMB Approval Number: 0648–0361. from the committee will be brought to Type of Request: Regular submission. Type of Request: Regular submission. the full Council for formal consideration Burden Hours: 680. Burden Hours: 286. and action, if appropriate. Number of Respondents: 1.320. Number of Respondents: 356. DATES: The meeting will held on Average Hours Per Response: 30 Average Hours Per Response: 45 Tuesday, November 6, 2001, at 5:30 minutes for a NOAA Form 88–13; 15 minutes for all but purse seine vessels; p.m. minutes for a NOAA Form 88–13c. 75 minutes for purse seine vessels. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Needs and Uses: This is a survey of Needs and Uses: Vessels in certain the Tavern on the Harbor, 30 Western seafood and industrial fishing federally-regulated fisheries off the West Ave., Gloucester, MA 01930; telephone: processing firms. Firms processing fish Coast or in the Western Pacific are (978) 283–4200. from certain fisheries must report on required to display the vessel’s official Council address: New England their annual volume, the value of number in three locations. Purse seine Fishery Management Council, 50 Water products, and monthly employment vessels in the South Pacific are required Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. figures. Data are used in economic to display their international radio call FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul analyses to estimate the capacity and sign in three locations and on any J. Howard, Executive Director, New
VerDate 11
England Fishery Management Council; a.m. The Skate Oversight Committee notice that require emergency action (978) 465–0492. will meet from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. under section 305(c) of the Magnuson- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at Stevens Act, provided the public has Committee will review alternatives for the King’s Grant Inn, Trask Road, Route been notified of the Council’s intent to designating essential fish habitat for 128, Danvers, MA 01923; telephone: take final action to address the deep-sea red crab, to be incorporated in (978) 774–6800. emergency. the proposed Red Crab Fishery Council address: New England Special Accommodations Management Plan. The Committee may Fishery Management Council, 50 Water select preferred alternatives to Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. These meetings are physically recommend to the full Council. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul accessible to people with disabilities. Although non-emergency issues not J. Howard, Executive Director, New Requests for sign language contained in this agenda may come England Fishery Management Council; interpretation or other auxiliary aids before this group for discussion, those (978) 465–0492. should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to issues may not be the subject of formal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting the meeting dates. action during this meeting. Action will Agendas The Monkfish Oversight be restricted to those issues specifically Committee will review the Stock Dated: October 15, 2001. listed in this notice and any issues Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Richard W. Surdi, arising after publication of this notice (SAFE) Report for 2000, incorporating Acting Director, Office of Sustainable that require emergency action under the Monkfish Monitoring Committee Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Report. Based on this review, the [FR Doc. 01–26457 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Act, provided the public has been committee will develop BILLING CODE 3510–22–S notified of the Council’s intent to take recommendations to the Council for final action to address the emergency. adjustments to the Monkfish Fishery Special Accommodations Management Plan (FMP) for the 2002 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE fishing year, in accordance with the This meeting is physically accessible framework adjustment procedures in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric to people with disabilities. Requests for FMP. Options under consideration Administration sign language interpretation or other include, but are not limited to: taking no [I.D. 100101A] auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul action and allowing the Year 4 default J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 measures to take effect (eliminating the Marine Mammals; Pinniped Removal days prior to the meeting dates. directed fishery); postponing for one Authority Dated: October 15, 2001. year the Year 4 default measures and AGENCY: adjusting trip limits to achieve current National Marine Fisheries Richard W. Surdi, Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Acting Director, Office of Sustainable landings levels after accounting for the effect of the recent court decision Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Commerce. [FR Doc. 01–26456 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] eliminating gear-based differential trip ACTION: Proposed extension of a Letter BILLING CODE 3510–22–S limits; and, adjusting management measures to reduce catches to the Years of Authorization (LOA) and request for 2 and 3 total allowable catch (TAC) comments. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE targets. The committee will also develop SUMMARY: NMFS solicits public recommendations to the Council for comments on a request from the State of National Oceanic and Atmospheric research priorities under cooperative Washington and a proposal by NMFS to Administration programs with the industry. At the end extend, for 5 years, an LOA for the [I.D. 101201B] of the meeting the committee will hold lethal removal of individually a closed session to review applications identifiable California sea lions that are New England Fishery Management and make recommendations for having a significant negative impact on Council; Public Meetings membership on the Monkfish Advisory the status and recovery of winter Panel. steelhead that migrate through the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries The Skate Oversight Committee will Ballard Locks in Seattle, WA. No Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and review guidance on skate overfishing changes to the existing terms and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), definitions from the Council’s Scientific conditions of the authorization are Commerce. and Statistical Committee and the Skate proposed beyond extension of the ACTION: Plan Development Team. They will also Notice of public meetings. expiration date to June 30, 2006. This develop recommendations as to which action is authorized under the Marine SUMMARY: The New England Fishery overfishing definition alternatives Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Management Council (Council) is should be fully analyzed for the Draft scheduling a public meeting of its Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) DATES: Comments must be received on Monkfish Oversight and Skate Oversight and public hearing document. They will or before November 19, 2001. Committees in November 2001 to also review a timeline for DEIS ADDRESSES: Comments on this action consider actions affecting New England development. should be submitted to Chief, Protected fisheries in the exclusive economic zone Although non-emergency issues not Resources Division, NMFS, 525 NE (EEZ). Recommendations from these contained in this agenda may come Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR groups will be brought to the full before this group for discussion, those 97232. Comments will not be accepted Council for formal consideration and issues may not be the subject of formal if submitted via email or the Internet. action, if appropriate. action during these meetings. Action However, comments may be sent via fax DATES: The meetings will be held on will be restricted to those issues to (503) 230–5435. November 5, 2001. The Monkfish specifically listed in this notice and any FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Oversight Committee will meet at 9:30 issues arising after publication of this Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region,
VerDate 11
(503) 231–2005, or Tom Eagle, NMFS, the State to prepare, and NMFS to lions to be removed, the steelhead run Office of Protected Resources, (301) process, a formal request to extend the has not recovered, and efforts to recover 713–2322 ext. 105. existing LOA. Under the terms and the run are continuing.) The MMPA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: conditions of the LOA, which requires NMFS to consider the authorized lethal removal only during recommendations of the Task Force Electronic Access the steelhead migration period (January when determining whether to issue a Additional information, including the through May) no sea lions may be lethal removal authorization. In order to State’s LOA extension request, prior lethally removed during the temporary obtain the Task Force’s views regarding Environmental Assessments, and the extension. this extension of the previously issued current LOA, is available via the In a letter dated September 12, 2001, LOA in light of its decision to adjourn internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov. the State of Washington requested an pending significant new data or extension of the LOA for an additional Background analysis, NMFS is consulting with Task 5 years (with a new expiration date of Force members by mail during the 30- Pursuant to section 120 (b) of the June 30, 2006). The State’s request cites day public comment period. MMPA, the State of Washington severely depressed steelhead run NMFS is seeking public comments on submitted an application to NMFS on returns (42 fish returned to spawn in the proposal to extend the LOA for a June 30, 1994, requesting consideration 2001) and the need to quickly remove period of 5 years. After considering of lethal removal of California sea lions any sea lion that meets the criteria public comments and advice from Task at the Ballard Locks in Seattle, WA. In outlined in the LOA while the State Force members, NMFS will publish response to the application, NMFS continues management efforts to recover notice of its final decision in the formed the Ballard Locks Pinniped- the run. In addition, the State noted that Federal Register. Fisheries Interaction Task Force (Task there are no lethal removals planned at The environmental consequences of Force). The Task Force met in late 1994, this time and requested the extending the existing LOA as reviewed the available information and authorization be extended so that, as a requested, without further modification recommended approval of lethal last resort, it can respond in a timely of the terms and conditions, are removal with conditions. NMFS took manner to uncontrollable sea lion expected to be the same as those the recommendations of the Task Force predation and protect steelhead as the previously assessed. Nonetheless, and public comments into consideration run recovers. The State requests no NMFS will conduct an environmental when it issued the initial 3–year LOA to modifications to the terms and analysis on the proposed 5–year the Washington Department of Fish and conditions of the LOA other than the extension as required by the National Wildlife (WDFW) on January 5, 1995. extension to June 30, 2006. Copies of the Environmental Policy Act. As required by section 120, the Task request for extension are available (see Force reconvened in late 1995 to Electronic Access). Dated: October 15, 2001. evaluate the effectiveness of the The Task Force last met in 1996 to Wanda L. Cain, permitted lethal taking or alternative consider an earlier extension request by Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, actions and recommended the State, and it submitted a report to National Marine Fisheries Service. modifications to the terms and NMFS that recommended that the LOA [FR Doc. 01–26450 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] conditions of the LOA. The LOA was be extended, if so requested by the BILLING CODE 3510–22–S modified in 1996 and subsequently State, until such time as (a) the extended through June 30, 2001. No escapement goal of 1600 steelhead is lethal removals were conducted during reached or (b) it becomes clear that the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE the period of the current LOA. process is unlikely to achieve the stated Information on Washington’s original goal. At that time, the Task Force Disclosure Document Program application for lethal removal, the opinions on the extension ranged from ACTION: Proposed collection; comment process for considering the application, ‘‘no extension’’ to ‘‘an extension period request. which included formation of a of 8 years (two steelhead life cycles)’’, Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task with the majority favoring 4 years. The SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Force, the Terms and Conditions of the Task Force indicated that extending the Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its LOA issued to WDFW and its LOA would provide needed time to continuing effort to reduce paperwork subsequent extension was published in enable an evaluation of the effectiveness and respondent burden, invites the the Federal Register on August 2, 1994 of lethal or non-lethal but permanent general public and other Federal (59 FR 39325), September 27, 1994 (59 removal on subsequent steelhead agencies to take this opportunity to FR 49234), January 19, 1995 (60 FR returns when they have recovered to comment on the continuing and 3841), August 15, 1995 (60 FR 42146), abundances that previously attracted proposed information collection, as March 26, 1996 (61 FR 13153), August predatory sea lions. At the completion required by the Paperwork Reduction 26, 1996 (61 FR 43737), June 19, 1997 of their deliberations, the Task Force Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 (62 FR 33396), and September 29, 1997 adjourned until such time as substantive U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). (62 FR 50903). Background information new information and analysis become DATES: Written comments must be on the sea-lion steelhead conflict at the available that may alter its submitted on or before December 18, Ballard Locks and findings on the recommendation. Copies of the Task 2001. environmental consequences of Force report and recommendations are issuance of the LOA are provided in two available (see Electronic Access). The ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments Environmental Assessments prepared State’s extension request indicates to Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, by NMFS in 1995 and 1996 (see that,since the Task Force last met, Office of Data Management, Data Electronic Access). conditions at the Locks have remained Administration Division, USPTO, Suite At the request of WDFW, NMFS virtually unchanged (i.e., no sea lions 310, 2231 Crystal Drive, Washington, granted a temporary extension of the have been lethally removed, no new DC 20231; by telephone 703–308–7400; LOA expiration date from June 30, 2001, individually identifiable sea lions have by e-mail at [email protected]; or to December 15, 2001, to allow time for been added to the list of predatory sea by facsimile at 703–308–7400.
VerDate 11
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: inventor, and requesting that the Form Number(s): PTO/SB/95. Requests for additional information material be received into the Disclosure Type of Review: Extension of a should be directed to the attention of Document Program. currently approved collection. Robert J. Spar, Office of Patent Legal The disclosure document will be Affected Public: Individuals or Administration, United States Patent preserved by the USPTO for two years households; business or other for-profit; and Trademark Office (USPTO), after its receipt, and then destroyed not-for-profit institutions; farms; the Washington, DC 20231; by telephone at unless it is referred to in a separate Federal Government; and state, local or 703–305–9285. letter in a related patent application tribal governments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: filed within the two year period. The Estimated Number of Respondents: disclosure document is not a patent 20,250 responses per year. I. Abstract application, and the date of its receipt A service provided by the USPTO is in the USPTO will not become the Estimated Time per Response: The the acceptance and preservation for two effective filing date of any patent USPTO estimates that it will take the years of a ‘‘disclosure document’’ as application subsequently filed. public approximately 12 minutes, evidence of the date of conception of an The information supplied to the depending upon the complexity of the invention. A disclosure document is a USPTO by an applicant seeking to prove situation, to gather, prepare, and submit paper disclosing an invention, signed by the date of conception for an invention a disclosure document deposit request. the inventor or inventors, and submitted is used by the USPTO to establish There is one form associated with this to the USPTO. The document should evidence of the date of conception of an information collection, Form PTO/SB/ contain a clear and complete invention. 95. explanation of the manner and process Estimated Total Annual Respondent of making and using the invention in II. Method of Collection Burden Hours: 4,050 hours per year. sufficient detail to enable a person By mail, facsimile, or hand carried to Estimated Total Annual Respondent having ordinary knowledge in the field the USPTO when the inventor desires to Cost Burden: Using the professional of the invention to make and use the participate in the Disclosure Document hourly rate of $252 per hour for invention. The disclosure document Program. associate attorneys in private firms, the request must be accompanied by a USPTO estimates $1,020,600 per year separate signed cover letter stating that III. Data for salary costs associated with it is submitted by, or on behalf of, the OMB Number: 0651–0030. respondents.
Estimated an- Estimated an- Item Estimated time nual re- nual burden for response sponses hours
Disclosure Document Deposit Request ...... 12 20,250 4,050 minutes
Total ...... 202,250 4,050
Estimated Total Annual Nonhour There is annual nonhour cost burden Following is a chart listing this filing Respondent Cost Burden: $202,500.00. in the way of a filing fee associated with fee/nonhour cost burden. The total (There are no capital start-up or this collection. The filing fee related to annual filing fee/nonhour cost burden is maintenance costs associated with this this collection is considered part of the $202,500.00. information collection.) nonhour cost burden of the collection.
Total non-hour Item Responses Filing fee cost burden (a) ($)(b) (a) × (b)
Disclosure Document Deposit Request ...... 20,250 $10.00 $202,500.00
Total ...... 20,250 10.00 202,500.00
IV. Request for Comments ways to enhance the quality, utility, and approval of this information collection; clarity of the information to be Comments are invited on: (a) Whether they will also become a matter of public collected; and (d) ways to minimize the the proposed collection of information record. burden of the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance Dated: October 12, 2001. on respondents, including through the of the functions of the agency, including use of automated collection techniques Thao Nguyen, whether the information shall have or other forms of information Acting Records Officer, USPTO, Office of Data practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the technology. Management, Data Administration Division. agency’s estimate of the burden [FR Doc. 01–26326 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] (including hours and cost) of the Comments submitted in response to proposed collection of information; (c) this notice will be summarized or BILLING CODE 3510–16–P included in the request for OMB
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE The Army will consider comments of review requested, e.g. new, revision, received on this EA prior to initiating extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Department of the Army any action. Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) The Final EA and Finding of No Description of the need for, and Final Environmental Assessment and Significant Impact are available for proposed use of, the information; (5) Finding of No Significant Impact for review at the Vancouver, Washington Respondents and frequency of BRAC 95 Disposal and Reuse of Camp Public Library. collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Bonneville, WA Dated: October 12, 2001. Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. Raymond J. Fatz, public comment. ACTION: Notice of availability. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Dated: October 15, 2001 (Environment, Safety and Occupational John Tressler, SUMMARY: In accordance with Public Health) OASA(I&E). Law 101–510 (as amended), the Defense Leader, Regulatory Information Management, [FR Doc. 01–26434 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Office of the Chief Information Officer Base Closure and Realignment Act of BILLING CODE 3710–08–M 1990, the Defense Base Closure and Office of Educational Research and Realignment Commission recommended Improvement the closure of Camp Bonneville, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Washington. Type of Review: Revision. The Final Environmental Assessment Submission for OMB Review; Title: Educational Longitudinal Study (EA) evaluates the environmental Comment Request of 2002 (ELS:2002). impacts of the disposal and subsequent reuse of the 3,020-acre installation. AGENCY: Department of Education. Frequency: Annually. Alternatives examined in the EA SUMMARY: The Leader, Regulatory Affected Public: Not-for-profit include encumbered disposal of the Information Management Group, Office institutions; State, Local, or Tribal property, unencumbered disposal of the of the Chief Information Officer invites Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. property, and no action. Encumbered comments on the submission for OMB Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour disposal refers to transfer or conveyance review as required by the Paperwork Burden: of property having restrictions on Reduction Act of 1995. subsequent use as a result of any Army Responses: 46,539. DATES: Interested persons are invited to imposed or legal restraint. Under the no submit comments on or before Burden Hours: 54,102. action alternative, the Army would not November 19, 2001. dispose of property but would maintain Abstract: Full-scale study in Spring, it in caretaker status for an indefinite ADDRESSES: Written comments should 2002 in 800 schools in all 50 states and period. be addressed to the Office of the District of Columbia. Data collection Information and Regulatory Affairs, from students, teachers, administrators DATES: Comments must be submitted on Attention: Karen Lee, Desk Officer, and library media center specialists. or before November 19, 2001. Department of Education, Office of Data collection will constitute the ADDRESSES: A copy of the EA may be Management and Budget, 725 17th baseline of a longitudinal study of obtained by writing to Mr. Ken Brunner, Street, NW., Room 10202, New school effectiveness and impact on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle Executive Office Building, Washington, postsecondary and labor market District (ATTN: CENWS–ED–TB–ER), DC 20503 or should be electronically outcomes. A field test was conducted in 4735 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, mailed to the internet address Spring, 2001. WA 98124–2255. [email protected]. Requests for copies of the proposed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section information collection request may be Ken Brunner by fax at (206) 764–4470. 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: While 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires should be addressed to Vivian Reese, disposal of Camp Bonneville is the that the Office of Management and Department of Education, 400 Maryland Army’s primary action, the EA also Budget (OMB) provide interested Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional analyzes the potential environmental Federal agencies and the public an early Office Building 3, Washington, DC effects of reuse as a secondary action by opportunity to comment on information 20202–4651. Requests may also be means of evaluating intensity-based collection requests. OMB may amend or electronically mailed to the internet reuse scenarios. The Army’s preferred waive the requirement for public address [email protected] or faxed to alternative for disposal of Camp consultation to the extent that public 202–708–9346. Please specify the Bonneville property is encumbered participation in the approval process complete title of the information disposal, with encumbrances pertaining would defeat the purpose of the collection when making your request. to the possible presence of unexploded information collection, violate State or Comments regarding burden and/or the ordnance, lead-based paint and Federal law, or substantially interfere collection activity requirements should asbestos-containing material, protection with any agency’s ability to perform its be directed to Kathy Axt at (540) 776– of wetlands and compliance with the statutory obligations. The Leader, 7742 or via her internet address Endangered Species Act, as well as the Regulatory Information Management [email protected]. Individuals who use requirement for a right of reentry for Group, Office of the Chief Information a telecommunications device for the environmental clean-up. Officer, publishes that notice containing deaf (TDD) may call the Federal A Notice of Intent (NOI) declaring the proposed information collection Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– Army’s intent to prepare an EA for the requests prior to submission of these 800–877–8339. disposal and reuse of Camp Bonneville requests to OMB. Each proposed was published in the Federal Register information collection, grouped by [FR Doc. 01–26338 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] (60 FR 49264, September 22, 1995). office, contains the following: (1) Type BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Lateral; this loop line would extend 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado from the outlet of CIG’s Kim Compressor 80944. Federal Energy Regulatory Station in Section 31, Township 32 There are two ways to become Commission South, Range 54 West, Las Animas involved in the Commission’s review of [Docket No. CP02–6–000] County, Colorado to the Harrison/USA 2 this project. First, any person wishing to track in Section 26, Township 32 South, obtain legal status by becoming a party Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Range 50 West, Baca County, Colorado; to the proceedings for this project Notice of Application (3) 14.40 miles of 20-inch O.D. should, on or before November 5, 2001, pipeline loop of CIG’s existing Line 3A; file with the Federal Energy Regulatory October 15, 2001. this loop line would extend from the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Take notice that on October 5, 2001, outlet of CIG’s Keyes Compressor Washington, DC 20426, a motion to Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG), Station in Section 17, Township 5 intervene in accordance with the a Delaware corporation, Post Office Box North, Range 7 East to County Road requirements of the Commission’s Rules 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado E0210 in Section 20, Township 3 North, of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 80944, filed in Docket No. CP02–6–000, Range 8 East, all in Cimarron County, 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations an application pursuant to Section 7(c) Oklahoma. under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part CIG states that the Campo Lateral loop person obtaining party status will be 157 of the Federal Energy Regulatory line segments will increase the take- placed on the service list maintained by Commission’s Regulations away capacity from the Raton Basin the Secretary of the Commission and (Commission), for a certificate of public Area by approximately 57.8 MMcf (55 will receive copies of all documents convenience and necessity authorizing MDth) per day. CIG further states that filed by the applicant and by all other CIG to construct certain pipeline the Line 3A loop line will facilitate the parties. A party must submit 14 copies facilities and miscellaneous appurtenant delivery of incremental volumes to of filings made with the Commission facilities and to operate them in points on the southern end of its and must mail a copy to the applicant interstate commerce as a part of CIG’s transmission system. and to every other party in the existing interstate transmission system, In addition to the facilities proposed proceeding. Only parties to the all as more fully set forth in the in the instant application, CIG states proceeding can ask for court review of application which is on file with the that it will undertake the replacement of Commission orders in the proceeding. Commission and open to public meter facilities at the Baker and Dumas However, a person does not have to inspection. Copies of this filing are on Meter Stations, pursuant to its blanket intervene in order to have comments file with the Commission and are certificate authority, to accommodate considered. The second way to available for public inspection. This the delivery of incremental volumes participate is by filing with the filing may also be viewed on the web at from the Raton Basin Area. Secretary of the Commission, as soon as http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ CIG states that it conducted an open possible, an original and two copies of link, select ‘‘Docket #’’ and follow the season in July 2000 which resulted in comments in support of or in opposition instructions (call 202–208–2222 for long term contracts for incremental to this project. The Commission will assistance). capacity of 85 MDth per day. These consider these comments in CIG states that this project, in its contract quantities are being determining the appropriate action to be entirety, will be referred to as the accommodated through a recently taken, but the filing of a comment alone ‘‘Raton Basin 2002 Expansion Project.’’ completed expansion project pursuant will not serve to make the filer a party CIG states that it proposes to construct to authorization granted in Docket No. to the proceeding. The Commission’s and operate facilities necessary to CP00–452–000. CIG further states that rules require that persons filing transport additional volumes of this open season produced contracts for comments in opposition to the project approximately 57.8 MMcf (55 MDth) per an additional 55 MDth per day of provide copies of their protests only to day of natural gas out of the Raton Basin incremental capacity to accommodate the party or parties directly involved in Area in Colorado and New Mexico. In future development of reserves in the the protest. addition, CIG states that it proposes to Raton Basin Area. Finally, CIG states Persons who wish to comment only construct and operate facilities south of that it held an open season in July 2001 on the environmental review of this its Keyes Compressor Station to allow which produced no requests for project should submit an original and Raton Basin shippers to deliver additional capacity out of the Raton two copies of their comments to the incremental quantities of gas to Basin Area. Thus, CIG states that the Secretary of the Commission. interconnections with the interstate facilities proposed herein are designed Environmental commenters will be pipeline systems of El Paso Natural Gas solely to accommodate the incremental placed on the Commission’s Company and Northern Natural Gas 55 MDth per day of capacity resulting environmental mailing list, will receive Company. To accomplish this, CIG from the July 2000 open season. copies of the environmental documents, states that it proposes to construct the CIG states that the total cost of the and will be notified of meetings following facilities: proposed facilities for the Raton 2002 associated with the Commission’s (1) 25.61 miles of 16-inch O.D. Expansion Project is $26,896,800. The environmental review process. pipeline loop of CIG’s existing Campo combination of existing and incremental Environmental commenters will not be Lateral; this loop line would extend entitlements represent 100 percent of required to serve copies of filed from the outlet of CIG’s Trinidad CIG’s capacity out of the Raton Basin documents on all other parties. Compressor Station in Section 25, Area through the Campo Lateral. CIG is However, the non-party commenters Township 32 South, Range 63 West to proposing rolled-in treatment for the will not receive copies of all documents a point 3,590 feet east of County Road expansion out of the Raton Basin Area. filed by other parties or issued by the 129 in Section 24, Township 33 South, Any questions regarding this Commission (except for the mailing of Range 59 West, all in Las Animas application should be directed to Robert environmental documents issued by the County, Colorado. T. Tomlinson, Director, Regulatory Commission) and will not have the right (2) 28.14 miles of 16-inch O.D. Affairs, at (719) 520–3788, Colorado to seek court review of the pipeline loop of CIG’s existing Campo Interstate Gas Company, Post Office Box Commission’s final order.
VerDate 11
The Commission may issue a Kentucky. The project will affect federal party to the proceeding. Any comments, preliminary determination on non- lands at the U.S. Army Corps of protests, or motions to intervene must environmental issues prior to the Engineers’ Smithland Lock and Dam. be received on or before the specified completion of its review of the g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power comment date for the particular environmental aspects of the project. Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r). application. This preliminary determination h. Applicant Contact: Mr. James Price, o. Filing and Service of Responsive typically considers such issues as the 120 Calumet Court, Aiken, SC 29803, Documents—Any filings must bear in need for the project and its economic (803) 642–2749. all capital letters the title effect on existing customers of the i. FERC Contact: Any questions on ‘‘COMMENTS’’, applicant, on other pipelines in the area, this notice should be addressed to Mr. ‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS and on landowners and communities. Mohamad Fayyad at (202) 219–2665 or AND CONDITIONS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, OR For example, the Commission considers [email protected]. ‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, as the extent to which the applicant may j. Deadline for filing comments and/ applicable, and the Project Number of need to exercise eminent domain to or motions: (November 19, 2001). the particular application to which the obtain rights-of-way for the proposed Please include the project number (P– filing refers. A copy of any motion to project and balances that against the 6641–046) on any comments or motions intervene must also be served upon each non-environmental benefits to be filed. representative of the Applicant All documents (original and eight provided by the project. Therefore, if a specified in the particular application. copies) should be filed with: David P. person has comments on community p. Agency Comments—Federal, state, Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy and landowner impacts from this and local agencies are invited to file Regulatory Commission, 888 First proposal, it is important either to file comments on the described application. Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. comments or to intervene as early in the k. Description of Filing: The City of A copy of the application may be process as possible. Marion, Kentucky, and Smithland obtained by agencies directly from the Comments, protests and interventions Hydroelectric Partners propose a revised Applicant. If an agency does not file may be filed electronically via the route for the project’s 161-kV comments within the time specified for Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR transmission line. The currently filing comments, it will be presumed to 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions approved (but not constructed yet) have no comments. One copy of an on the Commission’s web site under the transmission line route extends about agency’s comments must also be sent to ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. 8.7 miles from the project’s dam to an the Applicant’s representatives. If the Commission decides to set the q. Comments, protests and application for a formal hearing before existing transmission line of Louisville Gas and Electric Energy Company interventions may be filed electronically an Administrative Law Judge, the via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 Commission will issue another notice (LGEE). Now the licensee proposes a route that proceeds from the project’s CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the describing that process. At the end of instructions on the Commission’s web the Commission’s review process, a dam for 11 miles to LGEE’s Livingston County substation, just west of the site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ‘‘e- final Commission order approving or Filing’’ link. denying a certificate will be issued. Cumberland River. This proposed transmission line route would require David P. Boergers, David P. Boergers, the clearing of about 35 acres of woods. Secretary. l. Locations of the Application: A Secretary. [FR Doc. 01–26377 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] copy of the application is available for [FR Doc. 01–26376 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P BILLING CODE 6717–01–P inspection and reproduction at the Commission’s Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208–1371. This filing may also be Federal Energy Regulatory Federal Energy Regulatory viewed on the web at http:// Commission Commission www.ferc.gov.html using the ‘‘RIMS’’ link, select ‘‘Docket #’’ and follow the Notice of Application Accepted for Notice of Application To Amend instructions (call 202–208–2222 for Filing and Soliciting Motions to License, and Soliciting Comments, assistance). A copy is also available for Intervene, Protests, and Comments Motions To Intervene, and Protests inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above. October 15, 2001. October 15, 2001. Take notice that the following Take notice that the following m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission’s mailing list should hydroelectric application has been filed hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available with the Commission and is available so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. for public inspection: for public inspection: a. Type of Application: Preliminary a. Application Type: Amendment of n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Permit. License for the Transmission Line Intervene—Anyone may submit b. Project No.: 12112–000. Route. comments, a protest, or a motion to b. Project No: 6641–046. intervene in accordance with the c. Date filed: September 4, 2001. c. Date Filed: July 13, 2001. requirements of Rules of Practice and d. Applicant: Symbiotics, LLC. d. Applicant: City of Marion, Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. e. Name of Project: Vanadium Project. Kentucky, and Smithland Hydroelectric In determining the appropriate action to f. Location: On Big Bear Creek, in San Partners. take, the Commission will consider all Miguel County, Colorado. The project e. Name of Project: Smithland Lock protests or other comments filed, but would utilize land administered by the and Dam Project. only those who file a motion to U.S. Bureau of Land Management. f. Location: The Project is located on intervene in accordance with the g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power the Ohio River in Livingston County, Commission’s Rules may become a Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r).
VerDate 11
h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent L. file such an application, to the be received on or before the specified Smith, President, Northwest Power Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular Services, Inc., P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID comment date for the particular application. 83442, (208) 745–8630. application (see 18 CFR 4.36). r. Filing and Service of Responsive i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) Submission of a timely notice of intent Documents—Any filings must bear in 219–2806. allows an interested person to file the all capital letters the title j. Deadline for filing motions to competing preliminary permit ‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘NOTICE OF INTENT intervene, protests and comments: 60 application no later than 30 days after TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION’’, days from the issuance date of this the specified comment date for the ‘‘COMPETING APPLICATION’’, notice. particular application. A competing ‘‘PROTEST’’, ‘‘MOTION TO All documents (original and eight preliminary permit application must INTERVENE’’, as applicable, and the copies) should be filed with: David P. conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. Project Number of the particular Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy n. Preliminary Permit—Any qualified application to which the filing refers. Regulatory Commission, 888 First development applicant desiring to file a Any of the above-named documents Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. competing development application must be filed by providing the original Comments, motions to intervene, and must submit to the Commission, on or and the number of copies provided by protests may be electronically filed via before a specified comment date for the the Commission’s regulations to: The the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR particular application, either a Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions competing development application or a Commission, 888 First Street, NE., on the Commission’s web site at notice of intent to file such an Washington, DC 20426. An additional http://www.ferc.gov/efi/doorbell.htm. application. Submission of a timely copy must be sent to Director, Division Please include the project number (P– notice of intent to file a development of Hydropower Administration and 12112–000) on any comments or application allows an interested person Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory motions filed. to file the competing application no Commission, at the above-mentioned The Commission’s Rules of Practice later than 120 days after the specified address. A copy of any notice of intent, and Procedure require all interveners comment date for the particular competing application or motion to filing documents with the Commission application. A competing license intervene must also be served upon each to serve a copy of that document on application must conform with 18 CFR representative of the Applicant each person in the official service list 4.30(b) and 4.36. specified in the particular application. for the project. Further, if an intervener o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent s. Agency Comments—Federal, state, files comments or documents with the must specify the exact name, business and local agencies are invited to file Commission relating to the merits of an address, and telephone number of the comments on the described application. issue that may affect the responsibilities prospective applicant, and must include A copy of the application may be of a particular resource agency, they an unequivocal statement of intent to obtained by agencies directly from the must also serve a copy of the document submit, if such an application may be Applicant. If an agency does not file on that resource agency. filed, either a preliminary permit comments within the time specified for k. Description of Project: The application or a development filing comments, it will be presumed to proposed project would consist of: (1) A application (specify which type of have no comments. One copy of an proposed 75-foot-long, 10-foot-high dam application). A notice of intent must be agency’s comments must also be sent to with a negligible impoundment, (2) a served on the applicant(s) named in this the Applicant’s representatives. proposed 12,000-foot-long, 30-inch- public notice. diameter steel penstock, (3) a proposed p. Proposed Scope of Studies under David P. Boergers, powerhouse containing four generating Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, Secretary. units having an installed capacity of does not authorize construction. The [FR Doc. 01–26378 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] 13.6 MW, (4) a proposed tailrace, (5) a term of the proposed preliminary permit BILLING CODE 6717–01–P proposed 4-mile-long, 25 kV would be 36 months. The work Transmission line, and (5) appurtenant proposed under the preliminary permit facilities. would include economic analysis, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY The project would have an annual preparation of preliminary engineering generation of 58.4 GWh that would be plans, and a study of environmental Federal Energy Regulatory sold to a local utility. impacts. Based on the results of these Commission l. Copies of this filing are on file with studies, the Applicant would decide the Commission and are available for whether to proceed with the preparation Notice of Application Accepted for public inspection. This filing may be of a development application to Filing and Soliciting Motions To viewed on the Commission’s web site at construct and operate the project. Intervene, Protests, and Comments q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ October 15, 2001. Intervene—Anyone may submit link, select ‘‘Docket #’’ and follow the Take notice that the following comments, a protest, or a motion to instructions ((202)208–2222 for hydroelectric application has been filed intervene in accordance with the assistance). Comments, protests and with the Commission and is available requirements of Rules of Practice and interventions may be filed electronically for public inspection: via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. a. Type of Application: Preliminary CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the In determining the appropriate action to Permit. instructions on the Commission’s web take, the Commission will consider all b. Project No.: 12058–000. site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. protests or other comments filed, but c. Date filed: June 22, 2001. m. Preliminary Permit—Anyone only those who file a motion to d. Applicant: Baker County, Oregon. desiring to file a competing application intervene in accordance with the e. Name of Project: Mason Dam for preliminary permit for a proposed Commission’s Rules may become a Project. project must submit the competing party to the proceeding. Any comments, f. Location: On the Powder River, in application itself, or a notice of intent to protests, or motions to intervene must Baker County, Oregon. The proposed
VerDate 11
project would utilize the existing CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the copy must be sent to Director, Division Bureau of Reclamation’s existing Mason instructions on the Commission’s web of Project Review, Federal Energy Dam. site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. Regulatory Commission, at the above- g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power n. Preliminary Permit—Public notice mentioned address. A copy of any Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r). of the filing of the initial preliminary notice of intent, competing application h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brian D. permit application, which has already or motion to intervene must also be Cole, Chair, Baker County Board of been given, established the due date for served upon each representative of the Commissioners, 1995 Third Street, filing competing preliminary permit Applicant specified in the particular Baker City, OR 97814, (541) 523–8200. applications or notices of intent. Any application. i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) competing preliminary permit or r. Agency Comments—Federal, state, 219–2806. development application or notice of and local agencies are invited to file j. Deadline for filing motions to intent to file a competing preliminary comments on the described application. intervene, protests and comments: 60 permit or development application must A copy of the application may be days from the issuance date of this be filed in response to and in obtained by agencies directly from the notice. compliance with the public notice of the Applicant. If an agency does not file All documents (original and eight initial preliminary permit application. comments within the time specified for copies) should be filed with: David P. No competing applications or notices of filing comments, it will be presumed to Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy intent to file competing applications have no comments. One copy of an Regulatory Commission, 888 First may be filed in response to this notice. agency’s comments must also be sent to Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A competing license application must the Applicant’s representatives. Comments, motions to intervene, and conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. protests may be electronically filed via o. Proposed Scope of Studies under David P. Boergers, the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, Secretary. 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions does not authorize construction. The [FR Doc. 01–26379 Filed 10–17–01; 8:45 am] on the Commission’s web site at term of the proposed preliminary permit BILLING CODE 6717–01–P http://www.ferc.gov/efi/doorbell.htm. would be 36 months. The work Please include the project number (P– proposed under the preliminary permit 12058–000) on any comments or would include economic analysis, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY motions filed. preparation of preliminary engineering The Commission’s Rules of Practice plans, and a study of environmental Federal Energy Regulatory and Procedure require all interveners impacts. Based on the results of these Commission filing documents with the Commission studies, the Applicant would decide to serve a copy of that document on whether to proceed with the preparation Notice of Application Accepted for each person in the official service list of a development application to Filing and Soliciting Motions To for the project. Further, if an intervener construct and operate the project. Intervene, Protests, and Comments files comments or documents with the p. Comments, Protests, or Motions to October 15, 2001. Commission relating to the merits of an Intervene—Anyone may submit Take notice that the following issue that may affect the responsibilities comments, a protest, or a motion to hydroelectric application has been filed of a particular resource agency, they intervene in accordance with the with the Commission and is available must also serve a copy of the document requirements of Rules of Practice and for public inspection: on that resource agency. Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. a. Type of Application: Preliminary k. Competing Application: Project No. In determining the appropriate action to Permit. 11899–000, Date Filed: March 2, 2001, take, the Commission will consider all b. Project No.: 12098–000. Date Notice Closed: May 25, 2001. protests or other comments filed, but c. Date filed: July 30, 2001. l. Description of Project: The only those who file a motion to d. Applicant: Symbiotics, LLC. proposed project using the Bureau of intervene in accordance with the e. Name of Project: Scofield Reservoir Reclamation’s Mason dam and Commission’s Rules may become a Project. impoundment would consist of: (1) An party to the proceeding. Any comments, f. Location: On the Price River, in existing 1320-foot-long, 56-inch- protests, or motions to intervene must Sanpete County, Utah. Scofield diameter which reduces to a 33-inch- be received on or before the specified Reservoir Dam is owned by the U.S. diameter steel penstock, (2) a proposed comment date for the particular Bureau of Reclamation. powerhouse containing one generating application. g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power unit having an installed capacity of 3 q. Filing and Service of Responsive Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r). MW, (3) a proposed 0.5-mile-long, 25 kV Documents—Any filings must bear in h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent L. transmission line, and (4) appurtenant all capital letters the title Smith, President, Northwest Power facilities. ‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘NOTICE OF INTENT Services, Inc., P. O. Box 535, Rigby, ID The project would have an annual TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION’’, 83442, (208) 745–8630. generation of 14 GWh that would be ‘‘COMPETING APPLICATION’’, i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) sold to a local utility. ‘‘PROTEST’’, ‘‘MOTION TO 219–2806. m. Copies of this filing are on file INTERVENE’’, as applicable, and the j. Deadline for filing motions to with the Commission and are available Project Number of the particular intervene, protests and comments: 60 for public inspection. This filing may be application to which the filing refers. days from the issuance date of this viewed on the Commission’s web site at Any of the above-named documents notice. http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ must be filed by providing the original All documents (original and eight link, select ‘‘Docket #’’ and follow the and the number of copies provided by copies) should be filed with: David P. instructions ((202) 208–2222 for the Commission’s regulations to: The Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy assistance). Comments, protests and Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Regulatory Commission, 888 First interventions may be filed electronically Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 Washington, DC 20426. An additional Comments, motions to intervene, and
VerDate 11
protests may be electronically filed via competing development application or a Commission, 888 First Street, NE., the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR notice of intent to file such an Washington, DC 20426. An additional 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions application. Submission of a timely copy must be sent to Director, Division on the Commission’s web site at notice of intent to file a development of Hydropower Administration and http://www.ferc.gov/efi/doorbell.htm. application allows an interested person Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Please include the project number (P– to file the competing application no Commission, at the above-mentioned 12098–000) on any comments or later than 120 days after the specified address. A copy of any notice of intent, motions filed. comment date for the particular competing application or motion to The Commission’s Rules of Practice application. A competing license intervene must also be served upon each and Procedure require all interveners application must conform with 18 CFR representative of the Applicant filing documents with the Commission 4.30(b) and 4.36. specified in the particular application. to serve a copy of that document on o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent s. Agency Comments—Federal, state, each person in the official service list must specify the exact name, business and local agencies are invited to file for the project. Further, if an intervener address, and telephone number of the comments on the described application. files comments or documents with the prospective applicant, and must include A copy of the application may be Commission relating to the merits of an an unequivocal statement of intent to obtained by agencies directly from the issue that may affect the responsibilities submit, if such an application may be Applicant. If an agency does not file of a particular resource agency, they filed, either a preliminary permit comments within the time specified for must also serve a copy of the document application or a development filing comments, it will be presumed to on that resource agency. application (specify which type of have no comments. One copy of an k. Description of Project: The application). A notice of intent must be agency’s comments must also be sent to proposed project using the Scofield Dam served on the applicant(s) named in this the Applicant’s representatives. and Reservoir would consist of: (1) A public notice. proposed 300-foot-long, 60-inch- p. Proposed Scope of Studies under David P. Boergers, diameter steel penstock, (2) a proposed Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, Secretary. Powerhouse containing one generating does not authorize construction. The [FR Doc. 01–26380 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] unit having an installed capacity of 1.3 term of the proposed preliminary permit BILLING CODE 6717–01–P MW, (3) a proposed 1-mile-long, 15 kV would be 36 months. The work transmission line, and (4) appurtenant proposed under the preliminary permit Facilities. would include economic analysis, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION The project would have an annual preparation of preliminary engineering AGENCY generation of 11.38 GWh that would be plans, and a study of environmental sold to a local utility. impacts. Based on the results of these [ER–FRL–6622–8] l. Copies of this filing are on file with studies, the Applicant would decide the Commission and are available for whether to proceed with the preparation Environmental Impact Statements; public inspection. This filing may be of a development application to Notice of Availability viewed on the Commission’s web site at construct and operate the project. Responsible Agency: Office of Federal http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘RIMS’’ q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Activities, General Information (202) link, select ‘‘Docket #’’ and follow the Intervene—Anyone may submit 564–7167 or www.epa.gov/oeca/ofa. instructions ((202)208–2222 for comments, a protest, or a motion to assistance). Comments, protests and intervene in accordance with the Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact interventions may be filed electronically requirements of Rules of Practice and Statements via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. Filed October 15, 2001 Through October CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the In determining the appropriate action to 19, 2001 instructions on the Commission’s web take, the Commission will consider all Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9: site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. protests or other comments filed, but EIS No. 010385, Final Supplement, AFS, m. Preliminary Permit—Anyone only those who file a motion to CO, Sheep Flats Diversity Unit, desiring to file a competing application intervene in accordance with the Timber Sales and Related Road for preliminary permit for a proposed Commission’s Rules may become a Construction, Grand Mesa, project must submit the competing party to the proceeding. Any comments, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National application itself, or a notice of intent to protests, or motions to intervene must Forests, Collbran Ranger District, file such an application, to the be received on or before the specified Mesa County, CO, Wait Period Ends: Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular November 19, 2001, Contact: Carol comment date for the particular application. McKenzie (970) 874–6618. application (see 18 CFR 4.36). r. Filing and Service of Responsive EIS No. 010386, Draft EIS, AFS, MT, Submission of a timely notice of intent Documents—Any filings must bear in Game Range Project, To Improve allows an interested person to file the all capital letters the title Ecosystem Health and Productivity, competing preliminary permit ‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘NOTICE OF INTENT Reduce Fuel Loading and Big Game application no later than 30 days after TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION’’, Winter Range Condition, Lolo the specified comment date for the ‘‘COMPETING APPLICATION’’, National Forest, Plain/Thompson particular application. A competing ‘‘PROTEST’’, ‘‘MOTION TO Falls Ranger District, From Thompson preliminary permit application must INTERVENE’’, as applicable, and the River To Squaw Creek, Thompson conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. Project Number of the particular Falls, MT, Comment Period Ends : n. Preliminary Permit—Any qualified application to which the filing refers. December 3, 2001, Contact: Frank development applicant desiring to file a Any of the above-named documents Yurczyk (406) 826–4313. competing development application must be filed by providing the original EIS No. 010387, Draft EIS, FHW, DC, must submit to the Commission, on or and the number of copies provided by NC, VA, Southeast High Speed Rail before a specified comment date for the the Commission’s regulations to: The Corridor, From Washington, D.C. to particular application, either a Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Charlotte, NC, To Provide a
VerDate 11
Competitive Transportation Choice to to the Office of Federal Activities at will be submitting to the Office of Traveler, Funding and Federal (202) 564–7167. Management and Budget (OMB) a Permits, DC and NC, Comment Period An explanation of the ratings assigned request to review and approve a revised Ends: December 3, 2001, Contact: to draft environmental impact exporter and banker survey. The Nicholas L. Graf (919) 856–4346. statements (EISs) was published in FR purpose of the survey is to fulfill a EIS No. 010388, Final EIS, AFS, MT, dated May 18, 2001 (97 FR 27647). statutory mandate (the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, 12 Burned Area Recovery, Proposal to Final EISs Reduce Fuels, Improve Watershed U.S.C. 635) which directs Ex-Im Bank to Conditions and Reforest Burned ERP No. F–BLM–J01077–WY North report annually to the U.S. Congress any Lands, Sula, Darby, West Fork and Jacobs Ranch Coal Lease Application action taken toward providing export Stevensville Ranger Districts, (WYW 146744), Federal Coal Tract, credit programs that are competitive Bitterroot National Forest, Ravalli Located in the Powder River Basin, with those offered by official foreign County, MT, Comment Period Ends: Campbell County, WY. export credit agencies. The Act further November 19, 2001, Contact: Spike Summary: EPA continues to express stipulates that the annual report on Thompson (406) 363–7100. This concerns about NO2 air emissions from competitiveness should include the document is available on the Internet blasting mine overburden and a lack of results of a survey of U.S. exporters and at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/bitterroot. site specific N02 data. EPA supports U.S. commercial lending institutions EIS No. 010389, Draft Supplemental, BLM’s decision to group future Powder which provide export credit to FHW, WV, VA, Appalachians River Basin coal leases into one EIS. determine their experience in meeting Corridor H, To Construct a 16-mile ERP No. F–CDB–K81026–CA West financial competition from other Highway Between Kerens to Parsons, Hollywood Gateway Public/Private countries whose exporters compete with Battlefield Avoidance, Randolph and Partnership Construction Project, Multi- U.S. exporters. Tucker Counties, WV, Comment Story Office, Retail, Restaurant and Accordingly, Ex-Im Bank is requesting Period Ends Due: December 3, 2001, Entertainment Use Development, that the proposed survey (EIB No. 00– Contact: Thomas J. Smith (304) 347– Community Development Block Grant 02) be sent to approximately 50 5928. (CDBG) Funds Issuance, City of West respondents, split equally between Hollywood, Los Angeles County, CA. bankers and exporters. The revised Amended Notices Summary: EPA determined that the survey is similar to the previous survey, EIS No. 010326, Draft EIS, APH, document adequately addresses the as it asks bankers and exporters to Programmatic EIS—Rangeland issues raised in our comment letter on evaluate the competitiveness of Ex-Im Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket the DEIS. Bank’s programs vis-a´-vis foreign export Suppression Program, Authorization, ERP No. F–TVA–E05098–TN, credit agencies. However, it has been Funding and Implementation in 17 Addition of Electric Generation modified in order to account for newer Western States, AZ, CA, CO. ID, KS, Baseload Capacity, Proposes to policies and to capture enough MT, NB, NV, NM, ND, OK, OR, SD, Construct a Natural Gas Fired Combined information to provide a better analysis TX, UT, WA and WY , Due: November Cycle Power Plant, Franklin County, of our competitiveness. In addition, the 14, 2001, Contact: Charles L. Brown TN. survey will be administered (301) 734–8247. This document is Summary: While most impacts have electronically via email, with recipients available on Internet at: http:// been mitigated, EPA still expressed encouraged to respond electronically as www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/ concern regarding noise impacts and well. ppqdocs.html. Revision of FR Notice suggested that the ROD provide noise DATES: Written comments should be Published on 8/31/2001: CEQ mitigation measures that would be received on or before December 18, Comment Period Ending 10/15/2001 implemented as needed on follow-up 2001, to be assured of consideration. has been extended to 11/14/2001. monitoring. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments Dated: October 16, 2001. Dated: October 16, 2001. and requests for additional information Joseph C. Montgomery, Joseph C. Montgomery, to Carlista D. Robinson, 811 Vermont Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office Avenue, NW., Room 764, Washington, of Federal Activities. of Federal Activities. DC 20571, (202) 565–3351. [FR Doc. 01–26422 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 01–26423 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With BILLING CODE 6560–50–P BILLING CODE 6560–50–U respect to the proposed collection of information, Ex-Im Bank invites comments as to— ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE —Whether the proposed collection of AGENCY UNITED STATES information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions [Public Notice 47] [ER–FRL–6622–9] of Ex-Im Bank, including whether the Agency Information Collection information will have a practical use; Environmental Impact Statements and Activities; Proposed Collection: —The accuracy of Ex-Im Bank’s Regulations; Availability of EPA Comment Request estimate of the burden of the Comments proposed collection of information, AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the including the validity of the Availability of EPA comments United States (Ex-Im Bank). methodology and assumptions used; prepared pursuant to the Environmental ACTION: Notice and request for —Ways to enhance the quality, Review Process (ERP), under Section comments. usefulness and clarity of the 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section information to be collected; and 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the —Ways to minimize the burden of Policy Act as amended. Requests for Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the collection of information on those copies of EPA comments can be directed Export-Import Bank of the United States who are to respond, including
VerDate 11
through the use of appropriate difficult to do so within the period of Compatibility Offer; and Section automated electronic, mechanical, or time allowed by this notice, you should 76.1622, Consumer Education of other technological collection advise the contact listed below as soon Equipment Compatibility. techniques or other forms of as possible. Form Number: N/A. information technology; e.g., ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Les Type of Review: Revision of a permitting electronic submission of Smith, Federal Communications currently approved collection. responses. Commission, Room 1–A804, 445 12th Respondents: Businesses or other for- Title & Form Number: 2001 Exporter Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or profit entities. & Banker Survey of Ex-Im Bank via the Internet to [email protected]. Number of Respondents: 10,400. Competitiveness, EIB Form 00–02. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Estimated Time per Response: 1 to 20 OMB Number: 3048–0004. additional information or copies of the hrs. Type of Review: Revision of a information collections contact Les currently approved collection. Frequency of Response: On occasion Smith at (202) 418–0217 or via the and annual reporting requirements; Annual Number of Respondents: 50. Internet at [email protected]. Annual Burden Hours: 50. Third party disclosure. Frequency of Reporting or Use: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Total Annual Burden: 10,435 hrs. Annual survey. OMB Control Number: 3060–0652. Total Annual Costs: $5,275. Title: Section 76.309, Customer Needs and Uses: FCC Rules under 47 Dated: October 16, 2001. Service Obligations; Section 76.1602, Carlista D. Robinson, CFR 76.630(a) prohibit cable system Customer Service—General Information; operators from scrambling or otherwise Agency Clearance Officer. Section 76.1603, Customer Service— encrypting signals carried on the basic [FR Doc. 01–26383 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Rate and Service Changes; and Section service tier, unless granted a waiver by BILLING CODE 6690–01–M 76.1619, Information on Subscriber the FCC. 47 CFR 76.1621 requires cable Bills. system operators that use scrambling, Form Number: N/A. encryption, or similar techniques to Type of Review: Revision of a FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS offer subscribers special equipment to COMMISSION currently approved collection. Respondents: Business or other for- enable the simultaneous reception of multiple signals. 47 CFR 76.1622 Notice of Public Information profit entities; State, local, or tribal requires cable system operators to Collection(s) Being Submitted to OMB government. provide a consumer education program for Review and Approval Number of Respondents: 10,410. Estimated Time per Response: 10 on compatibility matters to their October 10, 2001. mins. to 1 hr. subscribers in writing when they first SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Frequency of Response: On occasion subscribe and at least once a year Commissions, as part of its continuing reporting requirements; Third party thereafter. effort to reduce paperwork burden disclosure. Federal Communications Commission. invites the general public and other Total Annual Burden: 32,527 hrs. Magalie Roman Salas, Federal agencies to take this Total Annual Costs: None. Secretary. opportunity to comment on the Needs and Uses: FCC rules under 47 [FR Doc. 01–26375 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] following information collection, as CFR 76.309 and 76.1603 set forth BILLING CODE 6712–01–P required by the Paperwork Reduction various customer service obligations Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An and notification requirements for agency may not conduct or sponsor a changes in subscriber rates, collection of information unless it programming services, and channel FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE displays a currently valid control positions. 47 CFR 76.1602 requires each CORPORATION number. No person shall be subject to local franchise authority (LFA) to any penalty for failing to comply with provide affected cable operators with 90 Sunshine Act Meeting a collection of information subject to the days written notice of its intent to Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that enforce customer service standards. Pursuant to the provisions of the does not display a valid control number. Cable operators must inform subscribers ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 Comments are requested concerning (a) in writing of their right to file U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that whether the proposed collection of complaints about service and the Federal Deposit Insurance information is necessary for the proper programming changes. 47 CFR 76.1603 Corporation’s Board of Directors will performance of the functions of the requires cable companies to notify meet in open session at 10:00 a.m. on Commission, including whether the customers in writing within 30 days of Tuesday, October 23, 2001, to consider information shall have practical utility; any changes in rates and programming the following matters: (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s services. In addition, cable companies Summary Agenda: No substantive burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance are required to notify subscribers and discussion of the following items is the quality, utility, and clarity of the LFAs within 30 days prior to any rate anticipated. These matters will be information collected; and (d) ways to or service changes. 47 CFR 76.1619 resolved with a single vote unless a minimize the burden of the collection of requires cable operators to respond to a member of the Board of Directors information on the respondents, written complaint regarding any requests that an item be moved to the including the use of automated subscriber’s billing dispute within 30 discussion agenda. collection techniques or other forms of days and also sets forth requirements for Disposition of minutes of previous information technology. information on subscriber bills. Board of Directors’ meetings. DATES: Written comments should be OMB Control Number: 3060–0667. Summary reports, status reports, and submitted on or before November 19, Title: Section 76.630, Compatibility reports of actions taken pursuant to 2001. If you anticipate that you will be with Consumer Electronic Equipment; authority delegated by the Board of submitting comments, but find it Section 76.1621, Equipment Directors.
VerDate 11
Discussion Agenda general public and other Federal Collection of Information Memorandum re: BIF Assessment Rates for agencies to take this opportunity to the First Semiannual Assessment Period of comment on proposed revised Title: Community Rating System 2002. information collections. In accordance (CRS) Program—Application Policy, Memorandum re: SAIF Assessment Rates with the Paperwork Reduction Act of Instructions, and Worksheets. for the First Semiannual Assessment Period 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), this Type of Information Collection: of 2002. notice seeks comments concerning the Revision of a currently approved Memorandum and resolution re: Final collection requirements for participation collection. Rule—Engaged in the Business of Receiving Deposits Other Than Trust Funds. in the National Flood Insurance OMB Number: 3067–0195. Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule Program (NFIP) Community Rating Document Numbers: FEMA FIA 15 to Revise the Regulatory Capital Treatment of System (CRS). and 15A. Recourse, Direct Credit Substitutes, and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP Abstract: The CRS Program Residual Interests in Asset Securitizations. began in 1968. A central element in the establishes a system for FEMA to grade The meeting will be held in the Board NFIP is the promotion and communities’ floodplain management Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC implementation of a sound local activities to determine flood insurance Building located at 550—17th Street, floodplain management program. rates for communities. Communities NW., Washington, DC. Communities must adopt minimum exercising floodplain management The FDIC will provide attendees with floodplain management standards in activities that exceed Federal minimum auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language order to participate in the NFIP and standards qualify for lower insurance interpretation) required for this meeting. receive the benefits of flood insurance. rates. Those attendees needing such assistance The Community Rating System (CRS) was designed by FEMA to encourage, The January 1999 edition of the NFIP should call (202) 416–2089 (Voice); CRS Coordinator’s Manual contains (202) 416–2007 (TTY), to make through the use of flood insurance premium discounts, communities and instructions for preparing the necessary arrangements. application worksheets that were used Requests for further information states to undertake activities that will mitigate flooding and flood damage, to apply to the CRS Program for the concerning the meeting may be directed 1999 through 2001 calendar years. We to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive beyond the minimum standards for NFIP participation. The National Flood are coordinating with the public the Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) draft January 2002 edition for comments 898–6757. Insurance Reform Act of 1994 codified the CRS. on the collections of information and all Dated: October 16, 2001. The NFIP/CRS Coordinator’s Manual approved comments will be Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. includes a Schedule and Commentary. incorporated into the final January 2002 Robert E. Feldman, The Application Worksheets and CRS manual, to be effective January 2002– Executive Secretary. Application are published separately. December 2004. The Application [FR Doc. 01–26507 Filed 10–17–01; 10:12 Communities will use the manuals to Worksheets and CRS Application are am] apply for activity points leading up to published separately. Communities will BILLING CODE 6714–01–M a CRS rating and commensurate flood use the manuals to apply for activity insurance premium discounts. The points leading up to a CRS rating and Schedule describes the floodplain commensurate flood insurance premium FEDERAL EMERGENCY management and insurance activities discounts. The Schedule describes the MANAGEMENT AGENCY available to qualifying communities that floodplain management and insurance undertake the selected additional activities available to qualifying Agency Information Collection activities that will reduce flood losses. communities that undertake the selected Activities: Proposed Collection; To apply, communities submit to FEMA additional activities that will reduce Comment Request the attached application worksheets and flood losses. Annually, all CRS requisite documentation. Once participating communities must certify ACTION: Notice and request for they are maintaining the activities for comments. approved, the applications are reviewed and field verified by Insurance Service which they receive credit. SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Organization (ISO), Inc., an insurance Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Management Agency, as part of its industry service organization with Government. continuing effort to reduce paperwork varied experience, especially with Estimated Total Annual Burden and respondent burden, invites the community fire rating. Hours. 9,260.
Number of re- Frequency re- Hours per re- Annual burden Application worksheets spondents sponse sponse hours (A) (B) (C) (A × B × C)
New, Modified and Cycle Applications ...... 220 1 29 6,380 Recertification Applications ...... 720 1 4 2,880
Total ...... 940 ...... 9,260
Comments: Written comments are accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the collected; and (d) minimize the burden solicited to (a) evaluate whether the burden of the proposed collection of of the collection of information on those proposed data collection is necessary for information, including the validity of who are to respond, including through the proper performance of the agency, the methodology and assumptions used; the use of appropriate automated, including whether the information shall (c) enhance the quality, utility, and electronic, mechanical, or other have practical utility; (b) evaluate the clarity of the information to be technological collection techniques or
VerDate 11
other forms of information technology, (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic 1. Camargo Financial Company, Inc., e.g., permitting electronic submission of Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used Camargo, Oklahoma; to become a bank responses. Comments should be for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, holding company by acquiring 100 received within 60 days of the date of Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis percent of the voting shares of First this notice. Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services State Bank, Camargo, Oklahoma. ADDRESSES: Interested persons should Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas submit written comments to Muriel B. Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Anderson, Chief, Records Management Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 Section, Program Services and Systems Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201– Branch, Facilities Management and Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing 2272: Services Division, Administration and Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant 1. National United Bancshares, Inc.,, Program.) Resource Planning Directorate, Federal Gatesville, Texas, and National United Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Joe M. Allbaugh, Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; Street, SW, Room 316, Washington, DC Director. to become bank holding companies by 20472. Telephone number (202) 646– [FR Doc. 01–26430 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] acquiring 100 percent of the voting 2625. FAX number (202) 646–3524 or BILLING CODE 6718–02–P shares of National Bank, Gatesville, e:mail [email protected]. Texas. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Contact Bret Gates, CRS Coordinator, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Federal Insurance & Mitigation System, October 15, 2001. Administration, Federal Emergency Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Robert deV. Frierson, Management Agency, at (202) 646–4133, Mergers of Bank Holding Companies Deputy Secretary of the Board. or by e:mail at [email protected] for [FR Doc. 01–26318 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] The companies listed in this notice additional information. Contact Ms. BILLING CODE 6210–01–S Anderson at (202) 646–2625 for copies have applied to the Board for approval, of the proposed collection of pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) information. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part Dated: October 11, 2001. 225), and all other applicable statutes Reginald Trujillo, Notice of Proposals to Engage in and regulations to become a bank Permissible Nonbanking Activities or Director, Program Services Division, holding company and/or to acquire the to Acquire Companies that are Operations Support Directorate. assets or the ownership of, control of, or [FR Doc. 01–26431 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] the power to vote shares of a bank or Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities BILLING CODE 6718–01–P bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, The companies listed in this notice FEDERAL EMERGENCY including the companies listed below. have given notice under section 4 of the MANAGEMENT AGENCY The applications listed below, as well Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 [FEMA–1393–DR] as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to Florida; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank acquire or control voting securities or a Major Disaster Declaration indicated. The application also will be assets of a company, including the available for inspection at the offices of companies listed below, that engages AGENCY: Federal Emergency the Board of Governors. Interested either directly or through a subsidiary or Management Agency (FEMA). persons may express their views in other company, in a nonbanking activity ACTION: Notice. writing on the standards enumerated in that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has of a major disaster declaration for the proposal also involves the acquisition of determined by Order to be closely State of Florida, (FEMA–1393–DR), a nonbanking company, the review also related to banking and permissible for dated September 28, 2001, and related includes whether the acquisition of the bank holding companies. Unless determinations. nonbanking company complies with the otherwise noted, these activities will be standards in section 4 of the BHC Act EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 2001. conducted throughout the United States. (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: noted, nonbanking activities will be Each notice is available for inspection Madge Dale, Readiness, Response and conducted throughout the United States. at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Recovery and Directorate, Federal Additional information on all bank The notice also will be available for Emergency Management Agency, holding companies may be obtained inspection at the offices of the Board of Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705 from the National Information Center Governors. Interested persons may or. website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. express their views in writing on the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice Unless otherwise noted, comments question whether the proposal complies of a major disaster declaration for the regarding each of these applications with the standards of section 4 of the State of Florida is hereby amended to must be received at the Reserve Bank BHC Act. Additional information on all include the following areas among those indicated or the offices of the Board of bank holding companies may be areas determined to have been adversely Governors not later than November 13, obtained from the National Information affected by the catastrophe declared a 2001. Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. major disaster by the President in his A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas declaration of September 28, 2001: City (Susan Zubradt, Assistant Vice Unless otherwise noted, comments Collier, Highlands, Lee, and Putnam President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas regarding the applications must be Counties for Public Assistance. City, Missouri 64198–0001: received at the Reserve Bank indicated
VerDate 11
or the offices of the Board of Governors DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND and (3) identify research needs related not later than November 2, 2001. HUMAN SERVICES to the Committee’s purview. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas The draft meeting agenda and other Office of the Secretary (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 information about SACGT will be available at the following web site: North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201– Notice of Meeting: Secretary’s 2272: http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/sacgt.htm. Advisory Committee on Genetic Individuals who wish to provide public 1. Outsource Holdings, Inc., Lubbock, Testing comment or who plan to attend the Texas; to acquire Jefferson Mortgage meeting and need special assistance, Pursuant to Public Law 92–463, Services, Inc., Dallas, Texas, and Orr such as sign language interpretation or notice is hereby given of the eleventh Lease, Inc., Dallas, Texas, and thereby other reasonable accommodations, meeting of the Secretary’s Advisory engage in extending credit and servicing should notify the SACGT Executive Committee on Genetic Testing (SACGT), loans, pursuant to § 225.28(b)(1) of Secretary, Ms. Sarah Carr, by telephone U.S. Public Health Service. The meeting Regulation Y, and in leasing personal or at 301–496–9838 or E-mail at will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on real property, pursuant to § 225.28(b)(3) [email protected]. The SACGT office is November 15, 2001 and 8:30 a.m. to 3 of Regulation Y. located at 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite p.m. on November 16, 2001 at the 750, Bethesda, Maryland 20892. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill System, October 15, 2001. Road, Bethesda, MD 20814. The meeting Dated: August 12, 2001. Robert deV. Frierson, will be open to the public with Sarah Carr, Deputy Secretary of the Board. attendance limited to space available. Executive Secretary, SACGT. [FR Doc. 01–26319 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] The Committee will discuss a number [FR Doc. 01–26392 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140–01–M BILLING CODE 6210–01–S of topics, including the status of FDA activities to implement SACGT’s recommendations for oversight of all new genetic tests; the outcomes and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GENERAL SERVICES discussion of a roundtable meeting convened by the Education Work Group ADMINISTRATION Centers for Disease Control and on how genetics fits into current or Prevention Office of Communications future health practice, major genetics educational needs of various disciplines Cancellation of an Optional Form by of professions (e.g., core competencies, [60Day–02–04] the Office of Personnel Management faculty needs, and training issues), and Proposed Data Collections Submitted (OPM) obstacles and gaps in the integration of for Public Comment and genetics into health professional Recommendations AGENCY: Office of Communications, education and practice; and the GSA. Informed Consent Work Group’s draft In compliance with the requirement brochure for the general public on ACTION: Notice. of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the genetic testing and the status of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for development of principles of informed opportunity for public comment on SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel consent in clinical and public health proposed data collection projects, the Management (OPM) cancelled of 630, settings. The Committee will also begin Centers for Disease Control and Leave Recipient Application Under the exploring issues in the development, Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic Voluntary Leave Transfer Program. The oversight, availability and accessibility summaries of proposed projects. To form was only available with FPM of genetic tests for rare diseases through request more information on the Letter 630–33 which no longer exists. a number of invited presentations. In proposed projects or to obtain a copy of OPM developed their own form (OPM addition, the Committee is scheduled to the data collection plans and 630) which they are happy to share with be briefed by Congressional staff on the instruments, call the CDC Reports you. To obtain a copy of this form, go status of genetic discrimination Clearance Officer on (404) 639–7090. to the following internet site: http:// legislation. Time will be provided for Comments are invited on: (a) Whether www.opm.gov/forms. public comment and interested the proposed collection of information individuals should notify the contact DATES: Effective October 19, 2001. is necessary for the proper performance person listed below. of the functions of the agency, including FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Under authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, whether the information shall have Barbara Williams, General Services Section 222 of the Public Health Service practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Administration, (202) 501–0581. Act, as amended, the Department of agency’s estimate of the burden of the Dated: October 12, 2001. Health and Human Services established proposed collection of information; (c) SACGT to advise and make ways to enhance the quality, utility, and Barbara M. Williams, recommendations to the Secretary clarity of the information to be Deputy Standard and Optional Forms through the Assistant Secretary for collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Management Officer, General Services Health on all aspects of the burden of the collection of information Administration. development and use of genetic tests. on respondents, including through the [FR Doc. 01–26342 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] SACGT is directed to: (1) Recommend use of automated collection techniques BILLING CODE 6820–34–M policies and procedures for the safe and or other forms of information effective incorporation of genetic technology. Send comments to Anne technologies into health care; (2) assess O’Connor, CDC Assistant Reports the effectiveness of existing and future Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, measures for oversight of genetic tests; MS–D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written
VerDate 11
comments should be received within 60 more graphic cigarette warning labels, web-based survey. We propose to days of this notice. such as those currently used in Canada. administer a 10 minute survey to 2000 Although the purpose of cigarette persons 18 to 24 years of age. The Proposed Project warning labels is to alert consumers survey will include images of Canadian Survey of Consumer Reaction to about the health hazards of smoking, cigarette packs with their current Canadian-style Warning Labels of research suggests that current U.S. warning labels and questions about Tobacco Products—NEW—The National warnings fail to get the attention of reactions to these warnings, including Center for Chronic Disease Prevention smokers, an important first step if acceptability, and perceived usefulness and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), warnings are to have any deterrent (perceived impact on starting to smoke Centers for Disease Control and effect. Cigarette warning labels have not or deciding to quit). The results of this Prevention (CDC), proposes to conduct changed since 1984 in the United States. study will be shared with policy makers a national survey of young persons to The proposed study will be and public health officials. There are no assess their attitudes towards larger and conducted through implementation of a costs to respondents.
Avg. burden Respondents Number of Responses/re- per response Total burden respondents spondent (in hrs) (in hrs)
Persons 18–24 years old ...... 2000 1 10/60 333
Total ...... 333
Dated: October 12, 2001. use of automated collection techniques Recognizing this challenge, the CDC John Moore, or other forms of information Working Group on Tuberculosis Among Acting Associate Director for Policy, Planning technology. Send comments to Anne Foreign Born Persons in 1998 developed and Evaluation, Centers for Disease Control O’Connor, CDC Assistant Reports recommendations for increasing and Prevention. Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, emphasis on prevention and control of [FR Doc. 01–26320 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] MS–D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written TB in foreign-born populations. The BILLING CODE 4163–18–P comments should be received within 60 recommendations highlighted the need days of this notice. to utilize operational and behavioral research to gain a better understanding DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Proposed Project of relevant barriers to diagnosis and HUMAN SERVICES Perceptions of Tuberculosis Among care. While few studies have examined Foreign Born Persons: Ethnographic these issues with the goal of developing Centers for Disease Control and practical tools to enhance TB services, Prevention Studies—New—National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention one research project, conducted in New York State among Vietnamese refugees, [60 Day–02–03] (NCHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). created a valid research method for assessing TB issues among this Proposed Data Collections Submitted The National Center for HIV, STD, for Public Comment and population. The project resulted in and TB Prevention, CDC proposes to Recommendations policy change that increased this conduct an ethnographic study to assess group’s adherence to therapy. In compliance with the requirement the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of The proposed study will build upon of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the selected foreign born persons regarding this research with Vietnamese refugees Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for tuberculosis (TB). The purpose of this but will incorporate several cultural opportunity for public comment on two-year effort is to provide formative groups in four U.S. cities with a high proposed data collection projects, the research findings to use when designing burden of foreign-born TB patients. In Centers for Disease Control and future surveys, planning interventions, depth ethnographic interviews will be Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic and evaluating programs to improve TB conducted with 200 adults from the four summaries of proposed projects. To screening and adherence to therapy ethnic/cultural groups, 50 per site. The request more information on the among foreign born persons. This information will be gathered by trained proposed projects or to obtain a copy of research will also identify program gaps professional, multilingual/multi- the data collection plans and in addressing the special needs of these cultural interviewers who will be instruments, call the CDC Reports populations. A review of published data rendered by the contracting agent. The Clearance Officer on (404) 639–7090. and consensus among TB researchers data collection instrument will be Comments are invited on: (a) Whether suggest that elimination of TB in the comprised of semi-structured and open- the proposed collection of information United States will depend largely upon ended questions intended to elicit a full is necessary for the proper performance reducing the impact of the disease range of responses concerning the of the functions of the agency, including among the foreign born. Currently, participants’ cultural beliefs and whether the information shall have almost half of all domestic TB cases attitudes toward TB. Interviews will last practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the occur among foreign-born persons, and no longer than one hour. Analysis of agency’s estimate of the burden of the this proportion is growing. Providing data will be performed with Atlas.ti, a proposed collection of information; (c) culturally appropriate and responsive qualitative analysis computer program. ways to enhance the quality, utility, and services to people from a variety of The ultimate project outcomes will clarity of the information to be ethnic and cultural backgrounds is a include a cultural competency resource collected; and (d) ways to minimize the challenge for local TB control programs manual with profiles of TB beliefs and burden of the collection of information and has been identified as a priority behaviors from the studied cultural on respondents, including through the area in TB elimination activities. groups. The manual will assist local and
VerDate 11
state health departments in developing latent TB infection. In addition, the a valid interview instrument that TB customized interventions tailored to the results can be used to develop targeted clinics can adopt for their own local context. Culturally appropriate outreach, as well as customized assessments of TB beliefs and attitudes interventions will increase tuberculin communication protocols, patient among the local communities they skin testing and patient adherence to education materials, incentives, and serve. There are no cost to respondents. treatment for active TB disease and enablers. Finally, the study will produce
Number of Average bur- Respondents Number of responses/re- den/response Total burden respondents spondent (in hrs.) (in hrs.)
Foreign Born Persons (interviewed) ...... 100 1 1 100
Total ...... 100
Dated: October 11, 2001. pediatric rule with regard to study Name of Committee: Advisory John Moore, designs, ethical and developmental Committee for Pharmaceutical Science. Acting Associate Director for Policy, Planning considerations, and extrapolation of General Function of the Committee: and Evaluation, Centers for Disease Control findings from adult to pediatric cancer To provide advice and and Prevention. patients. recommendations to the agency on [FR Doc. 01–26322 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Procedure: Interested persons may FDA’s regulatory issues. BILLING CODE 4163–18–P present data, information, or views, Date and Time: The meeting will be orally or in writing, on issues pending held on November 28 and 29, 2001, before the subcommittee. Written from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND submissions may be made to the contact Location: Center for Drug Evaluation HUMAN SERVICES person by November 16, 2001. Oral and Research Advisory Committee presentations from the public will be conference room 1066, 5630 Fishers Food and Drug Administration scheduled between approximately 8:15 Lane, Rockville, MD. Contact: Nancy Chamberlin, Center Pediatric Oncology Subcommittee of a.m. and 8:45 a.m., and 1 p.m. and 1:30 for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD– the Oncologic Drugs Advisory p.m. Time allotted for each presentation 21), Food and Drug Administration, Committee; Notice of Meeting may be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify 5600 Fishers Lane (for express delivery, AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, the contact person before November 16, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1076), Rockville, HHS. 2001, and submit a brief statement of MD 20857, 301–827–7001, e-mail: ACTION: Notice. the general nature of the evidence or [email protected], or FDA arguments they wish to present, the Advisory Committee Information Line, This notice announces a forthcoming names and addresses of proposed 1–800–741–8138 (301–443–0572 in the meeting of a public advisory committee participants, and an indication of the Washington, DC area), code 12539. of the Food and Drug Administration approximate time requested to make Please call the Information Line for up- (FDA). The meeting will be open to the their presentation. to-date information on this meeting. public. Notice of this meeting is given under Agenda: On November 28, 2001, the Name of Committee: Pediatric the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 committee will: (1) Discuss the current Oncology Subcommittee of the U.S.C. app. 2). status of, and future plans for, the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. draft guidance entitled ‘‘ANDAs: Blend Dated: October 12, 2001. General Function of the Committee: Uniformity Analysis;’’ (2) discuss and To provide advice and Linda A. Suydam, provide direction for the Process recommendations to the agency on Senior Associate Commissioner. Analytical Technology Subcommittee; FDA’s regulatory issues. [FR Doc. 01–26314 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] (3) discuss and provide comments on Date and Time: The meeting will be BILLING CODE 4160–01–S stability testing and shelf life; and (4) held on November 28, 2001, from 8 a.m. receive updates from subcommittees to 5 p.m. and on other Center for Drug Evaluation Location: Holiday Inn, Ballrooms A DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND and Research guidance documents. On and B, Two Montgomery Village Ave., HUMAN SERVICES November 29, 2001, the committee will: (1) Receive updates on FDA research in Gaithersburg, MD. Food and Drug Administration Contact: Kimberly Littleton Topper or dermatopharmacokinetics, and (2) Karen M. Templeton-Somers, Center for Advisory Committee for discuss and provide comments on Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD– Pharmaceutical Science; Notice of bioequivalence issues. 21), Food and Drug Administration, Meeting Procedure: Interested persons may 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD present data, information, or views, 20857, 301–827–7001, or by e-mail at AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, orally or in writing, on issues pending [email protected], or FDA HHS. before the committee. Written Advisory Committee Information Line, ACTION: Notice. submissions may be made to the contact 1–800–741–8138 (301–443–0572 in the person by November 15, 2001. Oral Washington, DC area), code 12542. This notice announces a forthcoming presentations from the public will be Please call the Information Line for up- meeting of a public advisory committee scheduled between approximately 1:30 to-date information on this meeting. of the Food and Drug Administration p.m. and 2:30 p.m. on November 28, Agenda: The subcommittee will (FDA). The meeting will be open to the 2001, and between approximately 11 discuss the implementation of the public. a.m. and 12 noon on November 29,
VerDate 11
2001. Time allotted for each L. 104–13), the Health Resources and sites and the services they provide to presentation may be limited. Those Services Administration (HRSA) active and retired coal miners. The desiring to make formal oral publishes periodic summaries of study consists of two sections: (1) A presentations should notify the contact proposed projects being developed for written and telephone survey of the site person before November 15, 2001, and submission to OMB under the Program Coordinators about the patients submit a brief statement of the general Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To and the services they provide, as well as nature of the evidence or arguments request more information on the services that patients would like to they wish to present, the names and proposed project or to obtain a copy of receive, but which are not available; addresses of proposed participants, and the data collection plans and draft and, (2) a measurement of the costs an indication of the approximate time instruments, call the HRSA Reports associated with delivering requisite requested to make their presentation. Clearance Officer on (301) 443–1129. services to this population, for whom Notice of this meeting is given under Comments are invited on: (a) Whether data will be obtained from secondary the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 the proposed collection of information sources. The data collected will provide U.S.C. app. 2). is necessary for the proper performance policymakers with a better Dated: October 12, 2001. of the functions of the agency, including understanding of the resources needed whether the information shall have to continue to support and expand the Linda A. Suydam, practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the program. The assessment will provide Senior Associate Commissioner. agency’s estimate of the burden of the new information about the organization, [FR Doc. 01–26370 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] proposed collection of information; (c) financing, and delivery of services to BILLING CODE 4160–01–S ways to enhance the quality, utility, and active and retired coal miners in Black clarity of the information to be Lung Clinics Programs. collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Data from the survey and costing will DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND burden of the collection of information provide quantitative information about HUMAN SERVICES on respondents, including through the the programs, specifically: (a) The Health Resources And Services use of automated collection techniques characteristics of the patients they serve, Administration or other forms of information (b) the organization components of the technology. program, (c) the scope of services provided, (d) the costs and resources Agency Information Collection Proposed Project: Needs Assessment of necessary to implement the program, (e) Activities: Proposed Collection: the Black Lung Clinics Program: NEW Comment Request outreach services available, and (f) key The Bureau of Primary Health Care unmet needs. This assessment will In compliance with the requirement (BPHC), Health Resources and Services provide data useful to the program and for opportunity for public comment on Administration (HRSA), is planning to will enable HRSA to provide data proposed data collection projects conduct a needs assessment of the Black required by Congress under the (section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Title 44, United Lung Clinics Program. The purpose of Government Performance and Results States Code, as amended by the this study is to obtain data about the Act of 1993. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. Black Lung Clinics Program grantees/ The estimated burden is as follows:
Responses Form name Number of per Hours per Total burden respondents respondent response hours
Survey ...... 52 1 8 416
Send comments to Susan G. Queen, (Public Law 92–463), announcement is child health. The meeting will be closed to Ph.D., HRSA Reports Clearance Officer, made of the following National the public on Thursday, November 15, 2001, Room 14–22, Parklawn Building, 5600 Advisory body scheduled to meet from 9 a.m. through the remainder of the Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. during the month of November 2001. meeting for the review of grant applications. The closing is in accordance with the Written comments should be received Name: Maternal and Child Health Research provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6),Title within 60 days of this notice. Grants Review Committee. 5 U.S.C., and the Determination by the Dated: October 15, 2001. Date and Time: November 15–16, 2001; 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Associate Administrator for Management and Jane M. Harrison, Place: Doubletree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Program Support, Health Resources and Director, Division of Policy Review and Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Services Administration, pursuant to Public Coordination. The meeting is open to the public on Law 92–463. [FR Doc. 01–26317 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Thursday, November 15, 2001, from 8 a.m. to Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of BILLING CODE 4165–15–P 9 a.m., and closed for the remainder of the members, minutes of meetings, or other meeting. relevant information should write or contact Purpose: To review research grant Christopher DeGraw, M.D., M.P.H., Executive DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND applications in the program areas of maternal Secretary, Maternal and Child Health and child health, administered by the Research Grants Review Committee, Room HUMAN SERVICES Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration. 18A–55, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Health Resources and Services Agenda: The open portion of the meeting Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone Administration will cover opening remarks by the Director, (301) 443–2190. Division of Research, Training and Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting Education, who will report on program issues, congressional activities, and other In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of topics of interest to the field of maternal and the Federal Advisory Committee Act
VerDate 11
Dated: October 15, 2001. Eye Council, September 13, 2001, 8:30 and Resources Research, National Institutes Jane M. Harrison, a.m. to September 13, 2001, 5 p.m., 6130 of Health, HHS) Executive Boulevard, Executive Plaza Director, Division of Policy Review and Dated: October 12, 2001. Coordination. North, Room H, Rockville, MD, 20852 LaVerne Y. Stringfield, [FR Doc. 01–26371 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] which was published in the Federal Director, Office of Federal Advisory BILLING CODE 4165–15–P Register on July 23, 2001, Vol. 66, Page 38295. Committee Policy. The meeting date has been changed to [FR Doc. 01–26387 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND November 20, 2001. The location BILLING CODE 4140–01–M HUMAN SERVICES remains the same. The meeting is partially Closed to the public. Health Resources and Services DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Administration Dated: October 15, 2001. HUMAN SERVICES LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting Director, Office of Federal Advisory National Institutes of Health Committee Policy. In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of [FR Doc. 01–26384 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] National Human Genome Research the Federal Advisory Committee Act Institute; Notice of Meeting (Pub. L. 92–463), announcement is BILLING CODE 4140–01–M made of the following National Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Advisory body scheduled to meet DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND during the month of November 2001. amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice HUMAN SERVICES is hereby given of a meeting of the Name: National Advisory Council on Board of Scientific Counselors, National Nurse Education and Practice. National Institutes of Health Date and Time: November 8, 2001; 8:30 Human Genome Research Institute. a.m.–5 p.m., November 9, 2001; 8:30 a.m.–3 National Heart, Lung, and Blood The meeting will be open to the p.m. Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting public as indicated below, with Place: Hotel Washington, Pennsylvania attendance limited to space available. Avenue, NW., at 15th St., Washington, DC Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Individuals who plan to attend and 20004. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as need special assistance, such as sign The meeting is open to the public. amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice language interpretation or other Agenda: Department, Agency, Bureau is hereby given of the following reasonable accommodations, should and Division administrative updates; meeting. notify the Contact Person listed below discussion of Council administrative The meeting will be closed to the in advance of the meeting. procedures and selection of next co- public in accordance with the The meeting will be closed to the chair; strategic plan review and update; provisions set forth in sections public as indicated below in accordance identification of priorities for future 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., with the provisions set forth in section work, including continued discussion of as amended. The grant applications and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended nursing shortage and other critical the discussions could disclose for the review, discussion, and issues impacting nursing education and confidential trade secrets or commercial evaluation of individual intramural practice; workgroup breakout sessions property such as patentable material, programs and projects conducted by the to address work to be accomplished. and personal information concerning National Human Genome Research Anyone interested in obtaining a individuals associated with the grant Institute, including consideration of roster of members, minutes of the applications, the disclosure of which personnel qualifications and meeting, or other relevant information would constitute a clearly unwarranted performance, and the competence of should write or contact Ms. Elaine G. invasion of personal privacy. individual investigators, the disclosure Cohen, Executive Secretary, National of which would constitute a clearly Advisory Council on Nurse Education Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel, unwarranted invasion of personal and Practice, Parklawn Building, Room K 23 Review Panel Mentored Patient- privacy. 9–35, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Oriented Research Career Development Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Maryland 20857, telephone (301) 443– Award. Counselors, National Human Genome 1405. Date: October 19, 2001. Research Institute. Time: 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Dated: October 15, 2001. Date: November 6–7, 2001. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Open: November 6, 2001, 8 am to 8:30 am. Jane M. Harrison, applications. Agenda: To discuss matters of program Director, Division of Policy Review and Place: 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD relevance. Coordination. 20892 (Telephone Conference Call). Place: Eisenhower Inn and Conference Contact Person: Diane M. Reid, MD, [FR Doc. 01–26316 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Center, Gettysburg, PA. Review Branch, Room 7182, Division of BILLING CODE 4165–15–P Closed: November 6, 2001, 9 am to Extramural Affairs, National Heart, Lung, and Adjournment on November 7. Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Agenda: To review and evaluate personal Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–0277. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND qualifications and performance, and HUMAN SERVICES This notice is being published less than 15 competence of individual investigators. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Place: Eisenhower Inn and Conference National Institutes of Health limitations imposed by the review and Center, Gettysburg, PA. funding cycle. Contact Person: Claire Rodgaard, Assistant National Eye Institute; Amended Notice (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance to the Scientific Director, Division of of Meeting Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Intramural Research, Office of the Director, Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and National Human Genome Research Institute, Notice is hereby given of a change in Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung 45 Convent Drive, Building 49, Room 4A06, the meeting of the National Advisory Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases Bethesda, MD 20892, 301 435–5802.
VerDate 11
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance This notice is being published less than 15 Emphasis Panel 02–19, Review of R44 Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome days prior to the meeting due to the timing Grants. Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) limitations imposed by the review and Date: November 16, 2001. Dated: October 15, 2001. funding cycle. Time: 10 am to 1 pm. LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Name of Committee: National Institute of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Dental and Craniofacial Research Special applications. Director, Office of Federal Advisory Place: 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Committee Policy. Emphasis Panel 02–11, Review of R01s. Date: October 30, 2001. Conference Room C, Bethesda, MD 20892 [FR Doc. 01–26390 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Time: 10:30 am to 12 pm. (Telephone Conference Call). BILLING CODE 4140–01–M Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Contact Person: Philip Washko, PhD, DMD, applications. Scientific Review Administrator, 45 Center Place: 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Drive, Natcher Building, Rm. 4AN44F, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Conference Room H, Bethesda, MD 20892 National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD HUMAN SERVICES (Telephone Conference Call). 20892, (301) 594–2372. Contact Person: Anna Sandberg, MPH, Name of Committee: National Institute of National Institute of Health DRPH, Scientific Review Administrator, Dental and Craniofacial Research Special National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Emphasis Panel 02–18, Review of R01 National Institute of Dental & Res., 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Rm. Grants. Craniofacial Research; Notice of 4AN44F, National Institutes of Health, Date: November 19, 2001. Closed Meetings Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594–3089. Time: 2 pm to 4 pm. This notice is being published less than 15 Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Pursuant to section 10(d) of the days prior to the meeting due to the timing applications. Federal Advisory Committee Act, as limitations imposed by the review and Place: 45 Center Drive, Natcher Bldg., amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice funding cycle. Conf. Rms. A & D, Bethesda, MD 20892 is hereby given of the following Name of Committee: National Institute of (Telephone Conference Call). meetings. Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Contact Person: Anna Sandbert, MPH, Emphasis Panel 02–07, Applicant Interview, DRPH, Scientific Review Administrator, The meetings will be closed to the National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial public in accordance with the P01. Date: November 13–14, 2001. Res., 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Rm provisions set forth in sections Time: 7 pm to 5 pm. 4AN44F, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594– 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 3089. as amended. The grant applications and applications. Name of Committee: National Institute of the discussions could disclose Place: Marriot Pooks Hill, 5151 Pooks Hills Dental and Craniofacial Research Special confidential trade secrets or commercial Road, Bethesda, MD 20814. Emphasis Panel 02–05, Review of P01 Grants. property such as patentable material, Contact Person: Lynn M. King, Scientific Date: November 29–30, 2001. and personal information concerning Review Administrator, Scientific Review Time: 7 pm to 5 pm. individuals associated with the grant Branch, 45 Center Dr., Rm 4AN–38K, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial, applications. applications, the disclosure of which Research, National Institutes of Health, would constitute a clearly unwarranted Place: Marriott Pooks Hill, 5151 Pooks Hill Bethesda, MD 20892–6402, 301–594–5006. Road, Bethesda, ME 20814. invasion of personal privacy. Name of Committee: National Institute of Contact Person: Lynn M. King, Scientific Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Review Administrator, Scientific Review Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel, 02–25, Review of R44 Branch, 45 Center Dr., Rm 4AN–38K, Emphasis Panel 02–31, Review of R–44 Grants. National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial, Grants. Date: November 14, 2001. Research, National Institutes of Health, Date: October 24, 2001. Time: 11 am to 1 pm. Bethesda, MD 20892–6402, 301–594–5006. Time: 11 am to 1 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Name of Committee: National Institute of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Dental and Craniofacial Research Special applications. Place: 45 Center Drive, Emphasis Panel 02–24, Review of R44 Place: 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Contact Person: Natcher Building, Grants. Conference Room C, Bethesda, MD 20892 1 Conference Room E ⁄2, Bethesda, MD 20892 Date: December 6, 2001. (Telephone Conference Call). (Telephone Conference Call). Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Contact Person: Philip Washko, PhD, DMD, Contact Person: Philip Washko, PhD, DMD, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Scientific Review Administrator, 45 Center Scientific Review Administrator, 45 Center applications. Drive, Natcher Building, Rm. 4AN44F, Drive, Natcher Building, Rm. 4AN44F, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD Place: 45 Center Drive, Natcher Bldg., National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD Conf. Rms. A & D, Bethesda, MD 20892 20892, (301) 594–2372. 20892, (301) 594–2372. This notice is being published less than 15 (Telephone Conference Call). days prior to the meeting due to the timing Name of Committee: National Institute of Contact Person: Philip Washko, PhD, DMD, limitations imposed by the review and Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Scientific Review Administrator, 45 Center funding cycle. Emphasis Panel, 02–20, Review R01 Grants. Drive, Natcher Building, Rm. 4AN44F, Date: November 15, 2001. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD Name of Committee: National Institute of Time: 10:30 am to 12 pm. 20892, (301) 594–2372. Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Emphasis Panel 02–14, Review of R–13 Name of Committee: National Institute of applications. Grants. Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Place: 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Emphasis Panel 02–09, Review of R01 Date: October 24, 2001. 1 Time: 3 pm to 4:30 pm. Conference Room E ⁄2, Bethesda, MD 20892 Grants. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant (Telephone Conference Call). Date: December 6–7, 2001. applications. Contact Person: Anna Sandberg, MPH, Time: 7 p.m. to 4 p.m. Place: 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, DRPH, Scientific Review Administrator, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Conference Room C, Bethesda, MD 20892 National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial applications. (Telephone Conference Call). Res., 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Rm Place: Marriott Pooks Hill, 5151 Pooks Hill Contact Person: H. George Hausch, PhD, 4AN44F, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594– Road, Bethesda, MD 20814. Acting Director, 4500 Center Drive, Natcher 3089. Contact Person: Anna Sandberg, MPH, Building, Rm. 4AN44F, National Institutes of Name of Committee: National Institute of DRPH, Scientific Review Administrator, Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594–2372. Dental and Craniofacial Research Special National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial
VerDate 11
Res., 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Rm. Agenda: Report on Institute business. Place: National Institutes of Health, 9000 4AN44F, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594– Place: Georgetown Holiday Inn, 2101 Rockville Pike, Building 45, Conference 3089. Wisconsin Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20007. Room C1/C2, Bethesda, Maryland 20892. Name of Committee: National Institute of Closed: November 8, 2001, 9 am to Contact: Ms. Laurie Harris, RAC Program Dental and Craniofacial Research Special adjournment. Assistant, Office of Biotechnology Activities, Emphasis Panel 02–29, Review of R44s. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Rockledge 1, Room 750, Bethesda MD, 20892, Date: December 11, 2001. applications. (301) 496–9839. Time: 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Place: Georgetown Holiday Inn, 2101 Information is also available on the Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Wisconsin Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20007. Institute’s/Center’s home page: applications. Contact Person: Roberta Binder, PhD, www4.od.nih.gov/oba/, where an agenda and Place: 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific any additional information for the meeting Conference Room C, Bethesda, MD 20892 Review Program, Division of Extramural will be posted when available. OMB’s (Telephone Conference Call). Activities, NIAID, NIH, Room 2209, 6700B ‘‘Mandatory Information Requirements for Contact Person: Philip Washko, PhD, DMD, Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892–7616, Federal Assistance Program Scientific Review Administrator, 45 Center 301–496–2550, [email protected] Announcements’’ (45 FR 39592, June 11, Drive, Natcher Building, Rm. 4AN44F, 1980) requires a statement concerning the (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD official government programs contained in Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, 20892, (301) 594–2372. the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. and Transplantation Research; 93.856, (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Normally NIH lists in its announcements the Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and number and title of affected individual Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Disorders Research, National Institutes of programs for the guidance of the public. Health, HHS) Dated: October 15, 2001. Because the guidance in this notice covers LaVerne Y. Stringfield, virtually every NIH and Federal research Dated: October 12, 2001. Director, Office of Federal Advisory program in which DNA recombinant LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Committee Policy. molecules techniques could be used, it has Director, Office of Federal Advisory [FR Doc. 01–26391 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] been determined not to be cost effective or Committee Policy. in the public interest to attempt to list these BILLING CODE 4140–01–M [FR Doc. 01–26389 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] programs. Such a list would likely require BILLING CODE 4140–01–M several additional pages. In addition, NIH could not be certain that every Federal DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND program would be included as many Federal HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND agencies, as well as private organizations, both national and international, have elected HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health to follow the NIH Guidelines, In lieu of the individual program listing, NIH invites National Institutes of Health Office of the Director, National readers to direct questions to the information Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting. address above about whether individual National Institute of Allergy and programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Infectious Diseases; Notice of Meeting Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Domestic Assistance are affected. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Program Nos. 93.14, Instramural Research Training Award; 93.187, Undergraduate amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. Scholarship Program for Individuals from is hereby given of the following Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.22, Clinical meeting. The meeting will be open to the Research Loan Repayment Program for The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space Individuals from Disadvantaged public as indicated below, with available. Individuals who plan to Backgrounds; 93.232, Loan Repayment attendance limited to space available. attend and need special assistance, such Program for Research Generally; 93.39, Individuals who plan to attend and as sign language interpretation or other Academic Research Enhancement Award; need special assistance, such as sign reasonable accommodations, should 93.936, NIH Acquired Immunodeficiency language interpretation or other inform the contact person listed below Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) reasonable accommodations, should in advance of the meeting. The meeting notify the Contact Person listed below will be held as a telephone conference Dated: October 12, 2001. in advance of the meeting. call with the members. A speaker phone LaVerne Y. Stringfield, The meeting will be closed to the installed in the conference room will Director, Office of Federal Advisory public in accordance with the enable members of the public in Committee Policy. provisions set forth in sections attendance to listen to the discussion [FR Doc. 01–26388 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] and address the RAC. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., BILLING CODE 4140–01–M as amended. The grant applications and Name of Committee: Recombinant DNA the discussions could disclose Advisory Committee (RAC). confidential trade secrets or commercial Date: November 1, 2001. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND property such as patentable materials, Time: 12–1 p.m. HUMAN SERVICES and personal information concerning Agenda: To discuss and vote on a individuals associated with the grant recommendation to the Director, NIH, National Institutes of Health applications, the disclosure of which regarding final action to amend Section IV– would constitute a clearly unwarranted C–2 of the NIH Guidelines for Research Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules to Closed Meetings invasion of personal privacy. change the prescribed number and expertise of RAC members and establish the charter of Name of Committee: Acquired Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research the RAC as the controlling document for the Review Committee, AIDS Research Review membership and procedures of that Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Committee. committee. The proposed action was amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Date: November 8–9, 2001. published in the Federal Register on August is hereby given of the following Open: November 8, 2001, 8:30 am to 9 am. 24, 2001 (66 FR 44638). meetings.
VerDate 11
The meetings will be closed to the Date: October 29, 2001. Name of Committee: Biochemical Sciences public in accordance with the Time: 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. Integrated Review Group, Physiological provisions set forth in sections Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Chemistry Study Section. applications. Date: November 1–2, 2001. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Time: 8 am to 3 pm. as amended. The grant applications and Place: Latham Hotel, 3000 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007–3701. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant the discussions could disclose Contact Person: Syed M. Quadri, PhD, applications. confidential trade secrets or commercial Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Place: Embassy Suites Hotel Crystal City, property such as patentable material, Scientific Review, National Institutes of 1300 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA and personal information concerning Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4144, 22202. individuals associated with the grant MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Contact Person: Richard Panniers, PhD, applications, the disclosure of which 1211. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of would constitute a clearly unwarranted This notice is being published less than 15 Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5148, invasion of personal privacy. days prior to the meeting due to the timing 7842, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435–1741. limitations imposed by the review and Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Center for Scientific funding cycle. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Date: October 25, 2001. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Date: November 1, 2001. Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Review Emphasis Panel. Time: 8 am to 12 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Date: November 1–2, 2001. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Time: 8 am to 5 pm. applications. Place: One Washington Circle, 1 Agenda To review and evaluate grant Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Washington Circle, NW., Washington, DC applications. Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. 20037. Place: Holiday Inn—Chevy Chase, 5520 Contact Person: Bill Bunnag, PhD, Contact Person: Rona L. Hirschberg, PhD, Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20815. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Contact Person: Gloria B. Levin, PhD, Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4186, Scientific Review, National Institutes of MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892–7854, (301) MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3166, 435–1177, [email protected]. 1150. MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Name of Committee: AIDS and Related This notice is being published less than 15 1017, [email protected]. Research Integrated Review Group, AIDS and days prior to the meeting due to the timing Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Related Research 2. limitations imposed by the review and Review Special Emphasis Panel. Date: November 1–2, 2001. funding cycle. Date: November 1–2, 2001. Time: 8 am to 1 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Time: 8 am to 12 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Place: Gaithersburg Marriott, Date: October 26, 2001. applications. Place: Hyatt, 2799 Jefferson Davis Washingtonian Center, 9751 Washingtonina Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Blvd., Gaithersburg, MD 20878. Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Contact Person: Sami A. Mayyasi, PhD., Contact Person: Noni Byrnes, PhD, applications. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Place: Holiday Inn Georgetown, 2101 Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Wisconsin Avenue, NW., Washington, DC Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5106, 20007. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4196, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Contact Person: Ramesh K. Nayak, PhD, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– 1166, [email protected]. 1217, [email protected]. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Scientific Review, National Institutes of Name of Committee: Cardiovascular Review Special Emphasis Panel. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5146, Sciences Integrated Review Group, Date: November 1–2, 2001. MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Pharmacology Study Section. Time: 8 am to 5 pm. 1026. Date: November 1–2, 2001. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant This notice is being published less than 15 Time: 8 am to 5 pm. applications. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Place: River Inn, 924 25th Street, NW., limitations imposed by the review and applications. Washington, DC 20037. funding cycle. Place: Latham Hotel Georgetown, 3000 M Contact Person: Richard D. Rodewald, Name of Committee: Musculoskeletal and Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007. PhD., Scientific Review Administrator, Dental Sciences Integrated Review Group, Contact Person: Jeanne N. Ketley, PhD, Center for Scientific Review, National General Medicine B Study Section. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Date: October 29–30, 2001. Scientific Review, National Institutes of Room 5142, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, Time: 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4130, (301) 435–1024, [email protected]. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Name of Committee: Center for Scientific applications. 1789. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Place: Holiday Inn Georgetown, 2101 Name of Committee: Cardiovascular Date: November 1–2, 2001. Wisconsin Avenue, NW., Washington, DC Sciences Integrated Review Group, Time: 8 am to 5 pm. 20007. Cardiovascular Study Section. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Contact Person: Shirley Hilden, PhD, Date: November 1–2, 2001. applications. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Time: 8 am to 5 pm. Place: Georgetown Suites Hotel—Harbor Scientific Review, National Institutes of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Building, 1000 29th Street NW., Washington, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4218, applications. DC 20007. MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Place: Holiday Inn Chevy Chase, 5520 Contact Person: Janet Nelson, PhD., 1198. Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for This notice is being published less than 15 Contact Person: Gordon L. Johnson, PhD, Scientific Review, National Institutes of days prior to the meeting due to the timing Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4158, limitations imposed by the review and Scientific Review, National Institutes of MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– funding cycle. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4136, 1723, [email protected]. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel. 1212, [email protected]. Review Special Emphasis Panel.
VerDate 11
Date: November 1–2, 2001. Time: 1:30 pm to 5 pm. Dated: October 15, 2001. Time: 8:30 am to 5:30 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. applications. Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Director, Office of Federal Advisory Place: Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Committee Policy. Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037. Contact Person: Bill Bunnag, PhD, [FR Doc. 01–26385 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Contact Person: Angela M. Pattatucci- Scientific Review Administrator, Center for BILLING CODE 4140–01–M Aragon, PhD., Scientific Review Scientific Review, National Institutes of Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5124, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892–7854, (301) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Drive, Room 5220, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 435–1177, [email protected]. 20892, (301) 435–1775. HUMAN SERVICES Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel. National Institutes of Health Review Special Emphasis Panel. Date: November 1–2, 2001. Date: November 1, 2001. Time: 7:00 pm to 6 pm. Time: 8:30 am to 3 pm. Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Closed Meeting Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. applications. Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Place: Georgetown Suites, 1000 29th St., Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda MD, 20814. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the NW., Washington, DC 20007. Contact Person: Peter Lyster, PhD, Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Contact Person: Randolph Addison, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center for amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review, National Institutes of is hereby given of the following Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5218, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5144, meeting. MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– 1256. The meeting will be closed to the 1025. public in accordance with the Name of Committee: Social Sciences, Name of Committee: Oncological Sciences Integrated Review Group, Radiation Study provisions set forth in sections Nursing, Epidemiology and Methods 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Integrated Review Group Epidemiology and Section. Disease Control Subcommittee 2. Date: November 2–4, 2001. as amended. The grant applications and Date: November 1–2, 2001. Time: 8:30 am to 5 pm. the discussions could disclose Time: 8:30 am to 4 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant confidential trade secrets or commercial Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. property such as patentable material, applications. Place: Milano Hotel, 55 Fifth Street, San and personal information concerning Place: Holiday Inn Georgetown, 2101 Francisco, CA 94103. Contact Person: Paul K. Strudler, PhD, individuals associated with the grant Wisconsin Avenue, NW., Washington, DC applications, the disclosure of which 20007. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Contact Person: David M. Monsees, PhD, Scientific Review, National Institutes of would constitute a clearly unwarranted Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4100, invasion of personal privacy. MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Scientific Review, National Institutes of Name of Committee: Surgery, Radiology 1716. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3150, and Bioengineering Integrated Review Group, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Surgery, Anesthesiology and Trauma Study 0684, [email protected]. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Section. Date: November 2, 2001. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Date: October 18–19, 2001. Review Special Emphasis Panel. Time: 11 am to 12:30 pm. Time: 1 pm to 4 pm. Date: November 1–2, 2001. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Time: 8:30 am to 5 pm. applications. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD applications. applications. 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Place: Four Points Sheraton, 8400 Place: Governor’s House, 1615 Rhode Contact Person: Everett E. Sinnett, PhD, Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036. Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Contact Person: Gerald L. Becker, MD, Contact Person: Karen Sirocco, PhD, Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2178, Scientific Review, National Institutes of Scientific Review, National Institutes of MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5114, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3184, 1016, [email protected]. MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 1170. 0676, [email protected]. Review Special Emphasis Panel. This notice is being published less than 15 Name of Committee: Genetic Sciences Date: November 2, 2001. days prior to the meeting due to the timing Time: 1 pm to 4 pm. Integrated Review Group, Genome Study limitations imposed by the review and Section. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant funding cycle. Date: November 1–2, 2001. applications. Time: 8:30 am to 2:30 pm. Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 20892, (Telephone Conference Call). Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine, applications. Contact Person: Abubakar A. Shaikh, DVM, 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333, Place: Embassy Square, 2000 N Street, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, NW., Washington, DC 20036. for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Contact Person: Cheryl M. Corsaro, PhD, Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6166, 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Scientific Review Administrator, Center for MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Institutes of Health, HHS) Scientific Review, National Institutes of 1042, [email protected]. Dated: October 15, 2001. Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2204, (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance LaVerne Y. Stringfield, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine, Director, Office of Federal Advisory 1045, [email protected]. 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333, Committee Policy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, Review Special Emphasis Panel. 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National [FR Doc. 01–26386 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Date: November 1–2, 2001. Institutes of Health, HHS) BILLING CODE 4140–01–M
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND documents. (This is not a toll-free a portion of a development (i.e., URBAN DEVELOPMENT number). dwelling units, nondwelling property or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The vacant land) owned and operated by a [Docket No. FR–4652–N–16] Department will submit the proposed HA. The specific information requested information collection to OMB for in the application is based on Notice of Proposed Information review, as required by the Paperwork requirements of the statute, section 18 of Collection for Public Comment for the Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. the United States Housing Act of 1937, Demolition/Disposition Application Chapter 35, as amended). as amended, and specifically identified This Notice is soliciting comments in 24 CFR part 970 of the regulation. AGENCY: Office of the Assistant from members of the public and affected The Department uses the information Secretary for Public and Indian agencies concerning the proposed submitted to determine whether, and Housing, HUD. collection of information to: (1) Evaluate under what circumstances, to permit a ACTION: Notice. whether the proposed collection of HA to demolish or sell all or a portion information is necessary for the proper of a public housing development. The SUMMARY: The proposed information performance of the functions of the Department is considering automation collection requirement described below agency, including whether the of the application. will be submitted to the Office of information will have practical utility; Agency form number: HUD–52860. Management and Budget (OMB) for (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s review, as required by the Paperwork Members of affected public: State or estimate of the burden of the proposed Local Government. Reduction Act. The Department is collection of information; (3) enhance soliciting public comments on the the quality, utility, and clarity of the Estimation of the total number of subject proposal. information to be collected; and (4) hours needed to prepare the information DATES: Comments Due Date: December minimize the burden of the collection of collection including number of 18, 2001. information on those who are to respondents, frequency of response, and respond, including through the use of hours of response: 120 responses; on ADDRESSES: Interested persons are occasion; 16 average hours per response; invited to submit comments regarding appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information total annual reporting burden is 1,920 this proposal. Comments should refer to hours. the proposal by name/or OMB Control technology; e.g., permitting electronic number and should be sent to: Mildred submission of responses. Status of the proposed information This Notice also lists the following M. Hamman, Reports Liaison Officer, collection: Extension. information: Public and Indian Housing, Department Title of Proposal: Demolition/ Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork of Housing and Urban Development, Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, Disposition Application. as amended. 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4238, OMB Control Number: 2577–0075. Washington, DC 20410–5000. Description of the need for the Dated: October 12, 2001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information and proposed use: House Michael Liu, Mildred M. Hamman, (202) 708–0614, Agencies (HAs), are required to submit Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian extension 4128, for copies of the information to HUD to request Housing. proposed forms and other available permission to demolish or sell or all or BILLING CODE 4210–33–M
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
[FR Doc. 01–26336 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] programs to institutions of higher University of Alaska Fairbanks, Bristol BILLING CODE 4210–33–C education as well as creates initiatives Bay Campus, P.O. Box 1070, through which colleges and universities Dillingham, AK 99576. Grant: $400,000. can bring their traditional missions of Dated: October 4, 2001. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND teaching, research, service, and outreach Lawrence L. Thompson, URBAN DEVELOPMENT to bear on the pressing local problems General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy [Docket No. FR–4630–FA–06] in their communities. Development and Research. The Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities [FR Doc. 01–26332 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Announcement of Funding Awards for BILLING CODE 4210–62–P Fiscal Year 2001 Alaska Native/Native Program provides funds for a wide range Hawaiian Institutions Assisting of CDBG-eligible activities including Communities Program housing rehabilitation and financing, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND property demolition or acquisition, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Office of the Assistant public facilities, economic Secretary for Policy Development and development, business [Docket No. FR–4630–FA–03] Research, HUD. entrepreneurship, and fair housing Announcement of Funding Awards for ACTION: Announcement of funding programs. On February 26, 2001 (66 FR Fiscal Year 2001 Community Outreach awards. 11779), HUD published a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) Partnership Centers SUMMARY: In accordance with section announcing the availability of $4.2 AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 102 (a)(4)(C) of the Department of million in Fiscal Year 2001 and Secretary for Policy Development and Housing and Urban Development carryover funds for the Alaska Native/ Research, HUD. Reform Act of 1989, this document Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting ACTION: Announcement of funding notifies the public of funding awards for Communities Program. The Department awards. Fiscal Year 2001 Alaska Native/Native reviewed, evaluated and scored the Hawaiian Institutions Assisting applications received based on the SUMMARY: In accordance with section Communities Program. The purpose of criteria in the NOFA. As a result, HUD 102 (a)(4)(C) of the Department of this document is to announce the names three applications were funded. These Housing and Urban Development and addresses of the award winners and grants, with their grant amounts are Reform Act of 1989, this document the amount of the awards which are to identified below. notifies the public of funding awards for be used to help Alaska Native and The Catalog Federal Domestic Fiscal Year 2001 Community Outreach Native Hawaiian Institutions of Higher Assistance number for this program is Partnership Centers Program. The Education expand their role and 14.515. purpose of this document is to effectiveness in addressing community In accordance with section announce the names and addresses of development needs in their localities, 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of the award winners and the amount of consistent with the purposes of HUD’s Housing and Urban Development the awards which are to be used to Community Development Block Grant Reform Act of 1989 ((103 Stat. 1987, establish and operate Community program (CDBG) . U.S.C. 3545), the Department is Outreach Partnership Centers that will: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: publishing details concerning the (1) Conduct competent and qualified Barbara Holland, Office of University recipients of funding awards, as follows: research and investigation on theoretical Partnerships, U.S. Department of List of Awardees for Grant Assistance or practical problems in large and small Housing and Urban Development, Room Under the FY 2001 cities; and (2) facilitate partnerships and 8106, 451 Seventh Street, SW., outreach activities between institutions Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) Alaska Native/Hawaiian Institutions of higher education, local communities, 708–3061. To provide service for Assisting Communities Program and local governments to address urban persons who are hearing-or-speech- Funding Competition, by Name and problems. impaired, this number may be reached Address FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: via TTY by Dialing the Federal Pacific/Hawaii Barbara Holland, Office of University Information Relay Service on 1–800– Partnerships, U.S. Department of 877–TTY, 1–800–877–8339, or 202– 1. University of Hawaii for Kauai Housing and Urban Development, Room 708–1455. (Telephone number, other Community College, Maui Community 8110, 451 Seventh Street, SW., than ‘‘800’’ TTY numbers are not toll College, and Leeward Community Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) free.) College, Dr. Peggy Cha (Kauai), Mike 708–3061. To provide service for Inouye (Maui), and Mike Pecsok persons who are hearing-or-speech- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The (Leeward), University of Hawaii, 2530 Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian impaired, this number may be reached Dole Street, Sakamaki D–200, Honolulu, via TTY by Dialing the Federal Institutions Assisting Communities HI 96822. Grant: $1,192,620, $398,749 Program (AN/NHIAC) was enacted Information Relay Service on 1–800– for Kauai, $304,013 for Kaui, and 877–TTY, 1–800–877–8339, or 202– under section 107 of the CDBG $399,848 for Leeward. appropriation for fiscal year 2001, as 708–1455. (Telephone number, other part of the ‘‘Veterans Administration, Northwest/Alaska than ‘‘800’’ TTY numbers are not toll HUD and Independent Agencies 2. University of Alaska Fairbanks, free.) Appropriations Act of 2001’’ and is Interior-Aleutians Campus, Clara SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The administered by the Office of University Johnson, University of Alaska Community Outreach Partnership Partnerships under the Assistant Fairbanks, Interior-Aleutians Campus, Centers Program was enacted in the Secretary for Policy Development and P.O. Box 757880, Fairbanks, AK 99775. Housing and Community Development Research. In addition to this program, Grant: $397,713. Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–550, approved the Office of University Partnerships 3. University of Alaska Fairbanks, October 28, 1992) and is administered administers HUD’s ongoing grant Bristol Bay Campus, Dr. Margaret Wood, by the Office of University Partnerships
VerDate 11
under the Assistant Secretary for Policy New York/New Jersey University, 330 Thomas Boyd Hall, Development and Research. In addition 2. Montclair State University, Dr. Baton Rouge, LA 70803. Grant: to this program, the Office of University Freyda Lazarus, Montclair State $399,766. Partnerships administers HUD’s ongoing University, Normal Avenue, Upper 17. University of Texas at Brownsville grant programs to institutions of higher Montclair, NJ 07043. Grant: $399,010. and Texas Southmost College, Dr. education as well as creates initiatives 3. New Jersey City University, Dr. Jill Delina Barrera, University of Texas at through which colleges and universities Lewis, New Jersey City University, 2039 Brownsville and Texas Southmost can bring their traditional missions of Kennedy Blvd., Jersey City, NJ 07305. College, 80 Fort Brown, Brownsville, TX teaching, research, service, and outreach Grant: $368,624. 78520. Grant: $399,000. to bear on the pressing local problems 4. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Great Plains in their communities. Patricia Gray, Rensselaer Polytechnic The Community Outreach Partnership Institute, 110 Eighth Street, Troy, NY 18. University of Missouri-St. Louis, Centers Program provides funds for: 12180. Grant: $397,875. Dr. Alan Artibise, University of research activities which have practical Missouri-St. Louis, 341 Woods Hall, application for solving specific Mid-Atlantic 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, problems in designated communities 5. George Mason University, Dr. Todd MO 63121. Grant: $399,566. and neighborhoods; outreach, technical Endo, George Mason University, 4400 19. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, assistance and information exchange University Drive, MSN 4C6, Fairfax, VA Norm Braaten, University of Nebraska- activities which are designed to address 22030. Grant: $150,000. Lincoln, 303 Administration Building, specific problems associated with Lincoln, NE 68588. Grant: $388,914. Southeast/Caribbean housing, economic development, Rocky Mountains neighborhood revitalization, 6. Gadsden State Community College, infrastructure, health care, job training, Dr. Brenda Crowe, Gadsden State 20. University of Colorado at Denver, education, crime prevention, planning, Community College, P.O. Box 227, 1001 Dr. Tony Robinson, University of and community organizing. On George Wallace Drive, Gadsden, AL Colorado at Denver Campus Box 129, February 26, 2001 (66 FR 11725), HUD 35902. Grant: $400,00. P.O. Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217. published a Notice of Funding 7. Georgia State University, Dr. Grant: $149,917. Douglas Greenwell, Georgia State Availability (NOFA) announcing the Pacific/Hawaii availability of $8 million in Fiscal Year University, University Plaza, Atlanta, 2001 funds for the Community Outreach GA 30303. Grant: $150,000. 21. California State Polytechnic Partnership Centers Program. The 8. University of Kentucky, Dr. Retia Institute, Pomona, Dr. Audrey Fine, Department reviewed, evaluated and Walker, University of Kentucky, 201 California State Polytechnic Institute, scored the applications received based Kinkead Hall, Lexington, KY 40506. Pomona, 3801 West Temple Avenue, on the criteria in the NOFA. As a result, Grant: $399,974. Pomona, CA 91768. Grant: $399,979. 22. University of California, Irvine, HUD has funded 16 applications for Midwest New Grants and 8 applications for New Keith Taylor, University of California, Directions Grants. New Grants, which 9. Calvin College, Dr. Steven Irvine, 160 Administration Building, cannot exceed $400,000, are for Timmermans, Calvin College, 3201 Irvine, CA 92697. Grant: $149,505. institutions of higher education just Burton Street, SE, Grand Rapids, MI 23. University of California, San beginning a COPC project. New 49546. Grant: $399,949. Diego, Dr. Vivian Reznik, University of 10. Cleveland State University, Dr. Directions Grants, which cannot exceed California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Philip Starr, Cleveland State University, $150,000, are for institutions of higher Drive, 0934, La Jolla, CA 92093. Grant: 1717 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH education that are undertaking new $150,000. 44115. Grant: $149,279. activities or expanding into new 24. University of the Pacific, Carol 11. Eastern Michigan University, Dr. neighborhoods. These grants, with their Brodie, University of the Pacific, 3601 David Clifford, Starkweather Hall, 2nd grant amounts are identified below. Pacific Avenue, Stockton, CA 95211. Floor, Ypsilanti, MI 48197. Grant: Grant: $399,643. The Catalog Federal Domestic $394,555. Dated: October 4, 2001. Assistance number for this program is 12. Southern Illinois University 14.511. Carbondale, Dr. Tess Heiple, Southern Lawrence L. Thompson, In accordance with section 102(a) (4) Illinois University Carbondale, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy (C) of the Department of Housing and Carbondale, IL 62901. Grant: $399,999. Development and Research. Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 13. University of Chicago, Colleen [FR Doc. 01–26334 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] (103 Stat. 1987, U.S.C. 3545), the Burrus, University of Chicago, 5801 BILLING CODE 4210–62–P Department is publishing details Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 606037. Grant: concerning the recipients of funding $399,999. awards, as follows: 14. University of Illinois, Dr. R. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT List of Awardees for Grant Assistance Varkki George, University of Illinois, Under the FY 2001 801 S. Wright Street, 109 Coble Hall, Champaign, IL 61820. Grant: $149,974. [Docket No. FR–4630–FA–35] Community Outreach Partnership 15. University of Minnesota, Dr. Fred Announcement of Funding Awards for Centers Funding Competition, by Name Smith, University of Minnesota, 450 the Indian Housing Drug Elimination and Address McNamara Center, 200 Oak Street SE, Program for Fiscal Year 2001 New England Minneapolis, MN 55455. Grant: $149,578. AGENCY: Office of Native American 1. Housatonic Community College, Dr. Programs, HUD. Robert Thorton, Housatonic Community Southwest ACTION: Announcement of funding College, 900 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, 16. Louisiana State University, Dr. awards. CT 06604. Grant: $399,574. Gregory Vincent, Louisiana State
VerDate 11
SUMMARY: In accordance with Section Denver, CO 80202, telephone 1–800– a competition announced in a NOFA 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of 561–5913 or the Indian Housing Drug published in the Federal Register on Housing and Urban Development Elimination Program Resource Center at February 26, 2001 (66 FR 11963). Reform Act of 1989, this announcement 1–800–839–5561. Hearing or speech- Applications were scored and selected notifies the public of funding decisions impaired individuals may access this for funding based on the selection made by the Department in a number via TTY by calling the toll-free criteria in that Notice and a national competition for funding under the Federal Information Relay Service at 1– competition. Fiscal Year 2001 Notice of Funding 800–877–8339. In accordance with Section 102 Availability (NOFA) for the Indian SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The $12 (a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing Housing Drug Elimination Program million appropriated to fund the IHDEP and Urban Development Reform Act of (IHDEP). This announcement contains was made available from the FY 2001 1989 (103 Stat.1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the consolidated names and addresses HUD Appropriation Act (Pub.L. 106– the Department is publishing the names, of these award recipients under the 377, approved October 27, 2000). This addresses, and amounts of the 50 IHDEP. program provides grants to Indian tribes awards made under the national FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For and tribally designated housing entities competition in Appendix A to this questions concerning the Indian (TDHEs) to eliminate drugs and drug- document. Housing Drug Elimination Program related crime in American Indian and Dated: October 12, 2001. awards, contact Barbara Gallegos, Office Alaskan Native communities. Michael Liu, of Native Programs, Denver Program The FY 2001 awards announced in Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Office, 1999 Broadway, Suite 3390, this Notice were selected for funding in and Indian Housing.
APPENDIX A.—AWARDED APPLICANTS FY 2001 INDIAN HOUSING DRUG ELIMINATION PROGRAM
Applicant name Contact Address City State Zipcode Total
Bering Straits Regional Housing Au- Mr. Wayne Mundy P.O. Box 995 ...... Nome ...... AK 99762 $173,700 thority. Cook Inlet Housing Authority ...... Ms. Carol Gore ... 3510 Spenard Anchorage ...... AK 99503 133,500 Road, Suite 201. North Pacific Rim Housing Authority Mr. Olen Harris ... 8300 King Street Anchorage ...... AK 99518 75,300 Tagiumiullu Nunamiullu Housing Au- Mr. Delbert P.O. Box 409 ...... Barrow ...... AK 99723 169,200 thority. Rexford. Tlinget-Haida Regional Housing Au- Mr. Blake Kazama 5446 Jenkins Dr., Juneau ...... AK 99803 172,500 thority. P.O. Box 32237. Poarch Band of Creek Indians Hous- Mr. Fred McGhee 5811 Jack Atmore ...... AL 36502 61,500 ing Development. Springs Rd. Gila River Department of Community Ms. Joyce Eddie P.O. Box 528 ...... Sacaton ...... AZ 85247 316,500 Housing. Navajo Nation ...... Mr. Kelsey P.O. Box 9000 .... Window Rock ...... AZ 86515 1,500,000 Begaye. Tohono O’Odham Ki:Ki Association Mr. Loren P.O. Box 790 ...... Sells ...... AZ 85634 279,900 Goldtooth. White Mountain Apache Housing Au- Mr. Victor P.O. Box 1270 .... Whiteriver ...... AZ 85941 351,520 thority. Velasquez. Concow-Maidu/Mooretown Ms. Shirley Prusia 1 Alverda Drive ... Oroville ...... CA 95966 15,000 Rancheria. Northern Circle Indian Housing Au- Ms. Darlene 694 Pinoleville ..... Ukiah ...... CA 95482 50,700 thority. Tooley. Round Valley Indian Housing Au- Mr. Clifford Sloan P.O. Box 682 ...... Covelo ...... CA 95428 34,200 thority. Southern Ute Indian Housing Author- Ms. Rachel Sorrell P.O. Box 447 ...... Ignacio ...... CO 81137 62,400 ity. Seminole Tribe of Florida ...... Mr. James Billie .. 6300 Stirling Hollywood ...... FL 33024 140,100 Road. Nez Perce Tribal Housing Authority Ms. Cielo Gibson P.O. Box 188 ...... Lapwai ...... ID 83540 77,100 Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy ...... Mr. R. Clayton RR1 Box 339 ...... Perry ...... ME 04667 36,000 Cleaves. Bay Mills Housing Authority ...... Mr. Jeffrey Parker 3095 S. Towering Brimley ...... MI 49715 60,900 Pines. Sault Ste Marie Tribe Housing Au- Ms. Jolene Nertoli 2218 Shunk Road Sault Ste, Marie ...... MI 49783 129,600 thority. Mille Lacs Health & Human Services Ms. Linda Lyons .. 43408 Oodena .... Onamia ...... MN 56359 40,500 Center. Choctaw Housing Authority ...... Mr. Morris Car- P.O. Box 6088, Philadelphia ...... MS 39350 282,300 penter. Choctaw Branch. Blackfeet Housing ...... Mr. Ray Wilson ... PO Box 449 ...... Browning ...... MT 59417 333,320 Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Mr. Arlyn Head- P.O. Box 1027 .... Poplar ...... MT 59155 330,000 Tribes. dress. Salish Kootenai Housing Authority ... Mr. Robert P.O. Box 38 ...... Pablo ...... MT 59855 197,700 Gauthier. Qualla Housing Authority ...... Ms. Catherine P.O. Box 1749, Cherokee ...... NC 29719 276,300 Lambert. Acquoni Road.
VerDate 11
APPENDIX A.—AWARDED APPLICANTS FY 2001 INDIAN HOUSING DRUG ELIMINATION PROGRAM—Continued
Applicant name Contact Address City State Zipcode Total
Fort Berthold Housing Authority ...... Mr. Charles P.O. Box 310 ...... Newtown ...... ND 58763 202,200 Moran. Standing Rock Housing Authority ..... Mr. Ken Alkire ..... P.O. Box 484 ...... Fort Yates ...... 58538 275,400 Turtle Mountain Housing Authority ... Ms. Becky Phelps P.O. Box 620 ...... Belcourt ...... ND 58316 396,760 Omaha Tribal Housing Authority ...... Ms. Erica Spears P.O. Box 150 ...... Macy ...... NE 68039 79,500 Zuni Housing Authority ...... Ms. Mary P.O. Box 710, Zuni ...... NM 87327 192,900 Ghahate. Pueblo of Zuni. Reno Sparks Indian Colony Tribal Mr. Arlan 98 Colony Road .. Reno ...... NV 89502 60,000 Council. Melendez. Washoe Housing Authority ...... Mr. Willard Ben- 1588 Gardnerville ...... NV 89410 46,500 nett. Watasheamu Dr. Chickasaw Nation Division of Hous- Mr. Wayne 901 N. Country Ada ...... OK 74820 468,520 ing. Scribner. Club Road. Housing Authority of the Cherokee Mr. Chadwick P.O. Box 948 ...... Tahlequah ...... OK 74465 725,660 Nation. Smith. Housing Authority of the Chocktaw Mr. Russell P.O. Box G ...... Hugo ...... OK 74743 562,900 Nation of Oklahoma. Sossamon. Kaw Tribal Housing Authority ...... Ms. Maryln #9 Kanza Lane, Newkirk ...... OK 74647 35,100 Springer. P.O. Box 371. Cheyenne River Housing Authority .. Mr. Wayne P.O. Box 480 ...... Eagle Butte ...... SD 57625 270,300 Ducheneaux. Oglala Sioux Lakota Housing ...... Mr. Richard P.O. Box C ...... Pine Ridge ...... SD 57770 395,980 Shangreaux. Rosebud Sioux Tribe ...... Mr. James Waln .. Box #69 ...... Rosebud ...... SD 57570 326,700 Sisseton Wahpeton Housing Author- Mr. Ron Jones .... P.O. Box 687 ...... Sisselton ...... SD 57262 184,800 ity. Yankton Sioux Tribal Housing Au- Mr. Joseph Abdo, 410 South Main Wagner ...... SD 57380 93,900 thority. Jr. Street. Lummi Indian Nation ...... Mr. William Jones 2616 Kwina Road Bellingham ...... WA 98226 70,800 Skokomish Indian Tribe Housing Au- Ms. Elizabeth North 80 Tribal Shelton ...... WA 98584 23,700 thority. Griffin-Hall. Center Road. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Mr. Eugene P.O. Box 39 ...... Odanah ...... WI 54861 57,900 Tribe of Chippewa. Bigboy, Sr. Ho-Chunk Housing Authority ...... Ms. Myra Price .... P.O. Box 546 ...... Tomah ...... WI 54660 53,400 Lac Courtes Oreilles Indian Housing Mr. J. Wm. 13416 W. Hayward ...... WI 54843 135,000 Authority. Cadotte. Trepania Rd. Lac Du Flambeau Chippewa Hous- Ms. Natalie 554 Chicog Lac Du Flambeau ... WI 54538 93,300 ing Authority. Poupart. Street, P.O. Box 187. Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis- Mr. Wendell P.O. Box 910 ...... Keshena ...... WI 54135 121,200 consin. Askenette. Eastern Shoshone Housing Authority Ms. Cheryl Arthur P.O. Box 1250 .... Ft. Washakie ...... WY 82514 87,900 Northern Arapaho Tribal Housing ..... Mr. Frank Armajo P.O. Box 8236 .... Ethete ...... WY 82520 116,100
[FR Doc. 01–26333 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Universities Program. The purpose of than ‘‘800’’ TTY numbers are not toll BILLING CODE 4210–33–P this document is to announce the names free.) and addresses of the award winners and the amount of the awards which are to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Tribal DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND be used to enable tribal colleges and Colleges and Universities Program was URBAN DEVELOPMENT universities to build, expand, renovate, enacted under section 107 of the CDBG [Docket No. FR–4674–FA–03] and equip their own facilities, appropriation for fiscal year 2001, as especially those that are available to and part of the ‘‘Veterans Administration, Announcement of Funding Awards for used by the larger community. HUD and Independent Agencies Fiscal Year 2001 Tribal Colleges and Appropriations Act of 2001’’ and is Universities Program FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: administered by the Office of University Barbara Holland, Office of University Partnerships under the Assistant AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Partnerships, U.S. Department of Secretary for Policy Development and Secretary for Policy Development and Housing and Urban Development, Room Research. In addition to this program, Research, HUD. 8106, 451 Seventh Street, SW., the Office of University Partnerships ACTION: Announcement of funding Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) administers HUD’s ongoing grant awards. 708–3061. To provide service for programs to institutions of higher SUMMARY: In accordance with section persons who are hearing- or speech- education as well as creates initiatives 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of impaired, this number may be reached through which colleges and universities Housing and Urban Development via TTY by Dialing the Federal can bring their traditional missions of Reform Act of 1989, this document Information Relay Service on 1–800– teaching, research, service, and outreach notifies the public of funding awards for 877–TTY, 1–800–877–8339, or 202– to bear on the pressing local problems Fiscal Year 2001 Tribal Colleges and 708–1455. (Telephone number, other in their communities.
VerDate 11
The Tribal Colleges and Universities DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND assistance providers interested in any Program enables tribal colleges and URBAN DEVELOPMENT such property should send a written universities to build, expand, renovate, expression of interest to HHS, addressed and equip their own facilities, [Docket No. FR–4644–N–42] to Brian Rooney, Division of Property especially those that are available to and Federal Property Suitable as Facilities Management, Program Support Center, used by the larger community. On May To Assist the Homeless HHS, room 5B–41, 5600 Fishers Lane, 11, 2001 (66 FR 24237), HUD published Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443–2265. a Notice of Funding Availability AGENCY: Office of the Assistant (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS (NOFA) announcing the availability of Secretary for Community Planning and will mail to the interested provider an $3 million in Fiscal Year 2001 funds for Development, HUD. application packet, which will include the Tribal Colleges and Universities ACTION: Notice. instructions for completing the Program. The Department reviewed, application. In order to maximize the evaluated and scored the applications SUMMARY: This Notice identifies opportunity to utilize a suitable received based on the criteria in the unutilized, underutilized, excess, and property, providers should submit their NOFA. As a result, HUD seven surplus Federal property reviewed by written expressions of interest as soon applications were funded. These grants, HUD for suitability for possible use to as possible. For complete details with their grant amounts are identified assist the homeless. concerning the processing of below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: applications, the reader is encouraged to The Catalog Federal Domestic Clifford Taffet, room 7266, Department refer to the interim rule governing this Assistance number for this program is of Housing and Urban Development, program, 24 CFR part 581. 14.519. 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, For properties listed as suitable/to be In accordance with section DC 20410; telephone (202) 708–1234; excess, that property may, if 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of TTY number for the hearing- and subsequently accepted as excess by Housing and Urban Development speech-impaired (202) 708–2565 (these GSA, be made available for use by the Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, telephone numbers are not toll-free), or homeless in accordance with applicable U.S.C. 3545), the Department is call the toll-free Title V information line law, subject to screening for other publishing details concerning the at 1–800–927–7588. Federal use. At the appropriate time, recipients of funding awards, as follows: HUD will publish the property in a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Notice showing it as either suitable/ List of Awardees for Grant Assistance accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and Under the FY 2001 Tribal Colleges and available or suitable/unavailable. section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney For properties listed as suitable/ Universities Program Funding Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. unavailable, the landholding agency has Competition, by Name and Address 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing decided that the property cannot be 1. College of Menominee Nation, Dr. this Notice to identify Federal buildings declared excess or made available for Holly Youngbear-Tibbetts, College of and other real property that HUD has use to assist the homeless, and the Menominee Nation, P.O. Box 1179, reviewed for suitability for use to assist property will not be available. Keshena, WI 54135. Grant: $400,000. the homeless. The properties were Properties listed as unsuitable will 2. Fort Belknap College, Carol Falcon- reviewed using information provided to not be made available for any other Chandler, Fort Belknap College, P.O. HUD by Federal landholding agencies purpose for 20 days from the date of this Box 159, Harlem, MT 59526. Grant: regarding unutilized and underutilized Notice. Homeless assistance providers $400,000. buildings and real property controlled interested in a review by HUD of the 3. Institute of American Indian Arts, by such agencies or by GSA regarding determination of unsuitability should Carol Guzman, Institute of American its inventory of excess or surplus call the toll free information line at 1– Indian Arts, 83 Avan Nu Po Road, P.O. Federal property. This Notice is also 800–927–7588 for detailed instructions Box 22370, Santa Fe, NM 85702. Grant: published in order to comply with the or write a letter to Clifford Taffet at the $400,000. December 12, 1988 Court Order in address listed at the beginning of this 4. Oglala Lakota College, Thomas National Coalition for the Homeless v. Notice. Included in the request for Shortbull, Oglala Lakota College, 490 Veterans Administration, No. 88–2503– review should be the property address Piya Wiconi Road, Kyle, SD 57752. OG (D.D.C.). (including zip code), the date of Grant: $400,000. Properties reviewed are listed in this publication in the Federal Register, the 5. Little Big Horn College, Avis Three Notice according to the following landholding agency, and the property Irons, Little Big Horn College, P.I. Box categories: Suitable/available, suitable/ number. 370, One Forestry Lane, Crow Agency, unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and For more information regarding MT 59022. Grant: $399,563. unsuitable. The properties listed in the particular properties identified in this 6. Southwestern Indian Polytechnic three suitable categories have been Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing Institute, Dr. Carolyn Elgin, reviewed by the landholding agencies, sanitary facilities, exact street address), Southwestern Polytechnic Institute, P.O. and each agency has transmitted to providers should contact the Box 10146, Albuquerque, NM 87184. HUD: (1) Its intention to make the appropriate landholding agencies at the Grant: $400,000. property available for use to assist the following addresses: DOT: Mr. Rugene 7. Turtle Mountain College, Dr. Gerald homeless, (2) its intention to declare the Spruill, Space Management, SVC–140, Monette, Turtle Mountain College, P.O. property excess to the agency’s needs, or Transportation Administrative Service Box 340, Belcourt, ND 58316. Grant: (3) a statement of the reasons that the Center, Department of Transportation, 399,440. property cannot be declared excess or 400 7th Street, SW., Room 2310, Dated: October 4, 2001. made available for use as facilities to Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366–4246; Lawrence L. Thompson, assist the homeless. ENERGY: Mr. Tom Knox, Department of General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Properties listed as suitable/available Energy, Office of Engineering & Development and Research. will be available exclusively for Construction Management, CR–80, [FR Doc. 01–26335 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] homeless use for a period of 60 days Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586–8715; BILLING CODE 4210–62–P from the date of this Notice. Homeless GSA: Mr.Brian K. Polly, Assistant
VerDate 11
Commissioner, General Services Unsuitable Properties Bldg. B011 Point Higgins Administration, Office of Property Buildings (by State) Disposal, 18th and F Streets, NW., Ketchikan Co: AK 99901— Alaska Landholding Agency: DOT Washington, DC 20405; (202) 501–0052; Property Number: 87200140010 INTERIOR: Ms. Linda Tribby, Bldg. V001 Point Higgins Status: Excess Acquisition & Property Management, Ketchikan Co: AK 99901– Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive Department of the Interior, 1849 C Landholding Agency: DOT deterioration Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; Property Number: 87200140001 Bldg. B012 (202) 219–0728; NAVY: Mr. Charles C. Status: Excess Point Higgins Cocks, Director, Department of the Reasons: Secured Area Ketchikan Co: AK 99901— Navy, Real Estate Policy Division, Naval Extensive deterioration Landholding Agency: DOT Facilities Engineering Command, Bldgs. T003, T004 Property Number: 87200140011 Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Point Higgins Status: Excess Reason: Secured Area, Extensive Ave., SE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC Ketchikan Co: AK 99901– Landholding Agency: DOT deterioration 20374–5065; (202) 685–9200; (These are Property Number: 87200140002 California not toll-free numbers). Status: Excess Brock Research Center Dated: October 11, 2001. Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive deterioration Range 19E John D. Garrity, Imperial Valley Co: Imperial CA Bldg. B001 Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Landholding Agency: Interior Point Higgins Programs. Property Number: 61200140001 Ketchikan Co: AK 99901– Status: Excess Title V, Federal Supplus Property Program Landholding Agency: DOT Reason: Extensive deterioration Federal Register Report for 10/19/01 Property Number: 87200140003 Status: Excess Bldg. PM7002 Suitable/Available Properties Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive Point Mugu Site Naval Base deterioration Oxnard Co: Ventura CA 93042–5000 Buildings (by State) Landholding Agency: Navy Bldg. B002 Nebraska Property Number: 77200140001 Point Higgins Status: Unutilized Ketchikan Co: AK 99901– Federal Building Reason: Extensive deterioration 1709 Jackson Landholding Agency: DOT Omaha Co: NE 68102– Property Number: 87200140004 Bldg. 1244 Marine Corps Base Landholding Agency: GSA Status: Excess Camp Pendelton Co: CA 92055— Property Number: 54200140002 Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive deterioration Landholding Agency: Navy Status: Excess Property Number: 77200140002 Bldg. B003 Comment: 6564 sq. ft., needs repair, soil to Status: Excess Point Higgins be tested, most recent use—office/storage Reason: Extensive deterioration GSA Number: GSA000 Ketchikan Co: AK 99901– Landholding Agency: DOT Bldg. 1331 Washington Property Number: 87200140005 Marine Corps Base Clarkston USARC Status: Excess Camp Pendleton Co: CA 92055— 721 Sixth St. Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive Landholding Agency: Navy Clarkston Co: Asotin WA deterioration Property Number: 77200140003 Status: Excess Landholding Agency: GSA Bldg. B004 Reason: Extensive deterioration Property Number: 54200140003 Point Higgins Status: Excess Ketchikan Co: AK 99901– Bldg. 1364 Comment: total approx. 5043 sq. ft., presence Landholding Agency: DOT Marine Corps Base of asbestos, most recent use—military Property Number: 87200140006 Camp Pendleton Co: CA 92055— reserve center/office Status: Excess Landholding Agency: Navy GSA Number: 9–D–WA–1196 Reason: Secured Area Property Number: 77200140004 Status: Excess Bldg. B006 Land (by State) Reason: Extensive deterioration Point Higgins Florida Ketchikan Co: AK 99901– Bldg. 1674 Lakeland Federal Property Landholding Agency: DOT Marine Corps Base N. Florida Ave. & Five Oaks St. Property Number: 87200140007 Camp Pendleton Co: CA 92055— Lakeland Co: Polk FL 33806– Status: Excess Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200140005 Landholding Agency: GSA Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive Status: Excess Property Number: 54200140001 deterioration Reason: Extensive deterioration Status: Surplus Bldg. B008 Comment: 2.46 acres, former commercial use, Point Higgins Bldg. 1229 environmental remediation in process Ketchikan Co: AK 99901– Marine Corps Base GSA Number: 4–G–FL–1092 Landholding Agency: DOT Camp Pendleton Co: CA 92055— Property Number: 87200140008 Landholding Agency: Navy Texas Status: Excess Property Number: 77200140006 11.8 acres Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive Status: Excess NALF Cabaniss deterioration Reason: Extensive deterioration Saratoga Blvd Bldg. B009 Bldg. 1242 Corpus Christi Co: Nueces TX 75702– Point Higgins Marine Corps Base Landholding Agency: GSA Ketchikan Co: AK 99901– Camp Pendleton Co: CA 92055— Property Number: 54200140005 Landholding Agency: DOT Landholding Agency: Navy Status: Surplus Property Number: 87200140009 Property Number: 77200140007 Comment: 11.8 acres w/security fence, most Status: Excess Status: Excess recent use—agriculture purposes Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive Reason: Extensive deterioration GSA Number: 7–N–TX–1061 deterioration Bldg. 1243
VerDate 11
Marine Corps Base Oak Ridge Co: Anderson TN 37831– track the status and trends of Camp Pendleton Co: CA 92055— Landholding Agency: Energy continental bird populations. Each Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 41200140006 spring, interested volunteers conduct 3- Property Number: 77200140008 Status: Unutilized minute point counts of birds along Status: Excess Reason: Secured Area Reason: Extensive deterioration roadsides across the United States. Data [FR Doc. 01–26025 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] can be submitted electronically via the Bldg. 1253 Marine Corps Base BILLING CODE 4210–29–M Internet or on hard copy. These data Camp Pendleton Co: CA 92055— provide an index of population Landholding Agency: Navy abundance that can be used to estimate Property Number: 77200140009 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR population trends and relative Status: Excess abundances at various geographic Reason: Extensive deterioration Geological Survey scales. Declining population trends act Oregon as an early warning system to galvanize Request for Public Comments on Bldg. 0320–00 research to determine the causes of Klamath Irrigation District Information Collection Submitted to these declines and reverse them before Klamath Falls Co: Klamath OR 97603– OMB for Review Under the Paperwork populations reach critically low levels. Landholding Agency: Interior Reduction Act The BBS currently provides population Property Number: 61200140002 The proposal for the information trend estimates for 420 bird species and Status: Unutilized raw data for more than 650 species via Reason: Extensive deterioration collection described below has been the web. South Dakota submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval under the Estimated Annual Number of Residence provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Respondents: 2500. 308 8th Ave South Estimated Annual Burden Hours: Clearlake Co: Deuel SD 57226– Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of the proposed collection of information may 12,500 hours. Landholding Agency: GSA Affected Public: Primarily U.S. be obtained by contacting the Bureau’s Property Number: 54200140004 residents. Status: Surplus clearance officer at the phone number For Further Information Contact: To Reason: Extensive deterioration listed below. OMB has up to 60 days to obtain copies of the survey, contact the GSA Number: 7–J–SD–0552 approve or disapprove the information Bureau clearance officer, U.S. Tennessee collection, but may respond after 30 Geological Survey, 807 National Center, Bldg. 81–22 days; therefore comments on the 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Y–12 National Security Complex proposal should be made directly to the Virginia, 20192, telephone (703) 648– Oak Ridge Co: Anderson TN 37831– Desk Officer for the Interior Department, 7313. Landholding Agency: Energy Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Property Number: 41200140001 Management and Budget, Washington, Dated: October 15, 2001. Status: Unutilized DC 20503; and to the Bureau Clearance Dennis B. Fenn, Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 Associate Director for Biology. deterioration National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley [FR Doc. 01–26368 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Bldg. 9409–26 Drive, Reston, Virginia, 20192, BILLING CODE 4310–Y7–M Y–12 National Security Complex Oak Ridge Co: Anderson TN 37831– telephone (703) 648–7313. Landholding Agency: Energy As required by OMB regulations at 5 Property Number: 41200140002 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the U.S. Geological DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Status: Unutilized Survey solicits specific public Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive comments as to: Geological Survey deterioration 1. Whether the collection of Request for Public Comments on Bldg. 9723–4 information is necessary for the proper Information Collection Submitted to Y–12 National Security Complex performance of the functions on the OMB for Review Under the Paperwork Oak Ridge Co: Anderson TN 37831– bureaus, including whether the Reduction Act Landholding Agency: Energy information will have practical utility; Property Number: 41200140003 2. The accuracy of the bureau’s The proposal for the information Status: Unutilized collection described below has been Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive estimate of the burden of the collection deterioration of information, including the validity of submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval under the Bldg. 9733–4 the methodology and assumptions used: Y–12 National Security Complex 3. The quality, utility, and clarity of provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Oak Ridge Co: Anderson TN 37831– the information to be collected; and Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of the Landholding Agency: Energy 4. How to minimize the burden of the proposed collection of information may Property Number: 41200140004 collection of information on those who be obtained by contacting the Bureau’s Status: Unutilized are to respond, including the use of clearance officer at the phone number Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive appropriate automated, electronic, listed below. OMB has up to 60 days to deterioration mechanical, or other forms of approve or disapprove the information 4 Bldgs. information technology. collection, but may respond after 30 Y–12 National Security Complex Title: North American Breeding Bird days; therefore comments on the Oak Ridge Co: Anderson TN 37831– proposal should be made directly to the Landholding Agency: Energy Survey. Property Number: 41200140005 Current OMB Approval Number: Desk Officer for the Interior Department, Status: Unutilized None. Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Reasons: Secured Area, Extensive Summary: The North American Management and Budget, Washington, deterioration Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a long- DC 20503; and to the Bureau Clearance Bldg. 9949–1 term, large-scale avian monitoring Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 Y–12 National Security Complex program that was initiated in 1966 to National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley
VerDate 11
Drive, Reston, Virginia, 20192, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 2. The accuracy of the BIA’s estimate telephone (703) 648–7313. of the burden of the information As required by OMB regulations at 5 Bureau of Indian Affairs collection, including the validity of the CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the U.S. Geological methodology and assumptions used; Proposed Agency Information 3. The quality, utility and clarity of Survey solicits specific public Collection Activities; Comment comments as to: the information to be collected; and, Request 4. How to minimize the burden of the 1. Whether the collection of information collection on those who are AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, information is necessary for the proper to respond, including the use of Interior. performance of the functions on the appropriate automated electronic, bureaus, including whether the ACTION: Notice of renewal. mechanical or other forms of information will have practical utility; information technology. 2. The accuracy of the bureau’s SUMMARY: This notice announces that estimate of the burden of the collection the Information Collection Request for III. Data of information, including the validity of the Indian Service Population and Labor Title of the Collection of Information: the methodology and assumptions used: Force Estimates, OMB No. 1076–0147, Department of the Interior, Bureau of requires renewal. The Bureau of Indian 3. The quality, utility, and clarity of Indian Affairs, Indian Service Affairs (BIA) in accordance with the the information to be collected; and Population and Labor Force Estimates. Paperwork Reduction Act is soliciting 4. How to minimize the burden of the OMB Number: 1076–0147. comments on the proposed information Affected Entities: American Indians collection of information on those who collection. and Alaska Natives, members and non- are to respond, including the use of DATES: Submit comments on or before members, who are living on or near the appropriate automated, electronic, December 18, 2001. tribe’s defined service area and who are mechanical, or other forms of eligible for Bureau of Indian Affairs information technology. ADDRESSES: Your comments and suggestions on the requirements should services. Title: North American Amphibian Frequency of Response: Biennially. Monitoring Program. be made directly to Mr. Harry Rainbolt, Budget Officer, Office of Tribal Services, Estimated Number of Biennial Current OMB Approval Number: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Responses: 561. Estimated Time per Response: 1⁄2 None. the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., MS– hour. Summary: The North American 4660–MIB, Washington, DC 20240. Amphibian Monitoring Program Estimated Total Annual Burden Telephone (202) 208–3463. Hours: 140 hours annually. (NAAMP) is long-term, large-scale FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: October 4, 2001. anuran monitoring program to track the Copies of the documents contained in status and trends of eastern and central the information collection request may Neal A. McCaleb, North American frogs and toads. be obtained by contacting Mr. Harry Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. Volunteers conduct calling surveys of Rainbolt at (202) 208–3463. [FR Doc. 01–26445 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] frogs and toads three to four times per BILLING CODE 4310–02–P year, depending on the regional species SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: assemblage. Volunteers listen for 5 I. Abstract minutes at 10 stops along the route. Data DEPARTMENT OF LABOR are submitted electronically via the The information is mandated by Congress through Public Law 102–477, Internet or on hard copy. These data Office of the Secretary will be used to estimate population Indian Employment, Training and trends at various geographic scales. Related Services Demonstration Act of Submission for OMB Review; Declining population trends can act as 1992, section 17. The Act requires the Comment Request an early warning system to galvanize Secretary to develop, maintain and research to determine the causes of publish, not less than biennially, a October 11, 2001. these declines and reverse them before report on the population by gender, The Department of Labor (DOL) has populations reach critically low levels. income level, age, service area, and submitted the following public availability for work. The information is information collection requests (ICRs) to Estimated Annual Number of used by the U.S. Congress, other Federal the Office of Management and Budget Respondents: 100. agencies, State and local governments (OMB) for review and approval in Estimated Annual Burden Hours: and private sectors for the purpose of accordance with the Paperwork 7,000 hours. developing programs, planning, and to Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, Affected Public: Primarily U.S. award financial assistance to American 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this residents. Indians. An agency may not conduct or ICR, with applicable supporting For Further Information Contact: To sponsor, nor is any person required to documentation, may be obtained by obtain copies of the survey, contact the respond to a collection of information calling the Department of Labor. To Bureau clearance officer, U.S. unless it displays a currently valid OMB obtain documentation contact Darrin Geological Survey, 807 National Center, control number. King at (202) 693–4129 or E-Mail: King- [email protected]. 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, II. Request for Comments Virginia, 20192, telephone (703) 648– Comments should be sent to Office of 7313. We specifically request your Information and Regulatory Affairs, comments on the following: Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office Dated: October 15, 2001. 1. Whether the collection of of Management and Budget, Room Dennis B. Fenn, information is necessary for the proper 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) Associate Director for Biology. performance of the functions of the BIA, 395–7316), within 30 days from the date [FR Doc. 01–26369 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] including whether the information will of this publication in the Federal BILLING CODE 4310–Y7–M have practical utility; Register.
VerDate 11
The OMB is particularly interested in Total Annual Costs (operating/ Comments should be sent to Office of comments which: maintaining systems or purchasing Information and Regulatory Affairs, • Evaluate whether the proposed services): $0. Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office collection of information is necessary Description: The data collected on the of Management and Budget, Room for the proper performance of the Form ETA–586 are authorized by 20 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) functions of the agency, including CFR Part 616 and Section 303(a)(6) of 395–7316), within 30 days from the date whether the information will have the Social Security Act. The ETA–586 of this publication in the Federal practical utility; report provides the Secretary of Labor Register. • Evaluate the accuracy of the with information necessary to measure The OMB is particularly interested in agency’s estimate of the burden of the the scope and effect of the program for comments which: • proposed collection of information, combining employment and wages and Evaluate whether the proposed including the validity of the to monitor the performance of each collection of information is necessary methodology and assumptions used; State in responding to wage transfer for the proper performance of the • Enhance the quality, utility, and requests and the payment of benefits. functions of the agency, including clarity of the information to be whether the information will have collected; and Ira L. Mills, practical utility; • • Minimize the burden of the Departmental Clearance Officer. Evaluate the accuracy of the collection of information on those who [FR Doc. 01–26343 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] agency’s estimate of the burden of the are to respond, including through the BILLING CODE 4510–30–M proposed collection of information, use of appropriate automated, including the validity of the electronic, mechanical, or other methodology and assumptions used; • technological collection techniques or DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Enhance the quality, utility, and other forms of information technology, clarity of the information to be e.g., permitting electronic submission of Office of the Secretary collected; and • responses. Minimize the burden of the Submission or OMB Review; Comment Agency: Employment and Training collection of information on those who Request Administration (ETA). are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, Type of Review: Extension of a October 11, 2001. currently approved collection. electronic, mechanical, or other The Department of Labor (DOL) has technological collection techniques or Title: Interstate Arrangement for submitted the following public other forms of information technology, Combining Employment and Wages. information collection requests (ICRs) to e.g., permitting electronic submission of OMB Number: 1205–0029. the Office of Management and Budget responses. Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal (OMB) for review and approval in Type of Review: New collection. Government. accordance with the Paperwork Agency: Employment and Training Frequency: Quarterly. Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, Administration (ETA). Number of Respondents: 53. 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this Title: Unemployment Insurance Data Number of Annual Responses: 212. ICR, with applicable supporting Validation Program. Estimated Time Per Response: 4 documentation, may be obtained by OMB Number: 1205–ONEW. hours. calling the Department of Labor. To Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Total Burden Hours: 848. obtain documentation contact Darrin Government; Federal Government. Total Annualized Capital/Startup King at (202) 693–4129 or E-Mail: King- Number of Respondents: 53. Costs: $0. [email protected]. Type of Response: Reporting.
Number of an- Estimated time Requirement nual re- Frequency per response Annual burden sponses (hours) hours.
Full Data Validation ...... 18 Every 3 years ...... 1,600 28,267 Partial Data Validation 1 ...... 12 Annually ...... 160 1,920
Totals ...... 30 ...... 30,187 1 Partial data validation only occurs in years when full data validation is not conducted.
Total Annualized Capital/Startup used to assess performance or determine DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Costs: $3,525,000. State grants for UI administration. Office of the Secretary Total Annual Costs (operating/ Ira L. Mills, maintaining systems of purchasing Departmental Clearance Officer. Submission for OMB Review; services): $873,612. [FR Doc. 01–26344 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Comment Request Description: In accordance with BILLING CODE 4510–30–M Section 303(a)(6) of the Social Security October 10, 2001. Act, The Unemployment Insurance Data The Department of Labor (DOL) has Validation Program would require submitted the following public States to implement and operate a information collection requests (ICRs) to system for ascertaining the validity of the Office of Management and Budget unemployment insurance data they (OMB) for review and approval in submit to ESA. Some of these date are accordance with the Paperwork
VerDate 11
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, years (to age 23) if the dependent Conclusion 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each qualifies as a student as defined in After careful consideration of the new individual ICR, with applicable section 2(18) of the Act. facts obtained on reconsideration, it is supporting documentation, may be The information collected from Form concluded that the workers of Arka obtained by calling the Department of LS–266 is used by OWCP to assure that Knitwear, Ridgewood, New York, were Labor. To obtain documentation contact a claimant receives all of the benefits adversely affected by increased imports Marlene Howze at (202) 219–8904 or under the Act to which he/she may be (including those from Mexico) of Email [email protected]. entitled. If the information were not articles like or directly competitive with Comments should be sent to Office of collected, there would be no way to sweaters produced at the subject firm. Information and Regulatory Affairs, determine the proper status of a student Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ESA, Office and his/her continued entitlement to ‘‘All workers of Arka Knitwear, Ridgewood, New York, who became totally of Management and Budget, Room benefits. or partially separated from employment on or 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) Ira L. Mills, after January 12, 2000, through two years 395–7316), within 30 days from the date from the date of certification, are eligible to Departmental Clearance Officer. of this publication in the Federal apply for NAFTA–TAA under Section 250 of Register. [FR Doc. 01–26345 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] the Trade Act of 1974;’’ and The OMB is particularly interested in BILLING CODE 4510–27–M ‘‘All workers of Arka Knitwear, comments which: Ridgewood, New York, who became totally • Evaluate whether the proposed or partially separated from employment on or collection of information is necessary DEPARTMENT OF LABOR after January 12, 2000, through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to for the proper performance of the Employment and Training apply for adjustment assistance under functions of the agency, including Administration Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.’’ whether the information will have practical utility; [NAFTA–4461 and TA–W–38,601] Signed at Washington, DC this 28th day of • Evaluate the accuracy of the September 2001. agency’s estimate of the burden of the Arka Knitwear, Ridgewood, NY; Notice Linda G. Poole, proposed collection of information, of Revised Determination on Certifying Officer, Division of Trade including the validity of the Reconsideration Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 01–26357 Filed 10–18–01 8:45 am] methodology and assumptions used; By letter of April 15, 2001, the • Enhance the quality, utility, and BILLING CODE 4510–30–M company official requested clarity of the information to be administrative reconsideration of the collected; and minimize the burden of Department’s denial of North American the collection of information on those DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Free Trade Agreement—Transitional who are to respond, including through Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA–TAA) Employment and Training the use of appropriate automated, and Trade Adjustment Assistance Administration electronic, mechanical, or other (TAA), applicable to workers of Arka technological collection techniques or Knitwear, Ridgewood, New York, The Notice of Determinations Regarding other forms of information technology, notice were published in the Federal Eligibility To Apply for Worker e.g., permitting electronic submission of Register on April 16, 2001, NAFTA– Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA responses. 4461 (66 FR 19522), and TA–W–38,601 Transitional Adjustment Assistance Type of Review: Extension of a (66 FR 19520). currently approved collection. In accordance with Section 223 of the Agency: Employment Standards The workers are primarily engaged in Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Administration (ESA). the production of sweaters. Department of Labor herein presents Title: Application for Continuation of The workers were denied NAFTA– summaries of determinations regarding Death Benefit for Student. TAA on the basis that there was no shift eligibility to apply for trade adjustment OMB Number: 1215–0073. in production to Mexico or Canada, nor assistance for workers (TA–W) issued Affected Public: Individuals or were there company or customer during the period of September and households and Business or other for- imports of sweaters from Mexico or October, 2001. profit. Canada. The workers were denied TAA In order for an affirmative Frequency: On Occasion. because the ‘‘contributed importantly’’ determination to be made and a Number of Respondents: 43. test of the Group Eligibility certification of eligibility to apply for Number of Annual Responses: 43. Requirements of the Trade Act was not worker adjustment assistance to be Estimated Time Per Response: 30 met. issued, each of the group eligibility minutes. The company has presented requirements of Section 222 of the Act Total Burden Hours: 22. documents from major declining must be met. Total Annualized Capital/Startup customers of the subject firm. This (1) That a significant number or Costs: $0. evidence shows that these customers proportion of the workers in the Total Annual Costs (operating/ stopped purchasing sweaters from the workers’ firm, or an appropriate maintaining systems or purchasing subject firm and began using Mexico subdivision thereof, have become totally services): $0. and other countries to source their or partially separated, Description: The Office of Workers’ sweater purchases. (2) That sales or production, or both, Compensation Programs (OWCP) An examination of trade data for of the firm or subdivision have administers the Longshore and Harbor women’s and girls’ sweaters reveals that decreased absolutely, and Workers’ Compensation Act. This Act from 1999 to 200, aggregate U.S. imports (3) That increases of imports of was amended on October 27, 1972, to increased absolutely and relative to articles like or directly competitive with provide for continuation of death domestic shipments. In 2000, the articles produced by the firm or benefits for a child or certain other import/shipments ratio exceeded 200 appropriate subdivision have surviving dependents after the age of 18 percent. contributed importantly to the
VerDate 11
separations, or threat thereof, and to the The investigation revealed that TA–W–39,827; Southeast Mat Co., absolute decline in sales or production. criteria (1) and (3) have not been met. Crossville, TN: July 30, 2000. A significant number or proportion of TA–W–39,847; United Tool and Die, Negative Determinations for Workers the workers did not become totally or Inc., Meadville, PA July 30, 2000. Adjustment Assistance partially separated from employment as TA–W–39,198 & A; Stanley Mechanics In each of the following cases the required for certification. Increased Tools, Dallas, TX and Wichita Falls, investigation revealed that criterion (3) imports did not contribute importantly TX: March 14, 2000. has not been met. A survey of customers to worker separations at the firm. TA–W–39,515; Teledyne Technologies, indicated that increased imports did not TA–W–39,162; ME International, Inc., Teledyne Relays, Hawthorne, CA: contribute importantly to worker Duluth, MN June 4, 2000. TA–W–39,976; VF Imagewear (West), separations at the firm. The investigation revealed that Inc., Harriman, TN: August 22, TA–W–39,813A & B; Greenwood Mills, criteria (2) and (3) have not been met. 2000. Inc., Chalmers Plant, Greenwood, Sales or production did not decline SC and Greenwood Mills, Inc., TA–W–39,823; Louisville/Saydah Home during the relevant period as required Fashions, Eminence, KY: July 11, Lindale Manufacturing, Lindale, GA for certification. Increased imports did TA–W–39,708; Globe Metallurgical, 2000. not contribute importantly to worker TA–W–39,752; Sola Optical USA, Inc., Springfield, OR separations at the firm. TA–W–39,016; Wabash Alloys LLC, Oak Eldon, MO: July 20, 2000. TA–W–39,109; Alcoa, Inc., St. Lawrence Creek, WI TA–W–39,821; Clifton Walls Industries, Plant, Massena, NY TA–W–38,103; Sierra Pine Limited, Inc., Clifton, TX: July 24, 2000. Springfield Particleboard Div., Affirmative Determinations for Worker TA–W–39,731; Matsushita Refrigeration Springfield, OR Adjustment Assistance Company of America, Vonore, TN: TA–W–39,237; International Paper, July 16, 2000. The following certifications have been Also, pursuant to Title V of the North Sheet Plant, Tupelo, MS issued; the date following the company TA–W–39,648; Greg Stout Logging, Inc., American Free Trade Agreement name and location of each Implementation Act (P.L. 103–182) Gold Hill, OR determination references the impact TA–W–39,687; Ohio Industries, Bucyrus, concerning transitional adjustment date for all workers of such OH assistance hereinafter called (NAFTA– determination. TA–W–39,394; Pittsburgh Gear Works, TAA) and in accordance with Section Inc., Pittsburgh, PA TA–W–39,822; Sweetwater Walls 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, TA–W–39,621; Franklyn Industries, div. Industries, Inc., Sweetwater, TX: of the Trade Act as amended, the of the Merrow Machine Co., Inc., July 24, 2000. Department of Labor presents Lavonia, GA TA–W–39,273; United States Steel LLC, summaries of determinations regarding Fairless Hills, PA: May 4, 2000. In the following cases, the eligibility to apply for NAFTA–TAA TA–W–38,764; Brown Wooten Mills, issued during the month of September investigation revealed that the criteria Inc., Ballston Plant, Mt. Airy, NC: for eligibility have not been met for the and October, 2001. February 1, 2000. In order for an affirmative reasons specified. TA–W–39,712; Signet Armorlite, Inc., Increased imports did not contribute determination to be made and a San Marcos, CA: July 17, 2000. certification of eligibility to apply for importantly to worker separations at the TA–W–38,880; Cooper Energy Services, NAFTA–TAA the following group firm. Ajax-Superior Div., Springfield, OH: eligibility requirements of Section 250 TA–W–39,978; Hein-Werner, Snap-On, March 6, 2000. Inc., Barboo, WI TA–W–39,607; UniFirst Corp., of the Trade Act must be met: (1) That a significant number or TA–W–39,798; Friedrich & Dimmock, Wilburton, OK: June 18, 2000. Inc., Millville, NJ TA–W–39,368; Siemens Automotive proportion of the workers in the TA–W–39,709; Gemtron Corp., Corp., Safety Electronics Div., workers’ firm, or an appropriate Clarksville, TN Johnson City, TN: May 18, 2000. subdivision thereof, (including workers TA–W–39,392; Aavid Thermalloy LLC, TA–W–39,820; Tyco Electronics, in any agricultural firm or appropriate Dallas, TX Shrewsbury Molding Plant, subdivision thereof) have become totally TA–W–39,165; E.C.I. Sportswear, Inc., Shrewsbury, PA: July 24, 2000. or partially separated from employment New Bedford, MA TA–W–39,728; Graphic Controls, Cherry and either— (2) That sales or production, or both, The workers firm does not produce an Hill Facility, Including Temporary of such firm or subdivision have article as required for certification under Workers of Kaye Personnel, Inc., decreased absolutely. Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Cherry Hill, NJ: July 10, 2000. TA–W–39,943; Realco Diversified, Inc., (3) That imports from Mexico or TA–W–39,970; KOA Speer Electronics, Canada of articles like or directly Inc., Bradford, PA Meadville, PA: August 14, 2000. TA–W–39,783; Plasticsource, Inc., Kelly competitive with articles produced by TA–W–40,026; American DeRosa Lamp Staff Leasing, El Paso, TX: July 26, such firm or subdivision have increased, Parts, Commerce, CA and that the increases imports TA–W–39,161; Almond International, 2000. TA–W–39,445; Thomason Multimedia, contributed importantly to such Westbury, NY Inc., ATO Division, Dunmore, PA workers’ separations or threat of The investigation revealed that May 16, 2000. separation and to the decline in sales or criteria (2) has not been met. Sales or TA–W–39,813; Greenwood Mills, Inc., production of such firm or subdivision; production did not decline during the Executive Office, Greenwood, SC: or relevant period as required for August 1, 2000 (4) That there has been a shift in certification. TA–W–39,813C; Greenwood Mills, Inc., production by such workers’ firm or TA–W–39,848; Trane Co., A Division of Aquatech Manufacturing, Inc., subdivision to Mexico or Canada of American Standard, LaCrosse, WI. Cookeville, TN: November 11, 2001. articles like or directly competitive with TA–W–39,669; Conneaut Industries, TA–W–39,953; Zexel Valeo Compressor articles which are produced by the firm Inc., West Greenwich, RI USA, Decatur, IL: August 17, 2000. or subdivision.
VerDate 11
Negative Determinations NAFTA–TAA NAFTA–TAA–05132; Gemtron Corp., negative determination regarding In each of the following cases the Clarksville, TN: July 17, 2000. eligibility for workers and former investigation revealed that criteria (3) I hereby certify that the workers of the subject firm to apply for and (4) were not met. Imports from aforementioned determinations were Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Canada or Mexico did not contribute issued during the month of September under petition TA–W–39,069 and North importantly to workers’ separations. and October, 2001. Copies of these American Free Trade Agreement- There was no shift in production from determinations are available for Transitional Adjustment Assistance the subject firm to Canada or Mexico inspection in Room C–5311, U.S. (NAFTA–TAA) under NAFTA–4632. during the relevant period. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution The denial notices applicable to workers of Rosboro Lumber Company, Mill A, NAFTA–TAA–05261; Hein-Werner, Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be Springfield, Oregon, were signed on Snap-On, Inc., Braboo, WI April 30, 2001 (TA–W–39,069), and NAFTA–TAA–04822; ME International, mailed to persons who write to the above address. April 19, 2001 (NAFTA–6432) and Inc., Duluth, MN published in the Federal Register on NAFTA–TAA–05176; Greenwood Mills, Dated: October 12, 2001. Mau 18, 2001 (66 FR 27690) and May Lindale Manufacturing Co., Lindale, Edward A. Tomchick, 3, 2001 (66 FR 22262), respectively. GA Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) NAFTA–TAA–05163; Tyco Electronics, Assistance. reconsideration may be granted under Fiber Optics Div., Glen Rock, PA [FR Doc. 01–26349 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] the following circumstances: NAFTA–TAA–05053; Greg Stout BILLING CODE 4510–30–M (1) If its appears on the basis of facts Logging, Inc., Gold Hill, OR not previously considered that the NAFTA–TAA–05201; AC Enterprises determination complained of was Construction and Fab, Inc., Fargo, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR erroneous; ND (2) If it appears that the determination NAFTA–TAA–04761; Sierra Pine Employment and Training complained of was based on a mistake Limited, Springfield Particleboard Administration in the determination of facts not Div., Springfield, OR [TA–W–39,449 and NAFTA–04386] previously considered; or The workers firm does not produce an (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying article as required for certification under Hasbro Manufacturing Services, El Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Paso, TX; Dismissal of Application for the law justified reconsideration of the NAFTA–TAA–05340; Qwest Wireless, Reconsideration decision. Wireless Customer Care Center, The TAA petition, filed on behalf of Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an Denver, CO workers at Rosboro Limber Company, application for administrative Mill A, Springfield, Oregon, producing Affirmative Determinations NAFTA– reconsideration was filed with the softwood dimension lumber (primary TAA Director of the Division of Trade product produced at the plant), was NAFTA–TAA–05209; Layne Adjustment Assistance for workers at denied because the ‘‘contributed Christensen, Christensen Mining Hasbro Manufacturing Services, El Paso, importantly’’ group eligibility Products, Salt Lake City, UT: Texas. The application contained no requirement of Section 222(3) of the August 8, 2000. new substantial information which Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not NAFTA–TAA–05193; Micro Motion, would bear importantly on the met. The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test Inc., Boulder, CO: August 7, 2000. Department’s determination. Therefore, is generally demonstrated through a NAFTA–TAA–05182; Sweetwater Walls dismissal of the application was issued. survey of the workers’ firm’s customers. Industries, Inc., Sweetwater, TX July TA–W–39,449 and NAFTA–04386; The survey revealed no increased 24, 2000 Hasbro Manufacturing Services, El customer imports of softwood NAFTA–TAA–05205; Signet Armorlite, Paso, Texas (October 5, 2001) dimension lumber during the relevant Inc., San Marcos, CA: July 17, 2000. Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of period. The investigation further NAFTA–TAA–05056; Bike Athletic Co., October, 2001. revealed that the subject company did Mountain City, TN: July 9, 2000. Edward A. Tomchick, not import softwood dimensional NAFTA–TAA–04887; Siemens Director, Division of Trade Adjustment lumber during the relevant period. Automotive Corp., Safety Assistance. The NATA–TAA petition for the same Electronics Div., Johnson City, TN: [FR Doc. 01–26350 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] worker group was denied because May 9, 2000. criteria (3) and (4) of the group BILLING CODE 4510–30–M NAFTA–TAA–05100; International eligibility requirements in paragraph Components Technology Corp., San (a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act, Jose, CA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR as amended, were not met. A surveys NAFTA–TAA–05263; VF Imagewear was conducted and revealed that (West), Inc., Harriman, TN: August Employment and Training customers did not increase their imports 22, 2000. Administration of softwood dimensional lumber from NAFTA–TAA–04992; Teledyne Mexico or Canada during the relevant Technologies, Teledyne Relays, [TA–W–39,069 and NAFTA–04632] period. The subject firm did not import Hawthorne, CA: June 4, 2000. Rosboro Lumber Company, Mill A, softwood dimensional limber from NAFTA–TAA–05239; Rundel Products, Springfield, OR; Notice of Negative Mexico or Canada, nor was production Inc., Portland, OR: August 22, 2000. Determination Regarding Application of softwood dimensional lumber shifted NAFTA–TAA–05181; Clifton Walls for Reconsideration from the workers’ firm to Mexico or Industries, Inc., Clifton, TX: July 24, Canada. 2000. By application of May 1, 2001, the The petitioner alleges that the mill NAFTA–TAA–05138; Power One, petitioner requested administrative produced another product (lam-stock) Allston, MA: July 18, 2000. reconsideration of the Department’s and that product was being imported by
VerDate 11
the mill from Canada to the United of sufficient weight to justify further indicates that veneer core States. Although the mill produced lam- reconsideration of the Department of production decreased at the subject stock (considered dimensional lumber Labor’s prior decision. The application plant. The original determinations were of a higher quality) it accounted for a is, therefore, granted. based on the workers engaged in very low portion of mill production. Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of activities related to the production of The company reported importing lam- September, 2001. plywood and workers not being stock from Canada during the relevant Edward A. Tomchick, separately identifiable at the subject period. However, since the workers are Director, Division of Trade Adjustment plant. Upon examination of the request not separately identifiable at the mill by Assistance. it has become apparent that the workers dimensional lumber type and the [FR Doc. 01–26356 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] engaged in the production of veneer overwhelming majority of softwood BILLING CODE 4510–30–M core (which is integrated into plywood dimensional lumber is of a different production at the subject plant) are grade, the imports of lam-stock can not separately identifiable from the workers be considered a major contributing DEPARTMENT OF LABOR factor to the layoffs at the subject plant. producing plywood. Also, layoffs within Employment and Training the worker group producing veneer core Conclusion Administration are significant. The review further After review of the application and reveals that the plant decreased their investigative findings, I conclude that [NAFTA–4631 and TA–W–38,855] veneer core production, while there has been no error or Willamette Industries, Inc., Foster increasing their imports of veneer core misinterpretation of the law or of the Plywood Division, Sweet Home, OR; from Canada during the relevant period. facts which would justify Notice of Revised Determination on Conclusion reconsideration of the Department of Reconsideration Labor’s prior decisions. Accordingly, After careful consideration of the new By letter (postmark) of May 22, 2001, the application is denied. facts obtained on reconsideration, it is the International Association of Signed at Washington, D.C., this 4th day of concluded that increased imports of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, October, 2001. veneer core, including imports from Edward A. Tomchick, Woodworkers (IAMAW), Local Lodge W246, requested administrative Canada, contributed importantly to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment decline in production and to the total or Assistance. reconsideration of the Department’s denial of North American Free Trade partial separation of workers at [FR Doc. 01–26359 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Agreement—Transitional Adjustment Willamette Industries, Inc., Foster BILLING CODE 4510–30–M Assistance (NAFTA–TAA) and Trade Plywood Division, Sweet Home, Adjustment Assistance (TAA), Oregon. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR applicable to workers of Willamette Industries, Inc., Foster Plywood following revised determination: Employment and Training Division, Sweet Home, Oregon. The ‘‘Workers engaged in the production of Administration notices were published in the Federal veneer core at Willamette Industries, Inc., Register on May 2, 2001, NAFTA–4631 [TA–W–38,693 and NAFTA–04514] Foster Plywood Division, Sweet Home, (66 FR 22007), and TA–W–38,855 (66 Oregon, who became totally or partially Summit Timber Company Darrington, FR 22006). separated from employment on or after The workers at the subject firm WA, Notice of Affirmative March 1, 2000, through two years from the engaged in activities related to the Determination Regarding Application date of certification, are eligible to apply for production of plywood were denied for Reconsideration NAFTA–TAA under Section 250 of the Trade NAFTA–TAA because criteria (1) and Act of 1974;’’ and By letter of May 14, 2001, the (2) of the group eligibility requirements ‘‘Workers engaged in the production of company requested administrative of paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the veneer core at Willamette Industries, Inc., reconsideration of the Department’s Trade Act of 1974, as amended, were Foster Plywood Division, Sweet Home, negative determination regarding not met. The number of workers Oregon, who became totally or partially eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment separated did not account for a separated from employment on or after Assistance (TAA) and North American significant portion of total workers at March 1, 2000, through two years from the Free Trade Agreement-Transitional the subject firm and there were no date of certification, are eligible to apply for Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA–TAA), declines in sales or production of adjustment assistance under Section 223 of applicable to workers and former plywood at the subject firm. the Trade Act of 1974.’’ workers of the subject firm. The denial The same worker group was denied TAA because criteria (1) and (2) of the Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of notices were signed on April 6, 2001, September 2001. and were published in the Federal group eligibility requirements of Section Register on May 2, 2001 (66 FR 22006) 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as Edward A. Tomchick, and (66 FR 22007), respectively. amended, was not met. The number of Director, Division of Trade Adjustment The company supplied an additional workers separated did not account for a Assistance. list of customers which was not significant portion of total workers at [FR Doc. 01–26355 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] supplied during the initial investigation. the subject firm and there were no BILLING CODE 4510–30–M The company believes these customers declines in sales or production of may be importing softwood lumber plywood at the subject firm. during the relevant period. The request for reconsideration indicates that the worker group Conclusion impacted at the subject plant were After careful review of the engaged in activities related to the application, I conclude that the claim is production of veneer core. The request
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR services from a parent or controlling DEPARTMENT OF LABOR firm or subdivision whose workers Employment and Training produce an article and who are Employment and Training Administration currently under a certification for TAA. Administration [TA–W–38,636] Conclusion Investigations Regarding Certifications Cookson Pigments, Inc., Newark, NJ; of Eligibility To Apply for Worker After review of the application and Adjustment Assistance Notice of Negative Determination investigative findings, I conclude that Regarding Application for there has been no error or Petitions have been filed with the Reconsideration misinterpretation of the law or of the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) By application of April 18, 2001, the facts which would justify of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and company requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of are identified in the Appendix to this reconsideration of the Department’s Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, negative determination regarding application is denied. the Director of the Division of Trade eligibility for workers and former Adjustment Assistance, Employment Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of and Training Administration, has workers of the subject firm to apply for September 2001. Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). instituted investigations pursuant to Edward A. Tomchick, The denial notice applicable to workers Section 221(a) of the Act. of Cookson Pigments, Inc., Newark, New Director, Division of Trade Adjustment The purpose of each of the Jersey, was issued on March 12, 2001, Assistance. investigations is to determine whether and was published in the Federal [FR Doc. 01–26363 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] the workers are eligible to apply for Register on April 16, 2001 (66 FR BILLING CODE 4510–30–M adjustment assistance under Title II, 19520). Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) will further relate, as appropriate, to the reconsideration may be granted under DEPARTMENT OF LABOR determination of the date on which total the following circumstances: or partial separations began or (1) If it appears on the basis of facts Employment and Training threatened to begin and the subdivision not previously considered that the Administration of the firm involved. determination complained of was The petitioners or any other persons erroneous; [TA–W–39,887] showing a substantial interest in the (2) If it appears that the determination subject matter of the investigations may complained of was based on a mistake Huntsman Polymers, Odessa, TX; request a public hearing, provided such in the determination of facts not Notice of Termination of Investigation request is filed in writing with the previously considered; or Director, Division of Trade Adjustment (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Assistance, at the address shown below, Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of Act of 1974, an investigation was not later than October 29, 2001. the law justified reconsideration of the initiated on August 27, 2001, in Interested persons are invited to decision. response to a petition filed on behalf of submit written comments regarding the The petitioner request states that the workers at Huntsman Polymers, Odessa, subject matter of the investigations to worker were retained for the purpose of Texas. the Director, Division of Trade decommissioning and the demolition of Adjustment Assistance, at the address Petition TA–W–39,887 is a duplicate shown below, not later than October 29, the subject facility. The petitioner of a previous petition (TA–W–39,780), requests Trade Adjustment Assistance 2001. which was certified on August 29, 2001. eligibility for the worker group based on The petitions filed in this case are Consequently, further investigation in the initial Trade Adjustment Assistance available for inspection at the Office of certification which expired on June 6, this case would serve no purpose, and the Director, Division of Trade 1999. Production ceased at the subject the investigation has been terminated. Adjustment Assistance, Employment plant during October 1998. The workers Signed in Washington, DC, this 19th day of and Training Administration, U.S. have not produced a product since October, 2001. Department of Labor, Room C–5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, October 1998, and therefore, are Linda G. Poole, DC 20210. considered to be performing a service Certifying Officer, Division of Trade during the relevant period. Adjustment Assistance. Signed at Washington, DC this 17th day of September, 2001. Only in very limited instances are [FR Doc. 01–26353 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] service workers certified for TAA, Edward A. Tomchick, BILLING CODE 4510–30–M namely for worker separations must be Director, Division of Trade Adjustment caused by a reduced demand for their Assistance.
APPENDIX [Petitions instituted on 09/17/2001]
Subject firm Date of peti- TA–W (petitioners) Location tion Product(s)
39,996 ...... PixTech, Inc. (Co.) ...... Boise, ID ...... 08/29/2001 Flat and Panel Displays. 39,997 ...... Keokuk Ferro-Sil, Inc. (Co.) ...... Keokuk, IA ...... 08/23/2001 Ferrosilion. 39,998 ...... Cook Technologies, Inc. (Co.) ...... Green Lane, PA ...... 08/23/2001 Welded Parts for Electric Carts. 39,999 ...... Gerber Childrenswear (Co.) ...... Pelzer, SC ...... 08/20/2001 Children’s Bed and Bath Products. 40,000 ...... Brother Industries USA (Co.) ...... Bartlett, TN ...... 08/20/2001 Typewriter Assemblies.
VerDate 11
APPENDIX—Continued [Petitions instituted on 09/17/2001]
Subject firm Date of peti- TA–W (petitioners) Location tion Product(s)
40,001 ...... Crowe Rope Industries (Co.) ...... Searsmont, ME ...... 08/29/2001 Twine and Small Rope. 40,002 ...... PDS Railcar Services (BRTIU) ...... Port Huron, MI ...... 08/27/2001 Repair & Maintain Railroad Cars. 40,003 ...... HPM Corp./HPM Remanufact (IAMAW) Mt. Gilead, OH ...... 08/21/2001 Injection Molding Machines. 40,004 ...... Baldor Motors and Drives (Wrks) ...... Plymouth, MN ...... 08/23/2001 Electric AC and DC Drives. 40,005 ...... SDK Knitting, Inc. (Co.) ...... Schaefferstown, PA ...... 08/25/2001 Commission Knitting/Fabric. 40,006 ...... Planar Systems, Inc. (Wrks) ...... Lake Mills, WI ...... 08/23/2001 Liquid Crystal Displays. 40,007 ...... Desa International (Wrks) ...... Shelbyville, TN ...... 08/27/2001 Sheet Metal Fireplaces. 40,008 ...... Summit Circuits, Inc. (UFCW) ...... Fort Wayne, IN ...... 08/28/2001 Printed Circuit Boards. 40,009 ...... JC Surrey 2001, Inc. (Wrks) ...... Leander, TX ...... 08/24/2001 Luxury Glycerin Soaps. 40,010 ...... Seville Dyeing Co., Inc. (Wrks) ...... Woonsocket, RI ...... 08/24/2001 Textile Processing. 40,011 ...... Cliffs Mining Service (Wrks) ...... Hibbing, MN ...... 08/16/2001 Taconite Mining. 40,012 ...... Forsheda Engineered Seals (Co.) ...... Vandalia, IL ...... 08/27/2001 Automotive Gaskets. 40,013 ...... Crompton Colors, Inc. (Co.) ...... Newark, NJ ...... 08/27/2001 Organic Dyes and Intermediates. 40,014 ...... MECO Corp. (Wrks) ...... Greeneville, TN ...... 08/26/2001 Metal Folding Furniture. 40,015 ...... Versatile Mold and Design (Co.) ...... Rutledge, GA ...... 08/28/2001 Molds for Plastic Industry. 40,016 ...... AVX Corp. (Wrks) ...... Myrtle Beach, SC ...... 08/28/2001 Electrical Capacitors. 40,017 ...... UniFirst Corp (Co.) ...... Cave City, AR ...... 08/28/2001 Apparel. 40,018 ...... Trailmobile Trailer LLC (Wrks) ...... Liberal, KS ...... 08/28/2001 Dry Freight and Refrigerated Trailers. 40,019 ...... Carolina Mills, Inc. (Co.) ...... Gastonia, NC ...... 08/29/2001 Textile Yarns. 40,020 ...... Continental Fabric, Inc (Co.) ...... Gloversville, NY ...... 08/29/2001 Fabrics. 40,021 ...... Alba-Waldensian, Inc. (Co.) ...... Rutherfordton, NC ...... 08/27/2001 Knitted Intimate Apparel. 40,022 ...... Anderson Greenwood/Tyco (UAW) ...... Wrentham, MA ...... 08/29/2001 Pressure Relief Valves. 40,023 ...... Nation Ford Chemical Co. (Wrks) ...... Fort Mill, SC ...... 08/27/2001 Synthetic Organic Chemicals. 40,024 ...... Phillips-Van Heusen (Co.) ...... Ozark, AL ...... 08/28/2001 Men’s Dress Shirts. 40,025 ...... Bramton Co. (The) (Wrks) ...... Dallas, TX ...... 08/20/2001 Cloth Pet Products. 40,026 ...... American De Rosa Lamp (Wrks) ...... Commerce, CA ...... 08/27/2001 Warehousing & Distribution of Lamp Parts. 40,027 ...... Hayward Pool Products (Co.) ...... Kings Mountain, NC ...... 08/30/2001 Pool Products. 40,028 ...... Story and Clark Piano Co. (Wrks) ...... Seneca, PA ...... 08/30/2001 Pianos—Upright and Grand. 40,029 ...... Jackson Precision Diecast (Co.) ...... Jackson, MI ...... 08/22/2001 Transmission Bushing, Dies. 40,030 ...... Brown and Sharpe (Wrks) ...... No. Kingstown, RI ...... 08/31/2001 Coordinate Measuring Machines. 40,031 ...... Laclede Steel (Wrks) ...... Vandalia, IL ...... 08/28/2001 Pipe and Conduit. 40,032 ...... Laclede Steel (USWA) ...... Alton, IL ...... 08/29/2001 Semi-Finished Tubular, Bar. 40,033 ...... Kraft Foods (Wrks) ...... Allentown, PA ...... 08/31/2001 Spoonables, Purables & Bar-B-Que. 40,034 ...... D and M Tool, Inc. (Wrks) ...... Meadville, PA ...... 08/30/2001 Molds, and Dies. 40,035 ...... Eagle Veneer, Inc. (Wrks) ...... Harrisburg, OR ...... 08/31/2001 Engineered Wood Products. 40,036 ...... Poly One Corp (Co.) ...... Corona, CA ...... 08/30/2001 Compounded Plastics. 40,037 ...... Glad Rags, Inc. (Wrks) ...... Buchanan, VA ...... 08/31/2001 Ladies’ Apparel. 40,038 ...... HH Smith, Inc. (Co) ...... Meadville, PA ...... 08/31/2001 Electrical Connectors and Hardware. 40,039 ...... TNS Mills, Inc. (Co.) ...... Rockingham, NC ...... 08/30/2001 Ring Spun Yarns. 40,040 ...... United Metal Fabricators (UMWA) ...... Johnstown, PA ...... 08/27/2001 Hospital Cabinets, Exam Tables. 40,041 ...... Magee Apparel Co (Co.) ...... Magee, MS ...... 08/23/2001 Jeans & Related Apparel Bottoms. 40,042 ...... WP Textiles Processing (Co.) ...... Richmond, VA ...... 09/04/2001 Textile Pigment Printing. 40,043 ...... Steelcase Architectural (Co.) ...... Solon, OH ...... 08/24/2001 Movable Walls. 40,044 ...... Boldt Metronics Int’l (Wrks) ...... Schaumburg, IL ...... 08/23/2001 Metal Metronics Components. 40,045 ...... Maxell Corp. of America (Co.) ...... Conyers, GA ...... 08/28/2001 Video Cassettes. 40,046 ...... Parker Hannifin Corp (Co.) ...... Lincolnshire, IL ...... 08/31/2001 Hydraulic Components. 40,047 ...... Carol Ann Fashions Corp (Wrks) ...... Hastings, PA ...... 08/31/2001 Ladies’ Skirts and Pants. 40,048 ...... Three-Five Systems, Inc. (Wrks) ...... Tempe, AZ ...... 08/17/2001 LCD Displays. 40,049 ...... Daniel Measurement (Co.) ...... Statesboro, GA ...... 09/05/2001 Valves and Turbines. 40,050 ...... Moco Thermal Industries (PACE) ...... Caseville, MI ...... 08/27/2001 Customer Designed Ovens. 40,051 ...... Prime Tanning Co., Inc. (Co.) ...... Rochester, NH ...... 09/04/2001 Leather for Shoes and Handbags. 40,052 ...... Emsar, Inc. (Co.) ...... Bridgeport, CT ...... 08/30/2001 Molded Spray Pumps. 40,053 ...... Hagale Apparel, Inc. (Co.) ...... Kinston, NC ...... 09/04/2001 Men’s Shirts. 40,054 ...... Fairchild Semiconductor (Wrks) ...... Mountaintop, PA ...... 09/02/2001 Power Semiconductors. 40,055 ...... GFC Fabricating LLC (Wrks) ...... Berwick, PA ...... 08/31/2001 Elastic Material for Disposable Diapers. 40,056 ...... Joint Venture Tool (Co.) ...... Saegertown, PA ...... 08/13/2001 Mold Designs. 40,057 ...... Virginia Glove (Wrks) ...... Glade Springs, VA ...... 08/31/2001 Work Gloves. 40,058 ...... Belco Tool and Mfg, Inc (Comp) ...... Meadville, PA ...... 08/29/2001 Plastics Injection Molds.
VerDate 11
[FR Doc. 01–26358 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Signed in Washington, DC this 26th day of working machinery at the plant. The BILLING CODE 4510–30–M September 2001. components for the plants other product Edward A. Tomchick, line (home-hobby) were always made in Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Taiwan and the end product assembled DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Assistance. at the subject plant. [FR Doc. 01–26362 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] The USWA provided additional plant Employment and Training BILLING CODE 4510–30–M sales figures regarding the trends in Administration sales for the time period corresponding to that of the initial investigation. The [TA–W–38,470] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR figures provided by the USWA depict increased sales similar to the period Plum Creek Timber, Pablo, MT; Notice Employment and Training available during the original of Revised Determination on Administration investigation. Reconsideration [TA–W–38,698] Workers, the Union or company official may reapply for Trade On June 25, 2001, the Department Powermatic Corporation, Walter Meyer Adjustment Assistance should issued a Notice of Affirmative Holding, AG, McMinnville, TN; Notice conditions warrant. Determination Regarding Application of Negative Determination Regarding Conclusion for Reconsideration applicable to Application for Reconsideration workers and former workers of the After review of the application and subject firm. The notice was published By application of May 30, 2001, the investigative findings, I conclude that in the Federal Register on July 11, 2001 United Steelworkers of America there has been no error or (66 FR 36332). (USWA), District 9, requested misinterpretation of the law or of the The initial petition investigation for administrative reconsideration of the facts which would justify workers at Plum Creek Timber Department’s negative determination reconsideration of the Department of Company, Pablo, Montana, TA–W– regarding worker eligibility to apply for Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the 38,470, was denied based on the finding trade adjustment assistance, applicable application is denied. that customers of the subject firm did to workers of the subject firm. The Signed at Washington, DC this 28th day of not increase import purchases of denial notice was signed on April 6, September 2001. softwood dimension lumber. 2001, and was published in the Federal Edward A. Tomchick, Register on May 2, 2001 (66 FR 22006). Director, Division of Trade Adjustment The company’s request for Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration stated the articles Assistance. reconsideration may be granted under [FR Doc. 01–26361 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] produced at the plant were one-inch the following circumstances: boards, not softwood dimension lumber. (1) If it appears on the basis of facts BILLING CODE 4510–30–M On reconsideration, the Department not previously considered that the conducted another survey of Plum determination complained of was DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Creek Timber’s customers regarding erroneous; their purchases in 1998, 1999 and (2) If it appears that the determination Employment and Training January through September 2000, of complained of was based on a mistake Administration one-inch (1″) boards and like or directly in the determination of facts not [TA–W–39,379, and TA–W–39,379A] competitive products. The survey previously considered; or revealed that customers increased (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Savannah Luggage Works, Vidalia, GA, import purchases of one-inch boards Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of Savannah Luggage Works, while reducing purchases from Plum the law justified reconsideration of the Swainsboro, GA; Amended Creek Timber. decision. Certification Regarding Eligibility To The petition denial for the workers of Conclusion Apply for Worker Adjustment Powermatic Corporation, Walter Meyer Assistance After careful review of the additional Holding, AG, McMinnville, Tennessee facts obtained on reconsideration, I was denied based on the finding that In accordance with Section 223 of the conclude that increased imports of criterion (2) of the group eligibility Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the articles like or directly competitive with requirements of Section 222 of the Department of Labor issued a Notice of increased imports of articles like or Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not Certification Regarding Eligibility to directly competitive with one-inch met. Sales and/or production at the Apply for Worker Adjustment boards, contributed importantly to the plant did not decline. Assistance on August 23, 2001, decline in sales or production and to the The request for reconsideration states applicable to workers of Savannah total or partial separation of workers of that the Union and workers are of the Luggage Works, Vidalia, Georgia. The Plum Creek Timber Company, Pablo, opinion that plant sales and/or notice was published in the Federal Montana. In accordance with the production decreased absolutely. The Register on September 11, 2001 (66 FR provisions of the Act, I make the USWA also asserts that the products 47242). following revised determination: produced at the plant have been At the request of the company, the adversely affected by the use of Department reviewed the certification All workers of Plum Creek Timber imported components. for workers of the subject firm. Company, Pablo, Montana, who became In response to components being Information shows that worker totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 4, 1999, imported by the company, it was separations occurred at the Swainsboro, through two years from the date of this determined in the original investigation Georgia location of the subject firm. issuance, are eligible to apply for adjustment that the company sourced out all Workers at the Swainsboro, Georgia assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act components to domestic producers and location are engaged in the production of 1974. then assembled industrial wood- of luggage.
VerDate 11
Based on these findings, the finding that criterion (3) of the worker on August 29, 2001, based on the Department is amending the group eligibility requirements of Section finding that the ‘‘contributed certification to include workers of the 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as importantly’’ test of the Group Swainsboro, Georgia location of amended, was not met. A survey of Eligibility Requirements of the Trade Savannah Luggage Works. customers indicated that increased Act was not met. Also in the initial The intent of the Department’s imports did not contribute importantly investigation the workers engaged in the certification is to include all workers of to worker separations. production of EU core ferrites were Savannah Luggage Works who were The request for reconsideration claims certified eligible to apply for adjustment adversely affected by increased imports that the Department of Labor was assistance under Section 223 of the of luggage. supplied wrong information for the Trade Act of 1974. The notice was The amended notice applicable to Lockport and Wheatfield, New York published in the Federal Register on TA–W–39,379 is hereby issued as plants and that the knowledgeable September 11, 2001 (66 FR 47241). follows: source should be contacted for the To support the petitioners’ request for All workers of Savannah Luggage Works, correct information. reconsideration, the company provided Vidalia, Georgia (TA–W–39,379) and The specified company official was in evidence to show that the company Swainsboro, Georgia (TA–W–39,379A), who contacted and indicated that the subject increased their imports of CR core became totally or partially separated from workers also produced component parts ferrites during the relevant period. employment on or after May 14, 2000, for the LPG valves/industrial valves through August 23, 2003, are eligible to apply produced at the subject plant. The Conclusion for adjustment assistance under Section 223 contact indicated that the company did After careful review of the additional of the Trade Act of 1974. not import LPG valves/industrial valves facts obtained on reconsideration, I Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of nor did the company import component conclude that increased imports of September, 2001. parts used for the assembly of the valves articles like or directly competitive with Linda G. Poole, produced at the subject plant. The CR core parts produced at TDK Ferrites Certifying Officer, Division of Trade contact further revealed that their Corporation, Shawnee, Oklahoma, Adjustment Assistance. competitors were importing valve parts contributed importantly to the decline [FR Doc. 01–26348 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] and using those parts for the assembly in sales or production and to the total BILLING CODE 4510–30–M of valves domestically. or partial separation of workers at the Conclusion subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR After review of the application and following certification: investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or All workers of TDK Ferrites Corporation, Employment and Training Shawnee, Oklahoma, engaged in activities Administration misinterpretation of the law or of the related to the production of CR core ferrites facts which would justify [TA–W–38,599] and EU core ferrites who became totally or reconsideration of the Department of partially separated from employment on or Sherwood, Harsco Corporation, Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the after April 25, 2000 through two years from Lockport, NY; Notice of Negative applied is denied. the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Determination Regarding Application Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. for Reconsideration September, 2001. Edward A. Tomchick, Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of By application dated May 21, 2001, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment September, 2001. the petitioner requested administrative Assistance. Edward A. Tomchick, reconsideration of the Department’s [FR Doc. 01–26360 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Director, Division of Trade Adjustment negative determination regarding BILLING CODE 4510–30–M Assistance. eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment [FR Doc. 01–26364 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers BILLING CODE 4510–30–M and former workers of the subject firm. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR The denial notice was signed on April 23, 2001, and published in the Federal Employment and Training DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Register on May 9, 2001 (66 FR 23733). Administration Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) Employment and Training reconsideration may be granted under [TA–W–39,266] Administration the following circumstances: TDK Ferrites Corporation, Shawnee, [TA–W–39,440] (1) If it appears on the basis of facts Oklahoma; Notice of Revised not previously considered that the Determination on Reconsideration Triple-O, Inc., Roseburg, Oregon; determination complained of was Notice of Termination of Investigation erroneous; By letter of September 10, 2001, the (2) If it appears that the determination petitioners requested administrative Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade complained of was based on a mistake reconsideration regarding the Act of 1974, an investigation was in the determination of facts not Department’s Notice of Determination initiated on June 18, 2001 in response previously considered; or Regarding Eligibility to Apply for to a petition filed by a company official (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Worker Adjustment Assistance, on behalf of workers at Triple-O, Inc., Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of applicable to the workers of the subject Roseburg, Oregon. the law justified reconsideration of the firm. This case is being terminated at the decision. The initial investigation resulted in a petitioner’s request. Consequently, The denial of TAA for the workers of negative determination for the workers further investigation in this case would Sherwood, Harsco Corporation, engaged in the production of CR core serve no purpose, and the investigation Lockport, New York, was based on the ferrites and micro cores ferrites issued has been terminated.
VerDate 11
Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of The petitioner requested that the Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of October 2001. petition for NAFTA–TAA be September, 2001. Linda G. Poole, withdrawn. Consequently, further Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade investigation in this case would serve Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. no purpose, and the investigation has Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 01–26354 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] been terminated. [FR Doc. 01–26347 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–M Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of BILLING CODE 4510–30–M September, 2001. Linda G. Poole, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Employment and Training Adjustment Assistance. Employment and Training Administration [FR Doc. 01–26366 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Administration BILLING CODE 4510–30–M [NAFTA–05224] [NAFTA–05047] Eaton Corporation, Cutler-Hammer, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Pittsburgh, PA; Notice of Termination Graphic Controls, Cherry Hill Facility Including Temporary Workers of Kaye of Investigation Employment and Training Personnel, Inc., Cherry Hill, NJ; Administration Pursuant to Title V of the North Amended Certification Regarding American Free Trade Agreement Eligibility To Apply for Worker Implementation Act (P.L. 103–182) [NAFTA–04867] Adjustment Assistance concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called (NAFTA– GE Harris Harmon Railway Technology In accordance with Section 150(A), TAA), and in accordance with Section Corp., Formerly Harmon Industries, Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II of the 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, Inc., Jacksonville, FL; Amended Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), the of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Department of Labor issued a (19 U.S.C. 2273), an investigation was Apply for NAFTA—Transitional Certification for NAFTA Transitional initiated on August 20, 2001 in response Adjustment Assistance Adjustment Assistance on September to a petition filed on behalf of workers 10, 2001, applicable to workers of In accordance with Section 250(A), at Eaton Corporation, Cutler-Hammer, Graphic Controls, Cherry Hill Facility, Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C 2273), the The petitioner requested that the The notice was published in the Department of Labor issued a petition for NAFTA–TAA be Federal Register on September 21, 2001 Certifcation for NAFTA Transitional withdrawn. Consequently, further (66 FR 48708). Adjustment Assistance on August 21, investigation in this case would serve At the request of the State agency, the 2001, applicable to workers of GE Harris no purpose, and the investigation has Department reviewed the certification Harmon Railway Technology, been terminated. for workers of the subject firm. Jacksonville, Florida. The notice was Information provided by the State and Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of published in the Federal Register on the company shows that some September, 2001. September 11, 2001 (66 FR 47243). Linda G. Poole, employees of Graphic Controls were At the request of the State agency, the temporary workers from Kaye Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Department received the certification for Adjustment Assistance. Personnel, Inc., Cherry Hill, New Jersey workers of the subject firm. The workers to produce softrans intrauterine [FR Doc. 01–26365 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] were engaged in activity related to the BILLING CODE 4510–30–M pressure catheters, cables and leadwires production of railway signaling at the Cherry Hill, New Jersey location equipment. New information shows that of the subject firm. the Department inadvertently failed to DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Based on these findings, the identify the subject firm title name in its Department is amending the Employment and Training entirety. certification to include temporary Administration The Department is amending the workers of Kaye Personnel, Inc. certification determination to correctly [NAFTA–05223] employed at Graphic Controls, Cherry identify the subject firm title name to Hill Facility, Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Eaton Corporation, Cutler-Hammer, read GE Harris Harmon Railway The intent of the Department’s Moon Township, PA; Notice of Technology, Formerly, Harmon certification is to include all workers of Termination of Investigation Industries, Inc. Graphic Controls, Cherry Hill Facility, Accordingly, the Department is Cherry Hill, New Jersey adversely Pursuant to Title V of the North amending the certification to properly affected by a shift of production to American Free Trade Agreement reflect this matter. Mexico. Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103–182) The amended notice applicable to The amended notice applicable to concerning transitional adjustment NAFTA–04867 is hereby issued as NAFTA–5047 is hereby issued as assistance, hereinafter called (NAFTA– follows: follows: TAA), and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, All workers of GE Harris Harmon Railway All workers of Graphic Controls, Cherry of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended Technology, formerly Harmon Industries, Hill Facility, Cherry Hill, New Jersey (19 USC 2273), an investigation was Inc., Jacksonville, Florida, who became including temporary workers of Kaye totally or partially separated from Personnel, Inc., Cherry Hill, New Jersey initiated on August 20, 2001 in response employment on or after March 7, 2000, engaged in employment related to the to a petition filed on behalf of workers through August 21, 2003, are eligible to apply production of softrans intrauterine pressure at Eaton Corporation, Cutler-Hammer, for NAFTA–TAA under Section 250 of the catheters, cables and leadwires at Graphic Moon Township, Pennsylvania. Trade Act of 1974. Controls, Cherry Hill Facility, Cherry Hill,
VerDate 11
New Jersey who became totally or partially The amended notice applicable to DEPARTMENT OF LABOR separated from employment on or after June NAFTA—04698 is hereby issued as 26, 2000 through September 10, 2003, are follows: Employment Standards eligible to apply for adjustment assistance Administration, Wage and Hour under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. All workers of Pratt & Whitney HAC, Division Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of Grand Prairie, Texas, including temporary October, 2001. workers of Manpower, ABC Staffing, and Minimum Wages for Federal and Edward A. Tomchick, Resource Management International, Inc, Federally Assisted Construction; engaged in the production of composites at Director, Division of Trade Adjustment General Wage Determination Decisions Pratt & Whitney HAC, Grand Prairie, Texas, Assistance. who became totally or partially separated General wage determination decisions [FR Doc. 01–26352 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] from employment on or after May 29, 2000, of the Secretary of Labor are issued in BILLING CODE 4510–30–M through September 10, 2003, are eligible to accordance with applicable law and are apply for NAFTA–TAA under Section 250 of based on the information obtained by the Trade Act of 1974. the Department of Labor from its study DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of of local wage conditions and data made Employment and Training September 2001. available from other sources. They Administration specify the basic hourly wage rates and Linda G. Poole, fringe benefits which are determined to Certifying Officer, Division of Trade be prevailing for the described classes of [NAFTA–04917] Adjustment Assistance. laborers and mechanics employed on [FR Doc. 01–26351 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Pratt & Whitney Hac, Grand Prairie, TX, construction projects of a similar Including Temporary Workers of BILLING CODE 4510–30–M character and in the localities specified Manpower, ABC Staffing and Resource therein. Management International, Inc. The determinations in these decisions DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employed at Pratt & Whitney HAC, of prevailing rates and fringe benefits Grand Prairie, TX; Amended have been made in accordance with 29 Employment and Training CFR part 1, by authority of the Secretary Certification Regarding Eligibility To Administration Apply for NAFTA-Transitional of Labor pursuant to the provisions of Adjustment Assistance the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, [NAFTA–4920] as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, In accordance with Section 250(A), 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Triple-O, Inc., Roseburg, OR; Notice of statutes referred to in 29 CFR Part 1, Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273), the Termination of Investigation Appendix, as well as such additional Department of Labor issued a statutes as may from time to time be Certification for NAFTA Transitional Pursuant to Title V of the North enacted containing provisions for the Adjustment Assistance on September American Free Trade Agreement payment of wages determined to be 10, 2001, applicable to workers of Pratt Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103–182) prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in & Whitney HAC, Grand Prairie, Texas. concerning transitional adjustment accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The notice will be published soon in the assistance, hereinafter called (NAFTA– The prevailing rates and fringe benefits Federal Register. TAA), and in accordance with Section determined in these decisions shall, in At the request of the State agency, the 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, accordance with the provisions of the Department reviewed the certification of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended foregoing statutes, constitute the for workers of the subject firm. (19 U.S.C. 2273), an investigation was minimum wages payable on Federal and Information provided by the State initiated on June 1, 2001 in response to federally assisted construction projects shows that some employees of the a petition filed by a company official on to laborers and mechanics of the subject firm were temporary workers behalf of workers at Triple-O, Inc., specified classes engaged on contract from Manpower, Grand Prairie, Texas, Roseburg, Oregon. work of the character and in the ABC Staffing, North Richland Hills, localities described therein. Texas and Resource Management This case is being terminated at the Good cause is hereby found for not International, Inc., Dallas, Texas to petitioner’s request. Consequently, utilizing notice and public comment produce composites at the Grand further investigation in this case would procedure thereon prior to the issuance Prairie, Texas location of the subject serve no purpose, and the investigation of these determinations as prescribed in firm. has been terminated. 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay Based on these findings, the Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of in the effective date as prescribed in that Department is amending the October, 2001. section, because the necessity to issue certification to include temporary Linda G. Poole, current construction industry wage workers of Manpower, Grand Prairie, determinations frequently and in large Texas, ABC Staffing, North Richland Certifying Officer, Division of Trade volume causes procedures to be Adjustment Assistance. Hills, Texas and Resource Management impractical and contrary to the public International, Inc., Dallas, Texas who [FR Doc. 01–26346 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] interest. were engaged in the production of BILLING CODE 4510–30–M General wage determination composites at Pratt & Whitney HAC, decisions, and modifications and Grand Prairie, Texas. supersedeas decisions thereto, contain The intent of the Department’s no expiration dates and are effective certification is to include all workers of from their date of notice in the Federal Pratt & Whitney HAC, Grand Prairie, Register, or on the date written notice Texas adversely affected by a shift in is received by the agency, whichever is production of composites to Mexico. earlier. These decisions are to be used
VerDate 11
in accordance with the provisions of 29 MI010001 (Mar. 2, 2001) AK010001 (Mar. 2, 2001) CFR Parts 1 and 5. Accordingly, the MI010002 (Mar. 2, 2001) AK010002 (Mar. 2, 2001) applicable decision, together with any MI010003 (Mar. 2, 2001) AK010006 (Mar. 2, 2001) modifications issued, must be made a MI010004 (Mar. 2, 2001) Idaho MI010005 (Mar. 2, 2001) ID010003 (Mar. 2, 2001) part of every contract for performance of MI010007 (Mar. 2, 2001) Oregon the described work within the MI010010 (Mar. 2, 2001) OR010001 (Mar. 2, 2001) geographic area indicated as required by MI010011 (Mar. 2, 2001) Washington an applicable Federal prevailing wage MI010016 (Mar. 2, 2001) WA010001 (Mar. 2, 2001) law and 29 CFR part 5. The wage rates MI010020 (Mar. 2, 2001) WA010002 (Mar. 2, 2001) and fringe benefits, notice of which is MI010027 (Mar. 2, 2001) WA010003 (Mar. 2, 2001) published herein, and which are MI010030 (Mar. 2, 2001) WA010006 (Mar. 2, 2001) contained in the Government Printing MI010031 (Mar. 2, 2001) WA010007 (Mar. 2, 2001) Office (GPO) document entitled MI010034 (Mar. 2, 2001) WA010010 (Mar. 2, 2001) MI010035 (Mar. 2, 2001) ‘‘General Wage Determinations Issued MI010036 (Mar. 2, 2001) Volume VII Under the Davis-Bacon And Related MI010040 (Mar. 2, 2001) California Acts,’’ shall be the minimum paid by MI010046 (Mar. 2, 2001) CA010004 (Mar. 2, 2001) contractors and subcontractors to MI010050 (Mar. 2, 2001) CA010009 (Mar. 2, 2001) laborers and mechanics. MI010052 (Mar. 2, 2001) CA010028 (Mar. 2, 2001) Any person, organization, or MI010060 (Mar. 2, 2001) CA010029 (Mar. 2, 2001) governmental agency having an interest MI010064 (Mar. 2, 2001) CA010030 (Mar. 2, 2001) in the rates determined as prevailing is MI010065 (Mar. 2, 2001) CA010031 (Mar. 2, 2001) encouraged to submit wage rate and MI010066 (Mar. 2, 2001) CA010034 (Mar. 2, 2001) CA010037 (Mar. 2, 2001) fringe benefit information for MI010067 (Mar. 2, 2001) MI010068 (Mar. 2, 2001) CA010041 (Mar. 2, 2001) consideration by the Department. MI010069 (Mar. 2, 2001) Further information and self- MI010070 (Mar. 2, 2001) General Wage Determination regulatory forms for the purpose of MI010071 (Mar. 2, 2001) Publication submitting this data may be obtained by MI010072 (Mar. 2, 2001) General wage determination issued writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, MI010073 (Mar. 2, 2001) under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, Employment Standards Administration, MI010074 (Mar. 2, 2001) including those noted above, may be MI010075 (Mar. 2, 2001) Wage and Hour Division, Division of found in the Government Printing Office Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution MI010076 (Mar. 2, 2001) MI010077 (Mar. 2, 2001) (GPO) document entitled ‘‘General Wage Avenue, NW., Room S–3014, Determinations Issued Under The Davis- Washington, DC 20210. MI010078 (Mar. 2, 2001) MI010079 (Mar. 2, 2001) Bacon And Related Acts’’. This Modification to General Wage MI010080 (Mar. 2, 2001) publication is available at each of the 50 Determination Decisions MI010081 (Mar. 2, 2001) Regional Government Depository MI010082 (Mar. 2, 2001) Libraries and many of the 1,400 The number of decisions listed to the MI010083 (Mar. 2, 2001) Government Printing Office document Government Depository Libraries across MI010084 (Mar. 2, 2001) the country. entitled ‘‘General Wage determinations MI010085 (Mar. 2, 2001) General wage determinations issued Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and MI010086 (Mar. 2, 2001) related Acts’’ being modified are listed MI010087 (Mar. 2, 2001) under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts by Volume and State. Dates of MI010089 (Mar. 2, 2001) are available electronically at no cost on publication in the Federal Register are MI010090 (Mar. 2, 2001) the Government Printing Office site at in parentheses following the decisions MI010091 (Mar. 2, 2001) www.access.gpo.gov/davisbacon. They MI010092 (Mar. 2, 2001) being modified. are also available electronically by MI010093 (Mar. 2, 2001) subscription to the Davis-Bacon Volume I MI010094 (Mar. 2, 2001) Online Service MI010095 (Mar. 2, 2001) None (http://davisbacon.fedworld.gov) of the MI010096 (Mar. 2, 2001) Volume II MI010097 (Mar. 2, 2001) National Technical Information Service MI010105 (Mar. 2, 2001) (NTIS) of the U.S. Department of District of Columbia Commerce at 1–800–363–2068. This DC010001 (Mar. 2, 2001) Minnesota DC010003 (Mar. 2, 2001) MN010001 (Mar. 2, 2001) subscription offers value-added features Maryland MN010002 (Mar. 2, 2001) such as electronic delivery of modified MD010034 (Mar. 2, 2001) MN010005 (Mar. 2, 2001) wage decisions directly to the user’s MD010048 (Mar. 2, 2001) MN010007 (Mar. 2, 2001) desktop, the ability to access prior wage MD010056 (Mar. 2, 2001) MN010008 (Mar. 2, 2001) decisions issued during the year, MD010057 (Mar. 2, 2001) MN010012 (Mar. 2, 2001) extensive Help desk Support, etc. MN010015 (Mar. 2, 2001) Pennsylvania Hard-copy subscriptions may be PA010006 (Mar. 2, 2001) MN010027 (Mar. 2, 2001) Virginia MN010031 (Mar. 2, 2001) purchased from: Superintendent of VA010025 (Mar. 2, 2001) MN010035 (Mar. 2, 2001) Documents, U.S. Government Printing VA010050 (Mar. 2, 2001) MN010039 (Mar. 2, 2001) Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) VA010078 (Mar. 2, 2001) MN010051 (Mar. 2, 2001) 512–1800. VA010079 (Mar. 2, 2001) MN010061 (Mar. 2, 2001) When ordering hard-copy VA010099 (Mar. 2, 2001) MN010062 (Mar. 2, 2001) subscription(s), be sure to specify the Volume III Volume V State(s) if interest, since subscriptions None None may be ordered for any or all of the six separate volumes, arranged by State. Volume IV Volume VI Subscriptions include an annual edition Michigan Alaska (issued in January or February) which
VerDate 11
includes all current general wage Arlington, Virginia 22203. Contact during normal operation of the battery determinations for the States covered by Barbara Barron at 703–235–1910. equipment. This is considered an each volume. Throughout the remainder Dated at Arlington, Virginia, this 11th day acceptable alternative method for the of the year, regular weekly updates will of October, 2001. No. 5 Mine. MSHA grants the petition be distributed to subscribers. David L. Meyer, for modification for the No. 5 Mine with conditions. Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, October, 2001. and Variances. Docket No.: M–2001–005–C. Carl Poleskey, FR Notice: 66 FR 18658. Affirmative Decisions on Petitions for Petitioner: Taurus Coal Company, Inc. Chief, Branch of Construction Wage Modification Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 Determinations. Docket No.: M–2001–002–C. (18.41(f) of part 18). [FR Doc. 01–26039 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s BILLING CODE 4510–27–M FR Notice: 66 FR 18658. Petitioner: Kentucky May Mining. proposal is to use a spring-loaded Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 device with specific fastening characteristics in lieu of a padlock with DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (18.41(f) of part 18). Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s its fastening configuration to secure Mine Safety and Health Administration proposal is to use a spring-loaded plugs and electrical type connectors to device with specific fastening batteries and to the permissible mobile Summary of Decisions Granting in characteristics in lieu of a padlock with powered equipment the batteries serve Whole or in Part Petitions for its fastening configuration to secure to prevent accidental separation of the Modification plugs and electrical type connectors to battery plugs from their receptacles batteries and to the permissible mobile during normal operation of the battery AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health powered equipment the batteries serve equipment. This is considered an Administration (MSHA), Labor. to prevent accidental separation of the acceptable alternative method for the ACTION: Notice of affirmative decisions battery plugs from their receptacles No. 8 Mine. MSHA grants the petition for modification for the No. 8 Mine with issued by the administrators for coal during normal operation of the battery conditions. mine safety and health and metal and equipment. This is considered an nonmetal mine safety and health on acceptable alternative method for the Docket No.: M–2001–006–C. petitions for modification of the Genesis Mine. MSHA grants the petition FR Notice: 66 FR 18658. application of existing safety standards. Petitioner: Coalburg Enterprises, Inc. for modification the Genesis Mine with Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 conditions. SUMMARY: (18.41(f) of part 18). Under section 101 of the Docket No.: M–2001–003–C. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s FR Notice: 66 FR 18658. proposal is to use a spring-loaded 1977, the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) Petitioner: Eagle Coal Company, Inc. may allow the modification of the device with specific fastening Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 characteristics in lieu of a padlock with application of an existing safety (18.41(f) of part 18). standard to a mine if the Secretary its fastening configuration to secure Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s plugs and electrical type connectors to determines either that an alternate proposal is to use a spring-loaded method exists at a specific mine that batteries and to the permissible mobile device with specific fastening powered equipment the batteries serve will guarantee no less protection for the characteristics in lieu of a padlock with miners affected than that provided by to prevent accidental separation of the its fastening configuration to secure battery plugs from their receptacles the standard, or that the application of plugs and electrical type connectors to the standard at a specific mine will during normal operation of the battery batteries and to the permissible mobile equipment. This is considered an result in a diminution of safety to the powered equipment the batteries serve affected miners. acceptable alternative method for the to prevent accidental separation of the No. 1 Mine. MSHA grants the petition Final decisions on these petitions are battery plugs from their receptacles for modification for the No. 1 Mine with based upon the petitioner’s statements, during normal operation of the battery conditions. comments and information submitted equipment. This is considered an by interested persons, and a field Docket No.: M–2001–007–C. acceptable alternative method for the FR Notice: 66 FR 18659. investigation of the conditions at the No. 18 Mine. MSHA grants the petition Petitioner: Beech Fork Processing, Inc. mine. MSHA, as designee of the for modification for the No. 18 Mine Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 Secretary, has granted or partially with conditions. (18.41(f) of part 18). granted the requests for modification Docket No.: M–2001–004–C. Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s listed below. In some instances, the FR Notice: 66 FR 18658. proposal is to use a spring-loaded decisions are conditioned upon Petitioner: Long Fork Development, device with specific fastening compliance with stipulations stated in Inc. characteristics in lieu of a padlock with the decision. The term ‘‘FR Notice’’ Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 its fastening configuration to secure appears in the list of affirmative (18.41(f) of part 18). plugs and electrical type connectors to decisions below. The term refers to the Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s batteries and to the permissible mobile Federal Register volume and page proposal is to use a spring-loaded powered equipment the batteries serve where MSHA published a notice of the device with specific fastening to prevent accidental separation of the filing of the petition for modification. characteristics in lieu of a padlock with battery plugs from their receptacles FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: its fastening configuration to secure during normal operation of the battery Petitions and copies of the final plugs and electrical type connectors to equipment. This is considered an decisions are available for examination batteries and to the permissible mobile acceptable alternative method for the by the public in the Office of Standards, powered equipment the batteries serve No. 3 Mine. MSHA grants the petition Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, to prevent accidental separation of the for modification for the No. 3 Mine with Room 627, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, battery plugs from their receptacles conditions.
VerDate 11
Docket No.: M–2001–008–C. Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.342. Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s FR Notice: 66 FR 18659. Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s proposal is to use a spring-loaded Petitioner: Beech Fork Processing, Inc. proposal is to use a hand-held device with specific fastening Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 continuous multi-gas detector, which characteristics in lieu of a padlock with (18.41(f) of part 18). detects oxygen, methane, and carbon its fastening configuration to secure Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s monoxide, in lieu of a machine plugs and electrical type connectors to proposal is to use a spring-loaded mounted methane monitor for the three batteries and to the permissible mobile device with specific fastening wheel tractors (Mescher tractors). This powered equipment the batteries serve characteristics in lieu of a padlock with is considered an acceptable alternative to prevent accidental separation of the its fastening configuration to secure method for the Goodin Creek #2 Mine. battery plugs from their receptacles plugs and electrical type connectors to MSHA grants the petition for during normal operation of the battery batteries and to the permissible mobile modification for the Goodin Creek #2 equipment. This is considered an powered equipment the batteries serve Mine with conditions. acceptable alternative method for the to prevent accidental separation of the Docket No.: M–2001–028–C. Mine No. 2B, Mine No. 10, Mine No. 15, battery plugs from their receptacles FR Notice: 66 FR 30232. and Mine No. 22. MSHA grants the during normal operation of the battery Petitioner: DLR Mining, Inc. petition for modification for the Mine equipment. This is considered an Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1100– No. 2B, Mine No. 10, Mine No. 15, and acceptable alternative method for the 2(e)(2). Mine No. 22 with conditions. No. 2 Mine. MSHA grants the petition Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s Docket No.: M–2000–008–C. for modification for the No. 2 Mine with proposal is to use two (2) fire FR Notice: 65 FR 10563. conditions. extinguishers or one fire extinguisher of Petitioner: Island Creek Coal Docket No.: M–2001–009–C. twice the required capacity at all Company. FR Notice: 66 FR 18659. temporary electrical installations Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1100– Petitioner: Eagle Coal Company, Inc. instead of using 240 pounds of rock 2(b). Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 dust. This is considered an acceptable Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s (18.41(f) of part 18). alternative method for the Nolo Mine. proposal is to install a waterline in an Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s MSHA grants the petition for entry adjacent to the conveyor belt entry proposal is to use a spring-loaded modification for the Nolo Mine with on retreating longwalls equipped with device with specific fastening conditions. fire hydrants spaced no more than 310 characteristics in lieu of a padlock with Docket No.: M–2001–033–C. feet apart instead of the current its fastening configuration to secure FR Notice: 66 FR 30232. operating procedures granted under a plugs and electrical type connectors to Petitioner: American Energy previous petition for modification (M– batteries and to the permissible mobile Corporation. 94–68–C) allowing for hydrants to be powered equipment the batteries serve Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.350. spaced no more than 270 feet apart in Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s to prevent accidental separation of the these entries. This is considered an proposal is to use air coursed through battery plugs from their receptacles acceptable alternative method for the belt haulage entries to ventilate active during normal operation of the battery VP–8 Mine. MSHA grants the petition working places. This is considered an equipment. This is considered an for modification for the VP–8 Mine with acceptable alternative method for the acceptable alternative method for the conditions. Century Mine. MSHA grants the petition No. 7 Mine. MSHA grants the petition Docket No.: M–2000–015–C. for modification for the No. 7 Mine with for modification for the Century Mine with conditions. FR Notice: 65 FR 16966. conditions. Petitioner: RAG Cumberland Docket No.: M–2001–038–C. Docket No.: M–2001–013–C. FR Notice: 66 FR 30233. Resources, LP. FR Notice: 66 FR 28932. Petitioner: Faith Coal Sales, Inc. Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 Petitioner: Big Ridge, Inc. Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 (Schedule 2G, § 18.35). Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 (18.41(f) of part 18). Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s 18.41(f) of part 18). Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s proposal is to use a 1,000 foot trailing Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s proposal is to use a spring-loaded cable on full-face continuous miners proposal is to use a spring-loaded device with specific fastening and other face equipment during device with specific fastening characteristics in lieu of a padlock with development mining. This is considered characteristics in lieu of a padlock with its fastening configuration to secure an acceptable alternative method for the its fastening configuration to secure plugs and electrical type connectors to Cumberland Mine. MSHA grants the plugs and electrical type connectors to batteries and to the permissible mobile petition for modification for the batteries and to the permissible mobile powered equipment the batteries serve Cumberland Mine with conditions. powered equipment the batteries serve to prevent accidental separation of the Docket No.: M–2000–018–C. to prevent accidental separation of the battery plugs from their receptacles FR Notice: 65 FR 16966. battery plugs from their receptacles during normal operation of the battery Petitioner: FKZ Coal, Inc. during normal operation of the battery equipment. This is considered an Regulation Affected: 30 CFR equipment. This is considered an acceptable alternative method for the 75.1200(d) and (i). acceptable alternative method for the White Star No. 1 Mine. MSHA grants Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s Willow Lake Portal Mine. MSHA grants the petition for modification for the proposal is to use cross-sections instead the petition for modification for the White Star No. 1 Mine with conditions. of contour lines through the intake Willow Lake Portal Mine with Docket No.: M–2001–042–C. slope, at locations of rock tunnel conditions. FR Notice: 66 FR 30234. connections between veins, and at 1,000 Docket No.: M–2001–016–C. Petitioner: Branham & Baker foot intervals of advance from the intake FR Notice: 66 FR 28932. Underground Corp. slope; and to limit the required mapping Petitioner: Goodin Creek Contracting, Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 of the mine workings above and below Inc. (18.41(f) of part 18). to those present within 100 feet of the
VerDate 11
vein being mined except when veins are continuous miner(s) used at the Castle oil or gas wells penetrating the interconnected to other veins beyond Mine with conditions. Powellton Coal Seam and other the 100-foot limit through rock tunnels. Docket No.: M–2000–045–C. mineable coal seams using continuous This is considered an acceptable FR Notice: 65 FR 31611. mining methods for the White Knight alternative method for the Mercury No. Petitioner: Roberts Bros. Coal Mine with conditions. 1 Slope Mine. MSHA grants the petition Company. Docket No.: M–2000–089–C. for modification for the No. 1 Slope Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.701. FR Notice: 65 FR 49017. Mine with conditions. Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s Petitioner: Elk Run Coal Company, Docket No.: M–2000–031–C. proposal is to use a 200KW, 480-volt, Inc. FR Notice: 65 FR 31611. diesel powered generator set with an Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1700. Petitioner: Genwal Resources, Inc. approved diesel drive engine to move Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s Regulation Affected: 30 CFR equipment in and out of the mine and proposal is to plug and mine through oil 75.500(b). to perform rehabilitation work in areas and gas wells. This is considered an Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s outby section loading points. This is acceptable alternative method for the proposal is to use non-permissible low- considered an acceptable alternative Castle Mine. MSHA grants the petition voltage or battery powered electronic method for the Cardinal #2 Mine. for modification for mining through or testing and diagnostic equipment such MSHA grants the petition for near (whenever the safety barrier as lap top computers, oscilloscopes, modification for the Cardinal #2 Mine diameter is reduced to a distance less vibration analysis machines, cable fault with conditions. than the District Manager would detectors, point temperature probes, Docket No.: M–2000–047–C. approve pursuant to § 75.1700) plugged infrared temperature devices and FR Notice: 65 FR 40141. oil or gas wells penetrating the recorders, pressure and flow Petitioner: Bowie Resources, Ltd. Powellton Coal Seam and other measurement devices, signal analyzer Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.701. mineable coal seams using continuous devices ultrasonic thickness gauges, Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s mining methods for the Castle Mine electronic component testers, electronic proposal is to use a 460KW, 480-volt, with conditions. tachometers and battery operated drills, wye connected diesel powered Docket No.: M–2000–090–C. in or inby the last open crosscut. This generator for utility power and to move FR Notice: 65 FR 49018. is considered an acceptable alternative electrically powered mining equipment Petitioner: Elk Run Coal Company, method for the Crandall Canyon Mine. throughout the mine. This is considered Inc. MSHA grants the petition for an acceptable alternative method for the Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.350. modification for the Crandall Canyon Bowie Mine. MSHA grants the petition Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s Mine with conditions. for modification for the Bowie Mine proposal is to use air that is coursed Docket No.: M–2000–033–C. with conditions. through belt haulage entries to ventilate FR Notice: 65 FR 31612. Docket No.: M–2000–055–C. active working places and install a low- Petitioner: Sidney Coal Company, Inc. FR Notice: 65 FR 40142. level carbon monoxide detection system Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002. Petitioner: RAG Cumberland as an early warning fire detection Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s Resources LP. system in all belt entries at certain proposal is to use 4,160-volt longwall Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002. locations. This is considered an face equipment, and submit proposed Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s acceptable alternative method for the revisions for its approved Part 48 proposal is to request that Item 29 of its Castle Mine. MSHA grants the petition training plans to the District Manager previously granted petition for for modification for the Castle Mine that would specify initial and refresher modification (M–92–99-C), be amended with conditions. training. This is considered an to allow the widths and lengths of its Docket No.: M–2000–091–C. acceptable alternative method for the panels to be increased; and that Item 31 FR Notice: 65 FR 49018. Rockhouse Energy Mining Company be amended to allow a primary Petitioner: Freeman United Coal Mine No. 1. MSHA grants the petition escapeway maintained in accordance Mining Company. for modification for the Rockhouse with 30 CFR 75.380 be provided on the Regulation Affected: 30 CFR Energy Mining Company, Mine No. 1 headgate end of all longwall panels. 75.1909(b)(6). with conditions. This is considered an acceptable Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s Docket No.: M–2000–043–C. alternative method for the Cumberland proposal is to use a diesel-grader FR Notice: 65 FR 31610. Mine. MSHA grants the petition for without front wheel brakes, limit the Petitioner: Elk Run Coal Company, modification for the Cumberland Mine diesel-grader speed to a maximum Inc. with conditions. speed of 10 miles per hour, lower the Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002. Docket No.: M–2000–088–C. grader blade (mold board) to increase Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s FR Notice: 65 FR 49017. stopping capability in emergencies, and proposal is to use continuous mining Petitioner: Elk Run Coal Company, provide training for the grader operators machines with nominal voltage of the Inc. on how to recognize appropriate levels power circuits not to exceed 2,300 volts Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1700. of speed for different road and slope in its March 29, 2000, petition for Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s conditions. This is considered an modification. The petitioner amended proposal is to plug and mine through oil acceptable alternative method for the its petition for modification in May and gas wells. This is considered an Crown III Mine. MSHA grants the 2000 and requested the stipulations to acceptable alternative method for the petition for modification for the Crown be changed to use 2,400-volt high- White Knight Mine. MSHA grants the III Mine with conditions. voltage continuous mining machines. petition for modification for mining Docket No.: M–2000–094–C. This is considered an acceptable through or near (whenever the safety FR Notice: 65 FR 49018. alternative method for the Castle Mine. barrier diameter is reduced to a distance Petitioner: Elk Run Coal Company, MSHA grants the petition for less than the District Manager would Inc. modification for the 2,400-volt approve pursuant to § 75.1700) plugged Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002.
VerDate 11
Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s grants the petition for modification for is considered an acceptable alternative proposal is to use high-voltage (4,160- the San Juan South Mine and the San method for the West Ridge Mine. MSHA volts) longwall mining equipment at the Juan Deep Mine with conditions. grants the petition for the modification face. This is considered an acceptable Docket No.: M–2000–100–C. 480-volt, three-phase, 320KW diesel alternative method for the Castle Mine. FR Notice: 65 FR 58818. powered generator (DPG) set, Serial No. MSHA grants the petition for Petitioner: Black Beauty Coal 31545, used to supply power to a 400 modification for the Castle Mine with Company. KVA auto-transformer and the three- conditions. Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.350. phase 480- and 995-volt power circuits Docket No.: M–2000–095–C. Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s for the West Ridge Mine with FR Notice: 65 FR 58818. proposal is to use intake air off the belt conditions. Petitioner: Blue Mountain Energy, Inc. and neutral entries to ventilate working Docket No.: M–2000–105–C. Regulation Affected: 30 CFR sections. This considered an acceptable FR Notice: 65 FR 58819. 75.1902(c)(2)(i), (ii), (iii). alternative method for the Vermilion Petitioner: Gibson County Coal, LLC. Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s Grove Mine. MSHA grants the petition Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1700. proposal is to store the temporary diesel for modification to allow air coursed Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s transportation unit (the unit) no more through conveyor belt entries to be used proposal is to plug and mine through oil than 5 cross-cuts from the loading point, to ventilate working places for the and gas wells using specific procedures or projected loading point during Vermilion Grove Mine with conditions. listed in the petition for modification. installation, and the last loading point Docket No.: M–2000–101–C. This is considered an acceptable during equipment removal. This is FR Notice: 65 FR 58818. alternative method for the Gibson Mine. considered an acceptable alternative Petitioner: Genwal Resources, Inc. MSHA grants the petition for method for the Deserado Mine. MSHA Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.701. modification for mining through or near grants the petition for modification for Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s (whenever the safety barrier diameter is the Deserado Mine with conditions. The proposal is to use a 480-volt, wye reduced to a distance less than the petitioner filed a petition on June 8, connected, 320 KW portable diesel District Manager would approve 2000, seeking modification of 30 CFR powered generator for utility power and pursuant to § 75.1700) plugged oil or gas 75.1902(2)(i), (ii), and (iii). On October to move electrically powered mining wells penetrating the Kentucky No. 9 30, 2000, the petitioner filed an equipment in and around the mine. This (Illinois No. 5) seam and other mineable amended petition to more accurately is considered an acceptable alternative coal seams for the Gibson Mine with reflect the current standard 30 CFR method for the Crandall Canyon Mine. conditions. 75.1902(c)(2)(i), (ii) and (iii). MSHA grants the petition for the Docket No.: M–2000–106–C. Docket No.: M–2000–098–C. modification 480-volt, three-phase, FR Notice: 65 FR 58819. FR Notice: 65 FR 58818. 320KW diesel powered generator (DPG) Petitioner: San Juan Coal Company. Petitioner: Black Beauty Coal set, Serial No. 31545, used to supply Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1700. Company. power to a 400 KVA autotransformer Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.350. and the three-phase 480- and 995-volt proposal is to plug and through oil and Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s power circuits for the Crandall Canyon gas wells within a 300 foot diameter of proposal is to use intake air off the belt Mine with conditions. abandoned oil and gas wells using the and neutral entries to ventilate working Docket No.: M–2000–102–C. specific procedures outlined in its sections. This considered an acceptable FR Notice: 65 FR 58819. petition for modification. This is alternative method for the Air Quality Petitioner: Genwal Resources, Inc. considered an acceptable alternative #1 Mine. MSHA grants the petition for Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.901. method for the San Juan South Mine modification to allow air coursed Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s and the San Juan Deep Mine. MSHA through conveyor belt entries to be used proposal is to use a 480-volt, wye grants the petition for modification for to ventilate working places for the Air connected, 320 KW portable diesel mining through or near (whenever the Quality #1 Mine with conditions. powered generator for utility power and safety barrier diameter is reduced to a Docket No.: M–2000–099–C. to move electrically powered mining distance less than the District Manager FR Notice: 65 FR 58818. equipment in and around the mine. This would approve pursuant to § 75.1700) Petitioner: San Juan Coal Company. is considered an acceptable alternative plugged oil or gas wells penetrating the Regulation Affected: 30 CFR method for the Crandall Canyon Mine. Fruitland No. 8 Coal Seam and other 75.500(d). MSHA grants the petition for the mineable coal seams for the San Juan Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s modification 480-volt, three-phase, South Mine and the San Juan Deep proposal is to use non-permissible low- 320KW diesel powered generator (DPG) Mine with conditions. voltage or battery powered electronic set, Serial No. 31545, used to supply Docket No.: M–2000–107–C. testing and diagnostic equipment such power to a 400 KVA auto-transformer FR Notice: 65 FR 58819. as lap top computers, oscilloscopes, and the three-phase 480- and 995-volt Petitioner: Sidney Coal Company, Inc. vibration analysis machines, cable fault power circuits for the Crandall Canyon Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1700. detectors, point temperature probes, Mine with conditions. Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s infrared temperature devices and Docket No.: M–2000–103–C. proposal is to plug and through oil and recorders, pressure and flow FR Notice: 65 FR 58819. gas wells within a 300 foot diameter of measurement devices, signal analyzer Petitioner: West Ridge Resources, Inc. abandoned oil and gas wells using the devices ultrasonic thickness gauges, Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.701. specific procedures outlined in its electronic component testers, electronic Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s petition for modification. This is tachometers and battery operated drills, proposal is to use a 480-volt, wye considered an acceptable alternative in or inby the last open crosscut. This connected, 320 KW portable diesel method for the Rockhouse Energy is considered an acceptable alternative powered generator for utility power and Mining Company Mine No. 1. MSHA method for the San Juan South Mine to move electrically powered mining grants the petition for modification for and the San Juan Deep Mine. MSHA equipment in and around the mine. This mining through or near (whenever the
VerDate 11
safety barrier diameter is reduced to a modification for the use of low-voltage and Order for its previously granted distance less than the District Manager or battery-powered nonpermissible petition for modification, docket would approve pursuant to § 75.1700) equipment with 150 feet of pillar, under number M–96–096–C, be amended to plugged oil or gas wells penetrating the controlled conditions at the Crandall allow the terms and conditions to be Cedar Grove Coal Seam and other Canyon Mine with conditions. used at locations other than the No. 3 mineable coal seams using continuous Docket No.: M–2000–124–C. bleeder shaft at the Emerald Mine. This miners, conventional mining or FR Notice: 65 FR 64261. is considered an acceptable alternative longwall mining methods. This is Petitioner: Parkwood Resources, Inc. method for the Emerald Mine #1. MSHA considered an acceptable alternative Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.100– grants the petition for modification for method for the Rockhouse Energy 2(e)(2). the submersible pumps installed in the Mining Company Mine No. 1. MSHA Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s No. 3 and No. 4 bleeder shafts and No. grants the petition for modification for proposal is to use two (2) fire 6 return shafts and all future return and/ the Rockhouse Energy Mining Company extinguishers or one fire extinguisher of or bleeder shafts in the Emerald Mine Mine No. 1 with conditions. twice the required capacity at all No. 1 with conditions. Docket No.: M–2000–108–C. temporary electrical installations Docket No.: M–2000–144–C. FR Notice: 65 FR 58819. instead of using 240 pounds of rock FR Notice: 65 FR 75974. Petitioner: San Juan Coal Company. dust. This is considered an acceptable Petitioner: McCoy Elkhorn Coal Corp. Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002– alternative method for the Parkwood Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 1(a). Mine. MSHA grants the petition for (18.41(f) of part 18). Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s modification for the temporary electrical Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s proposal is to use permissible low- installations provided the petitioner proposal is to use a permanently voltage or battery powered electronic maintains two portable fire installed spring-loaded locking device testing and diagnostic equipment such extinguishers having at least the on mobile battery-powered machines in as lap top computers, oscilloscopes, minimum capacity specified for lieu of padlocks to prevent the battery vibration analysis machines, cable fault portable fire extinguisher in 30 CFR plugs from accidentally separating from detectors, point temperature probes, 75.1100–1(e) at each of the temporary their receptacles, and to eliminate the infrared temperature devices insulation electrical installations at the Parkwood hazards associated with difficult testers (meggers), voltage, current, and Mine with conditions. removal of padlocks during emergency power measurement devices, signal Docket No.: M–2000–129–C. situations. This is considered an analyzer devices, ultrasonic thickness FR Notice: 65 FR 64261. acceptable alternative method for the gauges, electronic component testers, Petitioner: Girdner Mining Company, Mine No. 14, Mine No. 16, Mine No. 21, electronic tachometers and may use Inc. and Smithfork Mine No. 1. MSHA other testing and diagnostic equipment Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.342. grants the petition for modification for Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s if approved by the District Manager. the Mine No. 14, Mine No. 16, Mine No. proposal is to use hand-held This is considered an acceptable 21, and Smithfork Mine No. 1 with continuous-duty methane and oxygen alternative method for the San Juan conditions. indicators on three-wheel tractors with South Mine and San Juan Deep Mine. drag bottom buckets used to load and Docket No.: M–2000–145–C. MSHA grants the petition for haul coal from the mine face, but FR Notice: 65 FR 75974. modification for the use of low-voltage approximately 20 percent of the time Petitioner: Ohio County Coal or battery-powered non-permissible they are also used to haul supplies and Corporation. electronic testing and diagnostic Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 as a mantrip vehicle. This is considered equipment within 150 feet of pillar (18.41(f) of part 18). an acceptable alternative method for the workings for the San Juan South Mine Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s Mine #1. MSHA grants the petition for and San Juan Deep Mine with proposal is to use a spring-loaded modification for the Mescher conditions. device with specific fastening permissible three-wheel battery- characteristics instead of a padlock to Docket No.: M–2000–117–C. powered tractors used to load coal at the secure plugs and electrical type FR Notice: 65 FR 58820. Mine #1 with conditions. Petitioner: Genwal Resources, Inc. connectors to batteries and to the Docket No.: M–2000–138–C. permissible mobile powered equipment Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002– FR Notice: 65 FR 75973. the batteries serve, to prevent battery 1(a). Petitioner: Black Beauty Coal plugs from accidentally separating from Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s Company. proposal is to use nonpermissible low- Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002. their receptacles during normal voltage or battery powered electronic Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s operation of the battery equipment. This testing and diagnostic equipment such proposal is to use high-voltage (2,400- is considered an acceptable alternative as lap top computers, oscilloscopes, volt) trailing cables inby the last open method for the Freedom Mine. MSHA vibration analysis machines, cable fault crosscut at the working continuous grants the petition for modification for detectors, point temperature probes, miner section(s) g equipment. This is the Freedom Mine with conditions. infrared temperature devices and considered an acceptable alternative Docket No.: M–2000–147–C. recorders, pressures and flow method for the Riola #1 Mine. MSHA FR Notice: 65 FR 75975. measurement devices, signal analyzer grants the petition for modification for Petitioner: Gibson County Coal, LLC. devices, ultrasonic thickness gauges, the 2,400-volt continuous miner(s) at Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.701. electronic component testers, electronic the Riola #1 Mine with conditions. Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s techometers, inby the last open crosscut, Docket No.: M–2000–142–C. proposal is to use a 200 KW/250 KVA, and may use other equipment approved FR Notice: 65 FR 64261. 480-volt, diesel powered generator set to by the District Manager. This is Petitioner: D & A Resources, Inc. move equipment in and out of the considered an acceptable alternative Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503. mine(s) and to move equipment method for the Crandall Canyon Mine. Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s underground in emergency situations. MSHA grants the petition for requests is for the Proposed Decision This is considered an acceptable
VerDate 11
alternative method for the 480-volt, DATE AND TIME: NCLIS Business Dated: October 1 6, 2001. three-phase, 200KW diesel powered Meeting—October 26, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to Susanne Bolton, generator (DPG)set, supplying power to 12 p.m. Committee Management Officer. a 250 KVA three-phase transformer and ADDRESSES: Conference Room, NCLIS [FR Doc. 01–26439 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] three-phase 480- and 995-volt power Office, 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW., BILLING CODE 7555–01–M circuits at the Gibson Mine. MSHA Washington, DC 20005. grants the petition for modification for the Gibson Mine with conditions. STATUS: Open meeting. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Docket No.: M–2000–150–C. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Advisory Committee for Education and FR Notice: 65 FR 75975. Rosalie Vlach, Director, Legislative and Human Resources; Notice of Meeting Petitioner: D & F Deep Mine Buck Public Affairs, U.S. National Drift. Commission on Libraries and In accordance with the Federal Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1100– Information Science, 1110 Vermont Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 2(a)(2). Avenue, NW., Suite 820, Washington, 463, as amended) the National Science Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s DC 20005, e-mail [email protected], fax Foundation announces the following proposal is to use two (2) fire 202–606–9203 or telephone 202–606– meeting. extinguishers or one fire extinguisher of 9200. Name: Advisory Committee for Education twice the required capacity at all and Human Resources SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The temporary electrical installations Date and Time: November 7; 8:30 am–6:30 instead of using 240 pounds of rock meeting is open to the public, subject to pm. November 8; 8:30 am–3 pm. dust. This is considered an acceptable space availability. To make special Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 alternative method for the Buck Drift arrangements for physically challenged Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Mine. MSHA grants the petition for persons, contact Rosalie Vlach, Director, Type of Meeting: Open. modification for the Buck Drift Mine Legislative and Public Affairs, 1110 Contact Person: John B. Hunt, Senior with conditions. Vermont Avenue, NW., Suite 820, Liaison, ACEHR, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science Docket No.: M–2000–153–C. Washington, DC 20005, e-mail [email protected], fax 202–606–9203 or Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room FR Notice: 65 FR 75975. 805, Arlington, VA 22230, 703–292–8602. Petitioner: Shamrock Coal Company. telephone 202–606–9200. Summary Minutes: May be obtained from Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1700. Dated: October 17, 2001. contact person listed above. Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s Robert S. Willard, Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations concerning NSF support proposal is to plug and mine through a NCLIS Executive Director. plugged oil and gas the well located for Education and Human Resources. [FR Doc. 01–26535 Filed 10–17–01; 12:23 Agenda: Discussion of FY 2001 programs adjacent to longwall gate entries and pm] of the Directorate for Education and Human within a proposed longwall mining BILLING CODE 7527–$$–P Resources and planning for future activities. panel. This is considered an acceptable alternative method for the Shamrock Dated: October 16, 2001. #18 Series Mine. MSHA grants the Susanne Bolton, petition for modification for mining NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Committee Management Officer. through or near (whenever the safety [FR Doc. 01–26438 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Advisory Committee for Biological barrier diameter is reduced to a distance BILLING CODE 7555–01–M less than the District Manager would Sciences (BIO); Notice of Meeting approve pursuant to § 75.1700) plugged oil or gas wells penetrating the hazard In accordance with the Federal NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION No. 4 Coal Seam and other mineable Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– coal seams at the Shamrock #18 Series 463, as amended), the National Science NSB Public Service Award Committee; Mine with conditions. Foundation announces the following Notice of Meeting meeting. [FR Doc. 01–26327 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] In accordance with the Federal Name: Advisory Committee for Biological BILLING CODE 4510–43–P Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– Sciences (1110). Date and Time: November 8, 2001; 8:30 463, as amended), the National Science am.–5 p.m. November 9, 2001; 8:30 a.m.–3 Foundation announces the following NATIONAL COMMISSION ON p.m. meeting: LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Name: NSB Public Service Award SCIENCE Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA, Room 1235. Committee) (5195). Type of Meeting: Open. Date/Time: Monday, November 5, 2001, 11 Sunshine Act Meeting Contact Person: Dr. Mary E. Clutter, am–12:30 pm EST (teleconference meeting). Assistant Director, Biological Sciences, Room Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 AGENCY: U.S. National Commission on 605, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA. Libraries and Information Science. Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230 Tel No.: Type of Meeting: Closed. ACTION: Notice of meeting. (703) 292–8400. Contact Person: Mrs. Susan E. Fannoney, Minutes: May be obtained from the contact Executive Secretary, Room 1220, National SUMMARY: The U.S. National person listed above. Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Commission on Libraries and Purpose of Meeting: The Advisory Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703/292– Information Science is holding an open Committee for BIO provides advice, 8096. recommendations, and oversight concerning business meeting to discuss Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and major program emphases, directions, and recommendations in the selection of the NSB developments affecting the Commission goals for the research-related activities of the Public Service Award recipients. budget and the appropriate activities for divisions that make up BIO. Agenda: To review and evaluate library and information services with Agenda: GPRA Evaluation and Planning nominations as part of the selection process regard to homeland security. Discussion. for awards.
VerDate 11
Reason for Closing: The nominations being (the licensee), for operation of the that the proposed amendment to change reviewed include information of a personal University of Missouri-Columbia the expiration date of the facility license nature where disclosure would constitute Research Reactor (MURR), located in to recapture time between construction unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. Columbia, Missouri. and operation to allow for a 40-year These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. operating license term will not result in 552b(c)(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Environmental Assessment Act. a significant increase in environmental Identification of the Proposed Action impacts. The licensee has not requested Dated: October 16, 2001. any changes to the facility design or Susanne Bolton, The proposed action would revise Amended Facility License No. R–103 to operating conditions as part of this Committee Management Officer. change the license expiration date from amendment request. Data from the last [FR Doc. 01–26432 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] November 21, 2001, to October 11, 2006, ten years of operation was assessed to BILLING CODE 7555–01–M to recapture the construction time determine the radiological impact of the between the issuance date of facility on the environment. Construction Permit No. CPRR–68 Environmental surveys are performed NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (November 21, 1961) and issuance of by measuring the exposure to 41 President’s Committee on the National Facility Operating License No. R–103 thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) Medal of Science; Notice of Meeting (October 11, 1966) to allow a 40-year placed on and off site at various operating license term. distances and directions from the In accordance with the Federal The proposed action is in accordance facility. The results of this monitoring Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– with the licensee’s application for for all TLDs averaged by year from 1991 463, as amended), the National Science amendment dated December 27, 2000, to 2000, and the TLD with maximum Foundation announces the following as supplemented by letters dated April exposure (both do not include TLDs meeting. 12 and June 6, 2001. affected by shipping operations) is as Date/Time: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 The Need for the Proposed Action follows: 8:30 am–2 pm The proposed action is needed to Place: Room 370, National Science Year Average Maximum Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, recapture the time spent under the (mrem/yr) (mrem/yr) VA. construction permit to allow operation Type of Meeting: Closed. of the MURR reactor for a term of 40 2000 ...... ¥1.3 18.6 Contact Person: Mrs. Susan E. Fannoney, years from the date of issuance of the 1999 ...... 13.5 43.5 Program Manager, Room 1220, National facility license. 1998 ...... 3.4 51.9 Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 1997 ...... 9.2 34.8 Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703/292– Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 1996 ...... 9.2 34.9 8096. Action 1995 ...... 14.6 44.2 1994 ...... 20.5 49.7 Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and The MURR is located on a 7.5-acre lot recommendations to the President in the 1993 ...... 18.1 28.2 selection of the National Medal of Science in University Research Park, about one 1992 ...... 6.3 26.7 recipients. mile (1.6 km) southwest of the 1991 ...... 4.4 27.3 Agenda: To review and evaluate University of Missouri main campus in nominations as part of the selection process Columbia, Missouri. MURR is a The 2000 average is slightly negative for awards. pressurized, reflected, light-water due to the inadvertent exposure of a Reason for closing: The nominations being moderated and cooled heterogeneous control TLD. reviewed include information of a personal design reactor. The reactor is fueled nature where disclosure would constitute with high-enriched, aluminum-clad, In addition, the licensee has unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. calculated the dose to the individual These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. plate type fuel. The reactor has a maximum steady-state power level of 10 member of the public likely to receive 552b(c)(6) of the Government in the Sunshine the highest dose from air emission of Act. Megawatts thermal [MW(t)] with the reactor core located in a pressure vessel. radioactive material to the environment Dated: October 16, 2001. The reactor pressure vessel is located in to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR Susanne Bolton, a cylindrically shaped pool and is 20.1101(d). This regulation provides as Committee Management Officer. covered by about 23 feet (7 m) of water low as is reasonably achievable criteria [FR Doc. 01–26433 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] during operation for radiation shielding. for air emissions which must result in BILLING CODE 7555–01–M The reactor pool is surrounded by a an individual member of the public biological shield. The reactor is located receiving a total effective dose within a containment building. equivalent (TEDE) of less than 10 mrem NUCLEAR REGULATORY The construction permit for the per year. The results of calculations for COMMISSION facility (CPRR–68) was issued to the the years 1991–2000, is as follows: University of Missouri on November 21, [Docket No. 50–186] Dose 1961. On October 11, 1966, Facility Year (mrem/yr) University of Missouri—Columbia; Operating License No. R–103 was issued University of Missouri—Columbia to the University with a maximum 2000 ...... 0.8 Research Reactor; Environmental power level of 5 MW(t). On July 9, 1974, 1999 ...... 0.9 Assessment and Finding of No Amendment No. 2 to the license was 1998 ...... 0.9 1997 ...... 0.7 Significant Impact issued increasing the maximum operating power level to 10 MW(t). The 1996 ...... 0.6 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory facility normally operates on a 24-hour- 1995 ...... 0.7 Commission (NRC) is considering a-day schedule with a shutdown once a 1994 ...... 0.5 1993 ...... 0.6 issuance of an amendment to Amended week for refueling and maintenance. 1992 ...... 0.4 Facility License No. R–103, issued to The NRC has completed its evaluation 1991 ...... 0.4 the University of Missouri-Columbia of the proposed action and concludes
VerDate 11
These doses are within the constraint concentrations met regulatory estimated to continue at levels similar to on air emissions of 10 mrem per year requirements found in Appendix B those above, which are well within total effective dose equivalent in 10 CFR Table 3 of 10 CFR Part 20 in accordance regulatory limits. 20.1101(d). with 10 CFR 20.2003. Occupational doses to MURR staff The radioactive material released Shipments of radioactive waste offsite and users meet the regulatory from the facility in airborne effluents is for disposal at approved sites were as requirements found in 10 CFR part 20, given as follows: follows: subpart C, and are as low as is reasonably achievable. No changes in Curies re- Curies re- Year Volume Activity reactor operation that would lead to an Year leased leased (cubic feet) (mCi) increase in occupational dose are (Argon-41) (Total) expected as a result of the proposed 2000 ...... 1207.5 249 2000 ...... 975 982 action. 1999 ...... 565.0 281 The proposed action will not increase 1999 ...... 1130 1137 1998 ...... 910.0 53 1998 ...... 1130 1134 1997 ...... 420.0 404 the probability or consequences of 1997 ...... 861 870 1996 ...... 337.5 1409 accidents, no changes are being made in 1996 ...... 728 739 1995 ...... 0.0 0 the types of any effluents that may be 1995 ...... 878 888 1994 ...... 460.0 1228 released off site, and there is no 1994 ...... 370 385 1993 ...... 392.0 60,105 significant increase in occupational or 1993 ...... 409 425 1992 ...... 679.0 1924 public radiation exposure. Therefore, 1992 ...... 470 475 1991 ...... 772.5 1146 there are no significant radiological 1991 ...... 440 441 environmental impacts associated with The NRC inspection program the proposed action. Airborne effluent releases from the confirmed that waste shipments met the With regard to potential non- facility consist primarily of argon-41. requirements of the regulations in 10 radiological impacts, the proposed This is characteristic for research CFR Part 20 for waste disposal. The action does not have a potential to reactors. The releases from the facility licensee did not ship radioactive waste impact historic properties. The facility met the average concentration offsite in 1995. uses and disposes of small quantities of requirements of the facility technical Shipments to return spent reactor fuel chemicals [e.g., up to about 5 gallons (20 specifications. The increase in the to the Department of Energy (DOE) were liters) per year of hydrochloric acid, amount of radioactive effluents reported as follows: nitric acid, aqua regia and isopropyl released between 1994 and 1995 was the alcohol] in research laboratories. These result of a change in the method used Year Shipments chemicals are disposed of in compliance by the licensee to sample the effluent. with Environmental Protection Agency Prior to 1995, the results were based on 2000 ...... 1 (EPA) and Missouri Department of the analysis of a daily grab sample. 1999 ...... 2 1998 ...... 6 Natural Resources requirements by the From 1995, the activity released was University of Missouri Environmental based on calculations performed on data 1997 ...... 4 1996 ...... 2 Health and Safety Department. These recorded from the gas channel of the 1995 ...... 4 chemical forms and quantities are exhaust stack radioactivity monitor 1994 ...... 1 consistent with small laboratory use at which is in operation 24 hours a day. 1993 ...... 3 universities. Analysis of continuous data provided 1992 ...... 9 The quality of the secondary cooling better accuracy than the grab sample 1991 ...... 0 water is maintained using two method that only measured the commercial biocides, a corrosion radioactive material concentration in Eight fuel elements are in each inhibitor, and sulfuric acid (for pH the airborne effluent once per day at the shipment. The fuel is returned to DOE control). These chemicals are similar to time the sample was taken. facilities at the Savannah River Plant in those used in cooling towers for the air Liquid effluent releases to the sanitary Aiken, South Carolina. The NRC conditioning systems of large buildings sewer were as follows: inspection program confirmed that fuel and enter the environment by shipments met NRC and Department of evaporation from the tower to the air Curies re- Transportation requirements for the and by blowdown to the sanitary sewer. leased Curies Re- Year (Hydrogen- leased shipment of radioactive material. About 105 gallons (400 liters) of the two 3) (Total) Radiological releases from the facility biocides, 700 gallons (2650 liters) of and associated doses to the public are corrosion inhibitor, and 4000 gallons 2000 ...... 0.1199 0.1420 within regulatory limits or facility (15,150 liters) of sulfuric acid are used 1999 ...... 0.1670 0.1740 technical specifications and do not have annually. The use of these chemicals is 1998 ...... 0.5901 0.5980 a significant impact on human health or approved by EPA. These chemicals are 1997 ...... 0.1460 0.1510 the environment. Monitoring of stored in a manner that will contain the 1996 ...... 0.1487 0.1560 radiation levels in the environment 1995 ...... 0.0818 0.0900 chemicals in the event of material 1994 ...... 0.1089 0.1270 includes soil, vegetative, and water storage container failure. The use and 1993 ...... 0.2574 0.3160 sampling and direct radiation readings. disposal of these chemicals will not 1992 ...... 0.1711 0.2150 Results of the monitoring program are have a significant impact on the 1991 ...... 0.2094 0.2580 reported in the Reactor Operations environment. The proposed action will Annual Report and indicate that the not result in significant increases in the Liquid effluent releases from the facility does not have a significant use of these chemicals. facility to the sanitary sewer consisted impact on human health or the The facility uses approximately 38 primarily of hydrogen-3. The licensee environment. Releases of radioactive million gallons of water annually. The releases liquid effluent only to the material from the facility to the water is supplied by university owned sanitary sewer. The NRC inspection environment for the proposed and maintained deep wells which program confirmed that monthly construction permit recapture period are provide water to the campus. Most of
VerDate 11
the water (28 million gallons) is used in the facility and the power upgrade to 10 Construction Permit Recapture the cooling tower with the majority of MW(t). Amendment,’’ which are available for the water lost to the atmosphere as public inspection, and can be copied for Agencies and Persons Consulted water vapor. Wastewater from the a fee, at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory facility discharges to the City of In accordance with its stated policy, Commission’s Public Document Room Columbia sewer system and is treated at on September 14, 2001, the staff (PDR), located at One White Flint North, the Columbia Regional Wastewater consulted with the Missouri State 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Treatment Plant. official, Mr. Ron Kucera, Director of Rockville, Maryland. The NRC The Missouri Department of Intergovernmental Cooperation and maintains an Agencywide Documents Conservation has determined that no Special Projects of the Missouri Access and Management System Federal or State listed plants or animals Department of Natural Resources, (ADAMS), which provides text and are known to occur on the MURR site, regarding the environmental impact of image files of NRC’s public documents. but did identify two species in the the proposed action. The State official These documents may be accessed vicinity of the project site. One species, had no comments. In addition, the NRC through the NRC’s Public Electronic the Topeka Shiner, is listed as determined to exercise its discretion to Reading Room on the internet at endangered. MURR withdraws a circulate an Environmental Assessment http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/ minimal amount of groundwater for and Finding of No Significant Impact to index.html. Persons who do not have reactor operation, has no major the public for a 30-day comment period access to ADAMS or who have problems refurbishment or construction activities in response to a request from the State in accessing the documents located in planned, and will have no significant of Missouri Department of Natural ADAMS may contact the PDR reference change in the types or amounts of Resources. The Notice of ‘‘Request for staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 effluents leaving the facility as a result Public Comment, Environmental or by email at [email protected]. of construction permit recapture. Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact’’ appeared in the Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day Therefore, the proposed action is not of October 2001. expected to affect aquatic and terrestrial Federal Register on August 1, 2001 (66 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. biota. The staff concludes there are no FR 39803). During the comment period, significant non-radiological the staff received 12 comment letters. Eugene V. Imbro, environmental impacts associated with All of the comments have been Acting Chief, Operational Experience and the proposed action. reviewed by the NRC. The majority of Non-Power Reactors Branch, Division of Accordingly, the NRC concludes that the comments received related to the Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. there are no significant environmental operation of the reactor and other issues impacts associated with the proposed not related to the EA or the license [FR Doc. 01–26441 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] action. amendment request. In response to BILLING CODE 7590–01–P comments relevant to the EA, several Alternatives to the Proposed Action changes were made to the text of the EA As an alternative to the proposed to clarify issues raised in the comments. NUCLEAR REGULATORY action, the staff considered denial of the A ‘‘Discussion of Comments Received COMMISSION proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’ on the Environmental Assessment for [Docket No. 50–271] alternative). Denial of the proposed the University of Missouri-Columbia action would result in expiration of the Construction Permit Recapture Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp; current license in November 2001, and Amendment’’ has been prepared by the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power the commencement of decommissioning NRC staff. This document contains the Station; Environmental Assessment if an application for license renewal is NRC staff’s discussion and response to and Finding of No Significant Impact not made. If the application is denied, the public comments relative to the EA The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory it is expected that the licensee would and copies of the comment letters. This Commission (NRC) is considering apply for renewal of the license. With document has accession number issuance of an amendment to Facility operation under the proposed action or ML012850463. Members of the public Operating License No. DPR–28, issued with a renewed license or during the may view the document by using to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power evaluation of a timely renewal ADAMS or contacting the Public Corporation (VYNPC, the licensee), for application, the environmental impacts Document Room staff as discussed operation of the Vermont Yankee of the proposed action and the below. Nuclear Power Station (Vermont alternative are similar. If the Commission denied the Finding of No Significant Impact Yankee) located in Windham County, application for license renewal, facility On the basis of the environmental Vermont. Therefore, as required by 10 operations would end and assessment, the NRC concludes that the CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this decommissioning would be required proposed action will not have a environmental assessment and finding with no significant impact on the significant effect on the quality of the of no significant impact. environment. The environmental human environment. Accordingly, the Environmental Assessment impacts of the proposed action and this NRC has determined not to prepare an alternative action are similar. In environmental impact statement for the Identification of the Proposed Action addition, the benefits of education and proposed action. The proposed action would amend research conducted by the facility For further details with respect to the the Facility Operating License (FOL) by would be lost. proposed action, see the licensee’s letter deleting obsolete information, correcting dated December 27, 2000, as errors, and make administrative changes Alternative Use of Resources supplemented by letter dated April 12 to enhance the context and provide This action does not involve the use and June 6, 2001, and the NRC staff’s consistency. of any resources not previously ‘‘Discussion of Comments Received on The proposed action is in accordance considered in the Hazards Analysis the Environmental Assessment for the with the licensee’s application for Report prepared for initial licensing of University of Missouri-Columbia amendment dated April 23, 2001.
VerDate 11
The Need for the Proposed Action Environmental Impacts of the NUCLEAR REGULATORY Alternatives to the Proposed Action COMMISSION When FOL DPR–28 was issued to the licensee and in subsequent As an alternative to the proposed Nuclear Industry Consolidation and amendments, the NRC staff deemed action, the staff considered denial of the Deregulation Issues Workshop certain issues essential to safety and/or proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’ essential to meeting certain regulatory alternative). Denial of the application AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory interests. These issues were imposed as would result in no change in current Commission. license conditions in the FOL. Since the environmental impacts. The ACTION: Notice of meeting. unit was licensed to operate in the environmental impacts of the proposed SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 1970s, most of these license conditions action and the alternative action are Commission (NRC) will conduct a have been fulfilled or changed. For the similar. license conditions that have been workshop on issues related to nuclear fulfilled, the licensee proposed to have Alternative Use of Resources power industry consolidation and them deleted from the FOL. The license deregulation. The workshop will consist conditions that are incorrect or need to This action does not involve the use of two sessions. Session 1, ‘‘Nuclear be updated are being changed. of any different resources than those Industry Consolidation Issues’’, will be previously considered in the Final The licensee also proposed to make held from 8:30 a.m. to noon on Environmental Statement for Vermont changes to correct administrative errors Thursday, November 1, 2001. The Yankee dated July 1972. such as words misspelled and deleted document that forms the basis for discussion for this session is documents being referenced and to Agencies and Persons Consulted provide clarifying information such as ‘‘Preliminary Impact Assessment of identifying deleted license conditions On August 6, 2001, the staff consulted Nuclear Industry Consolidation on NRC with the applicable amendment number with the Vermont State official, William Oversight (66 FR 34293, June 27, and date and providing consistent Sherman of the Department of Public 2001).’’ The objectives of Session 1 are paragraph identification. Service, regarding the environmental to discuss the staff’s preliminary impact assessment and stakeholder comments The fire protection license condition impact of the proposed action. The State on the assessments. Session 1 will be will also be changed to reflect an official had no comments. conducted in a ‘‘round table’’ format updated list of applicable NRC safety Finding of No Significant Impact with discussions, as opposed to evaluation reports. presentations, centered on selected On the basis of the environmental Environmental Impacts of the Proposed focus areas related to nuclear industry assessment, the NRC concludes that the Action consolidation. Suggested focus areas are proposed action will not have a Plant Operational Safety, Licensing, The NRC has completed its evaluation significant effect on the quality of the Inspection, Enforcement & Assessment, of the proposed action and concludes human environment. Accordingly, the Decommissioning, Fuel Cycle Facilities, that there is no significant NRC has determined not to prepare an and Financial-Related Issues. Other environmental impact if the amendment environmental impact statement for the issues of concern to the participants will is granted. No changes will be made to proposed action. also be discussed. A detailed agenda the design and licensing basis, and the For further details with respect to the will be posted on the NRC website applicable procedures at Vermont proposed action, see the licensee’s letter before the meeting. Selected staff and Yankee will remain the same. Other dated April 23, 2001. Documents may invited external stakeholders will be than the administrative changes, no be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at seated at the table to lead the other changes will be made to the FOL, the NRC’s Public Document Room discussions, but comments from all including the Technical Specifications. (PDR), located at One White Flint North, attendees will be entertained. The proposed action will not 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Session 2, ‘‘Effects of Deregulation on significantly increase the probability or Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available Safety—Research Issues’’, will be held consequences of accidents, no changes records will be accessible electronically from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on are being made in the types of any from the ADAMS Public Library Thursday, November 1, and from 8:00 effluents that may be released off site, Component on the NRC web site, a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Friday, November and there is no significant increase in http://www.nrc.gov (Public Electronic 2. The document that forms the basis for occupational or public radiation Reading Room). If you do not have discussion for this session is ‘‘Effects of exposure. Therefore, there are no access to ADAMS or if there are Deregulation on Safety: Implications significant radiological environmental problems in accessing the documents Drawn From the Aviation, Rail, and impacts associated with the proposed located in ADAMS, contact the NRC United Kingdom Nuclear Power action. PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, Industries’’, (NUREG/CR–6735). The With regard to potential 301–415–4737 or by e-mail at primary objective of Session 2 is to nonradiological impacts, the proposed [email protected]. recommend a research agenda for NRC action does not have a potential to affect to address any significant issues related Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day any historic sites. It does not affect to deregulation that could affect nuclear of October 2001. nonradiological plant effluents and has power plant safety. A detailed agenda no other environmental impact. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. will be posted on the NRC website Therefore, there are no significant Robert M. Pulsifer, before the meeting. Subject Matter nonradiological environmental impacts Project Manager, Section 2, Project Experts who have studied the effects of associated with the proposed action. Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project deregulation on safety in the aviation, Accordingly, the NRC concludes that Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor rail and United Kingdom nuclear power there are no significant environmental Regulation. industries, and invited external impacts associated with the proposed [FR Doc. 01–26443 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] stakeholders, will be the primary action. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P discussants, however, members of the
VerDate 11
public will be invited to participate in parking near the NRC buildings is Springfield, VA 22161. Regulatory the discussions as time permits. limited. guides are not copyrighted, and Both workshop sessions will be open Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day Commission approval is not required to to the public and all interested parties of October, 2001. reproduce them. may attend. All persons attending will For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) register at the meeting. Thomas L. King, Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day DATES: November 1–2, 2001. Director, Division of Systems Analysis and of October 2001. ADDRESSES: Nuclear Regulatory Regulatory Effectiveness, Office of Nuclear For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Commission, Two White Flint North Regulatory Research. Ashok C. Thadani, Building (TWFN), Auditorium, 11545 [FR Doc. 01–26442 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Research. SCHEDULE: [FR Doc. 01–26440 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] November 1, 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY Session 1. Agenda items include: COMMISSION Plant Operational Safety, Licensing, Inspection, Enforcement & Regulatory Guide; Issuance, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Assessment, Decommissioning, Availability COMMISSION Fuel Cycle Facilities, and Financial- Related Issues. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission [Release No. 34–44937; File No. S7–24– November 1, 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. has issued a revision of a guide in its 89] Session 2. Agenda items include: Regulatory Guide Series. This series has Identification, definition, and been developed to describe and make Joint Industry Plan; Solicitation of prioritization of potential research available to the public such information Comments and Order Approving issues. as methods acceptable to the NRC staff Request To Extend Temporary November 2, 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. for implementing specific parts of the Effectiveness of Reporting Plan for Session 2. Agenda items include: NRC’s regulations, techniques used by Nasdaq/National Market Securities Potential research methods and the staff in evaluating specific problems Traded on an Exchange on an Unlisted research agenda or postulated accidents, and data or Listed Basis, Submitted by the needed by the staff in its review of National Association of Securities FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For Session 1 applications for permits and licenses. Dealers, Inc., the Pacific Exchange, contact Herbert N. Berkow, Mail Stop O Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.149, Inc., and the American, Boston, 8 H12, Office of Nuclear Reactor ‘‘Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Chicago, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Facilities for Use in Operator Training Stock Exchanges Commission, Washington, DC 20–555– and License Examinations,’’ describes 0001; Telephone (301) 415–1485 and E- methods acceptable to the NRC staff for October 15, 2001. mail at [email protected]. For Session 2, complying with the NRC’s regulations I. Introduction contact Julius J. Persensky, Mail Stop T associated with approval or acceptance 10 F13A, Office of Nuclear Regulatory On October 12, 2001, the Cincinnati of a simulation facility for use in reactor Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CSE’’) on behalf Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory operator and senior operator training Commission, Washington, DC 20555– of itself and the National Association of and NRC license examinations. Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’), the 0001; Telephone (301) 415–6759 and E- Comments and suggestions in American Stock Exchange LLC, the mail at [email protected]. connection with items for inclusion in Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., (‘‘BSE’’), SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The guides currently being developed or the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. primary document for Session 1, improvements in all published guides (‘‘CHX’’), Pacific Exchange, Inc. ‘‘Preliminary Impact Assessment of are encouraged at any time. Written (‘‘PCX’’), and the Philadelphia Stock Nuclear Industry Consolidation on NRC comments may be submitted to the Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’) (hereinafter Oversight (for comment)’’, is available Rules and Directives Branch, Division of referred to as the ‘‘Participants’’) 1 electronically by visiting NRC’s Home Administrative Services, Office of submitted to the Securities and Page (http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’ REACTOR/CONSOLIMPACT). Commission, Washington, DC 20555. The primary document for Session 2, or ‘‘SEC’’) a proposal to extend the Regulatory guides are available for 2 ‘‘Effects of Deregulation on Safety: inspection or downloading at the NRC’s operation of the Plan for Nasdaq/ Implications Drawn From the Aviation, Web site at www.nrc.gov under 1 The CSE was elected as chair of the Operating Rail, and United Kingdom Nuclear Regulatory Guides and in NRC’s Committee for the Joint Self-Regulatory Power Industries’’, (NUREG/CR–6735), Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS Organization Plan Governing the Collection, is available electronically by visiting System) at the same site. Single copies Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and NRC’s Home Page (http://www.nrc.gov/ of regulatory guides may be obtained Transaction Information for Exchange-Listed Nasdaq/National Market System Securities and for NRC/NUREGS/CR6735). You may free of charge by writing the Nasdaq/National Market System Securities Traded request a free single copy of NUREG/ Reproduction and Distribution Services on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges CR–6735 by writing to: Reproduction Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Basis (‘‘Plan’’) by the Participants. and Distribution Services Section, Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 2 See letter from Jeffrey T. Brown, Vice President Regulation and General Counsel, CSE, to Jonathan Office of the Chief Information Officer, 0001, or by fax to (301) 415–2289, or by G. Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated October 10, 2001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, e-mail to [email protected]. (‘‘October 2001 Extension Request’’). The Washington, DC 20555–0001, or E-mail: Issued guides may also be purchased signatories to the Plan are the Participants for [email protected], or Facsimile: from the National Technical Information purposes of this release. On October 12, 2001, CSE (301) 415–2289. also submitted an amendment to the October 2001 Service on a standing order basis. Extension Request to include Amex as a Participant. The NRC is accessible to the Red Line Details on this service may be obtained See letter from Jeff T. Brown, Vice President White Flint Metro Station. Visitor by writing NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Continued
VerDate 11
National Market (‘‘Nasdaq/NM’’) III. Description of the Plan IV. Exemptive Relief securities traded on an exchange on an In conjunction with the Plan, on a unlisted or listed basis.3 The October The Plan provides for the collection from Plan Participants, and the temporary basis, the Commission 2001 Extension Request would extend granted an exemption to vendors from consolidation and dissemination to the effectiveness of the Plan through Rule 11Ac1–2 10 under the Act regarding November 19, 2001 and also would vendors, subscribers and others, of the calculation of the BBO.11 In the extend certain exemptive relief as quotation and transaction information October 2001 Extension Request, the 8 described below. The October 2001 in ‘‘eligible securities.’’ The Plan Participants ask that the Commission Extension Request does not seek contains various provisions concerning grant an extension of the exemptive permanent approval of the Plan because its operation, including: Implementation relief described above to vendors until the Participants currently are of the Plan; Manner of Collecting, the BBO calculation issue is fully negotiating certain amendments to the Processing, Sequencing, Making resolved. Plan for which they will seek approval Available and Disseminating Last Sale 4 V. Solicitation of Comments in the future. Information; Reporting Requirements II. Background (including hours of operation); Interested persons are invited to Standards and Methods of Ensuring submit written data, views and The Plan governs the collection, arguments concerning the foregoing, consolidation, and dissemination of Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness of Transaction Reports; including whether it is consistent with quotation and transaction information the Act. The Commission continues to for Nasdaq/NM securities listed on an Terms and Conditions of Access; Description of Operation of Facility solicit comments regarding the BBO exchange or traded on an exchange calculation, the trade-through rule and 5 Contemplated by the Plan; Method of pursuant to a grant of UTP. The any issues presented by changes Frequency of Proposed Evaluation; Commission originally approved the occurring in the market place. Persons 6 Plan on a pilot basis on June 26, 1990. Written Understandings of Agreements making written submissions should file The parties did not begin trading until Relating to Interpretation of, or six copies thereof with the Secretary, July 12, 1993; accordingly, the pilot Participation in, the Plan; Calculation of Securities and Exchange Commission, period commenced on July 12, 1993. the Best Bid and Offer (‘‘BBO’’); Dispute 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC The Plan has since been in operation on Resolution; and Method of 20549–0609. Copies of the submission, 7 an extended pilot basis. Determination and Imposition, and all subsequent amendments, all written Amount of Fees and Charges.9 statements with respect to the proposal Regulation and General Counsel, CSE, to Jonathan that are filed with the Commission, and G. Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated October 12, 2001. 3 Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 61 FR 12122 (March 25, 1996); 37689 (September all written communications relating to 1934 (‘‘Act’’) generally requires an exchange to 16, 1996), 61 FR 50058 (September 24, 1996); 37772 the proposal between the Commission trade only those securities that the exchange lists, (October 1, 1996), 61 FR 52980 (October 9, 1996); and any person, other than those that 38457 (March 31, 1997), 62 FR 16880 (April 8, except that Section 12(f) of the Act permits unlisted may be withheld from the public in trading privileges (‘‘UTP’’) under certain 1997); 38794 (June 30, 1997) 62 FR 36586 (July 8, circumstances. For example, Section 12(f) of the 1997); 39505 (December 31, 1997) 63 FR 1515 accordance with the provisions of 5 Act, among other things, permits, exchanges to (January 9, 1998); 40151 (July 1, 1998) 63 FR 36979 U.S.C. 552, will be available for trade certain securities that are traded over-the- (July 8, 1998); 40896 (December 31, 1998), 64 FR inspection and copying at the counter (‘‘OTC/UTP’’), but only pursuant to a 1834 (January 12, 1999); 41392 (May 12, 1999), 64 Commission’s Public Reference Room. Commission order or rule. The present order fulfills FR 27839 (May 21, 1999) (‘‘May 1999 Approval this Section 12(f) requirement. For a more complete Order’’); 42268 (December 23, 1999), 65 FR 1202 All submissions should refer to File No. discussion of the Section 12(f) requirement, see (January 6, 2000); 43005 (June 30, 2000); 65 FR S7–24–89 and should be submitted by November 1995 Extension Order, infra note 7. 42411 (July 10, 2000); 44099 (March 23, 2001), 66 November 9, 2001. 4 In accordance with the Commission’s statements FR 17457 (March 30, 2001); 44348 (May 24, 2001), in its order approving the establishment of the 66 FR 29610 (May 31, 2001); 44552 (July 13, 2001), VI. Discussion Nasdaq Order Display Facility and Order Collector 66 FR 37712 (July 19, 2001); 44694 (August 14, Facility (‘‘SuperMontage’’), the Participants 2001), 66 FR 43598 (August 20, 2001); and 44804 The Commission finds that an represent that they are revising the Plan. See (September 17, 2001), 66 FR 48299 (September 19, extension of temporary approval of the Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43863 (January 2001). operation of the Plan, as amended, 19, 2001) 66 FR 8020 (January 26, 2001). As the first 8 Currently, the Plan defines ‘‘eligible security’’ as through November 19, 2001, is step, the Participants submitted the 12th any Nasdaq/NM security as to which UTP have amendment to the Plan (‘‘12th Amendment’’) on been granted to a national securities exchange appropriate and in furtherance of 12 13 August 30, 2001, which was published for comment pursuant to Section 12(f) of the Act or that is listed Section 11A of the Act. The in the Federal Register on October 2, 2001. See on a national securities exchange. On May 12, 1999, Commission had previously stated that Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44882 in response to a request from the CHX, the a revised Plan must be filed with the (September 20, 2001), 66 FR 50226. The revised Commission expanded the number of eligible Commission by July 19, 2001, or the revenue sharing section of the Plan was approved Nasdaq/NM securities that may be traded by the by the Commission on a temporary basis. CHX pursuant to the Plan from 500 to 1000. See 5 See Section 12(f)(2) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. May 1999 Approval Order, supra note 7. On 10 17 CFR 240.11Ac1–2. 781(f)(2). November 9, 2000, the Commission noticed and 11 Rule 11Ac1–2 under the Act requires that the 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 28146, requested comment on a proposal by the PCX to best bid or best offer be computed on a price/size/ 55 FR 27917 (July 6, 1990) (‘‘1990 Plan Approval expand the maximum number of securities eligible time algorithm in certain circumstances. Order’’) to trade to include all Nasdaq/NM securities. See Specifically, Rule 11Ac1–2 under the Act provides 7 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 34371 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43545, 65 FR that ‘‘in the event two or more reporting market (July 13, 1994), 59 FR 37103 (July 20, 1994); 35221 69581 (November 17, 2000). The Participants have centers make available identical bids or offers for (January 11, 1995), 60 FR 3886 (January 19, 1995); proposed to amend the definition of ‘‘eligible a specified security, the best bid or offer * * * shall 36102 (August 14, 1995), 60 FR 43626 (August 22, security’’ to include Nasdaq SmallCap securities. be computed by ranking all such identical bids or 1995), 36226 (September 13, 1995), 60 FR 49029 See 12th Amendment, supra note 4. offers * * * first by size * * * then by time.’’ The (September 21, 1995); 36368 (October 13, 1995); 60 9 The full text of the Plan, as well as a ‘‘Concept exemption permits vendors to display the BBO for FR 54091 (October 19, 1995); 36481 (November 13, Paper’’ describing the requirements of the Plan, are Nasdaq securities subject to the Plan on a price/ 1995), 60 FR 58119 (November 24, 1995) contained in the original filing, which is available time/size basis. (‘‘November 1995 Extension Order’’); 36589 for inspection and copying in the Commission’s 12 15 U.S.C. 78k–1. (December 13, 1995), 60 FR 65696 (December 20, Public Reference Room. In addition, the 13 In approving this extension, the Commission 1995); 36650 (December 28, 1995), 61 FR 358 Commission published the Plan in its entirety as has considered the extension’s impact on efficiency, (January 4, 1996); 36934 (March 6, 1996), 61 FR proposed to be amended by 12th Amendment. See competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 10408 (March 13, 1996); 36985 (March 18, 1996), 12th Amendment, supra note. 4. 78(c)(f).
VerDate 11
Commission will amend the Plan information for these members through SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE directly.14 The Participants submitted the SIP. COMMISSION the 12th Amendment to the Plan to the Furthermore, the revised final Plan Sunshine Act Meeting Commission on August 30, 2001, which, should be open to all SROs, and the among other things, includes a process Plan should share governance of all FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS for selecting an alternative securities matters subject to the Plan equitably information processor. Therefore, to ANNOUNCEMENT: [66 FR 52468, October among the SRO Participants. The Plan 15, 2001]. enable the Commission to consider and also should provide for sharing of STATUS: Closed meeting. to solicit comment on the 12th market data revenues among SRO Amendment, the Commission believes Participants. Finally, the Plan should PLACE: 450 Fifth Street, NW., that it is appropriate to extend the provide a role for participation in Washington DC. current Plan. decision making to non-SROs that have DATE AND TIME OF PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED The Commission notes that the direct or indirect access to the MEETING: Thursday, October 18, 2001 at revised final Plan must provide for alternative SIP provided by the NASD. 10 a.m. either (1) A fully viable alternative The Commission expects the parties to CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Additional Item. exclusive securities information continue to negotiate in good faith on The following item has been added to processor (‘‘SIP’’) for all Nasdaq the above matters 15 as well as any other the closed meeting scheduled for securities, or (2) a fully viable issues that arise during Plan Thursday, October 18, 2001: alternative non-exclusive SIP in the negotiations. Report of an investigation. event that the Plan does not provide for The Commission also finds that it is an exclusive SIP. If the revised Plan Commissioner Hunt, as duty officer, appropriate to extend the exemptive determined that Commission business provides for an exclusive consolidating 16 relief from Rule 11Ac1–16 under the required the above change and that no SIP, a function currently performed by Act until the earlier of November 19, Nasdaq, the Commission believes that, earlier notice thereof was possible. 2001, or until such time as the At times, changes in Commission to avoid conflicts of interest, there calculation methodology of the BBO is priorities require alternations in the should be a presumption that a Plan based on a mutual agreement among the scheduling of meeting items. For further Participant, and in particular Nasdaq, Participants approved by the information and to ascertain what, if should not operate such exclusive Commission. The Commission believes any, matters have been added, deleted consolidating SIP. The presumption that the temporary extension of the or postponed, please contact: The Office may be overcome if: (1) The Plan exemptive relief provided to vendors is of the Secretary at (202) 942–7070. processor is chosen on the basis of bona consistent with the Act, the Rules Dated: October 16, 2001. fide competitive bidding and the thereunder, and specifically with the Participant submits the successful bid; objectives set forth in Sections 12(f) 17 Jonathan G. Katz, and (2) any decision to award a contract and 11A 18 of the Act and in Rules Secretary. to a Plan Participant, and any ensuring 11Aa3–1 19 and 11Aa3–2 20 thereunder. [FR Doc. 01–26526 Filed 10–17–01; 12:03 review or renewal of such contract, is pm] made without that Plan Participant’s VII. Conclusion BILLING CODE 8010–01–M direct or indirect voting participation. If It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to a Plan Participant is chosen to operate Sections 12(f) 21 and 11A 22 of the Act such exclusive SIP, the Commission SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE and paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 11Aa3–2 23 believes there should be a further COMMISSION thereunder, that the Participants’ presumption that the Participant- request to extend the effectiveness of the operated exclusive SIP shall operate Sunshine Act Meeting Plan, as amended, for Nasdaq/NM completely separate from any order securities traded on an exchange on an Notice is hereby given, pursuant to matching facility operated by that unlisted or listed basis through the provisions of the Government in the Participant and that any order matching November 19, 2001, and certain Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94–409, that the facility operated by the Participant must exemptive relief through November 19, Securities and Exchange Commission interact with the plan-operated SIP on 2001, is approved. will hold the following meetings during the same terms and conditions as any the week of October 22, 2001: other market center trading Nasdaq- For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated A closed meeting will be held on Tuesday, listed securities. Further, the October 23, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., and an open authority.24 Commission will expect the NASD to meeting will be held on Thursday, October provide direct or indirect access to the Margaret H. McFarland, 25, 2001, in Room 1C30, the William O. alternative SIP, whether exclusive or Deputy Secretary. Douglas Room, at 2:30 p.m. non-exclusive, by any of its members [FR Doc. 01–26399 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Commissioner Hunt, as duty officer, that quality, and to disseminate BILLING CODE 8010–01–M determined that no earlier notice thereof transaction information and was possible. individually identified quotation 15 See also discussion in the SuperMontage order, Commissioners, Counsel to the supra note 4. Commissioners, the Secretary to the 14 See supra note 4. The Commission notes that 16 17 CFR 240.11Ac1–2. Commission, and recording secretaries the SuperMontage order stated the Participants 17 15 U.S.C. 781(f). will attend the closed meetings. Certain were directed to produce a revised plan by July 19, 18 15 U.S.C. 78k–1. staff members who have an interest in 2001. The Commission, however, provided for a 3- 19 17 CFR 240.11Aa3–1. month extension of the July 19, 2001 deadline if 20 17 CFR 240.11Aa3–2. the matters may also be present. requested by the Participants for good cause. The 21 The General Counsel of the Commission recognizes that the Participants have 15 U.S.C. 78l(f). been meeting to discuss the alternatives for a new 22 15 U.S.C. 78k–1. Commission, or his designee, has plan and has submitted the 12th Amendment to the 23 17 CFR 240.11Aa3–2(c)(2). certified that, in his opinion, one or Plan. 24 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(29). more of the exemptions set forth in 5
VerDate 11
U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), (9)(A), (9)(B), and SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE temporary Amex Rule 220T procedures (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5), (7), 9(i), COMMISSION applicable to a floor broker who receives 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of an incoming call on a cellular telephone [Release No. 34–44929; File No. SR–Amex– or initiates an outgoing call on a cellular the scheduled matters at the closed 2001–86] meetings. telephone.6 The subject matters of the closed Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice The text of the proposed rule change meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness is available at the Office of the Secretary, Amex, and at the 23, 2001, will be: of Proposed Rule Change by the Commission. Institution and settlement of injunctive American Stock Exchange LLC actions; Relating to the Temporary Use of II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Institution and settlement of administrative Personal Cellular Telephones Statement of the Purpose of, and proceedings of an enforcement nature; and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule October 12, 2001. Formal orders. Change Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the The subject matters of the open Securities Exchange Act of 1934 In its filing with the Commission, the meeting scheduled for Thursday, (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 2 thereunder, Amex included statements concerning October 25, 2001, will be: notice is hereby given that on October the purpose of and basis for the 11, 2001, the American Stock Exchange proposed rule change and discussed any 1. The Commission will consider whether comments it received on the proposed to adopt final amendments to its broker- LLC (‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘Amex’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange rule change. The text of these statements dealer books and records rules, Rule 17a–3 may be examined at the places specified and Rule 17a–4 under the Securities Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) Exchange Act of 1934. The amendments to the proposed rule change as described in Item IV below. The Amex has Rule 17a–3 would clarify and expand in Items I, II, and III below, which Items prepared summaries, set forth in recordkeeping requirements with respect to have been prepared by the Amex. The Sections A, B, and C below, of the most purchase and sale documents, customer Amex asserts that the proposed rule significant aspects of such statements. records, associated person records, customer change meets the criteria set forth in A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s complaints, and certain other matters. The 3 amendments to Rule 17a–4 would expand Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the Act, which Statement of the Purpose of, and the types of records that broker-dealers must renders the proposal effective upon Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule maintain and require broker-dealers to receipt of the filing by the Commission.4 Change The Commission is publishing this maintain or promptly produce certain 1. Purpose records at each office to which those records notice to solicit comments on the relate. These amendments are designed to proposed rule change from interested Telecommunications facilities in the assist securities regulators, particularly state persons. western half of downtown New York securities regulators, when conducting sales sustained serious damage as the result practice examinations of broker-dealers. I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s of the attacks on the World Trade Center These amendments were originally proposed Statement of the Terms of Substance of on September 11, 2001. In light of the on October 22, 1996 (see Exchange Act the Proposed Rule Change damage sustained during the September Release No. 37850, 61 FR 55593 (Oct. 28, 11, 2001, attacks, the Amex filed a 1996)), and were reproposed on October 2, A proposed rule change adopting 1998 (see Exchange Act Release No. 40518, temporary Amex Rule 220T, which proposal with the Commission to adopt 63 FR 54404 (Oct. 9, 1998)). allowed Amex members to use personal temporary Amex Rule 220T. The For further information, please contact cellular telephones on a temporary 10- proposal to adopt temporary Amex Rule Michael Macchiaroli, Associate Director, business day basis, became effective on 220T became effective on filing on Division of Market Regulation at (202) 942– filing on October 1, 2001.5 The Amex October 1, 2001.7 Temporary Amex Rule 0132, Thomas McGowan, Assistant Director, adopted temporary Amex Rule 220T as 220T allowed Amex members to use Division of Market Regulation at (202) 942– a result of damage to Amex-provided personal cellular telephones on a 4886, or Bonnie Gauch, Attorney, Division of temporary ten-business day basis, Market Regulation at (202) 942–0765. telephones sustained during the September 11, 2001, attacks on the subject to the conditions in temporary 2. The Commission will consider the Amex Rule 220T. Pacific Exchange’s proposal, filed with the World Trade Center. The Amex Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of proposes to extend the effectiveness of The Amex notes that its staff has the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to temporary Amex Rule 220T through and worked diligently with the Amex’s establish the Archipelago Exchange as its including November 9, 2001, to permit primary telecommunications service equities trading facility. members continue to use personal providers and member firms to restore For further information, please contact cellular telephones as long as their the damaged telecommunications John Polise at (202) 942–0068. service on Amex-provided telephones facilities to full operational status. The repairs, however, have not been At times, changes in Commission continues to be limited as a result of damage sustained in the attacks on the completed. Accordingly, the Amex priorities require alterations in the seeks to extend the effectiveness of scheduling of meeting items. For further World Trade Center. In addition, the Amex proposes to include in the text of temporary Amex Rule 220T through and information and to ascertain what, if including November 9, 2001, to permit any, matters have been added, deleted 1 Amex members (i.e., specialists, or postponed, please contact: 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. registered traders, and floor brokers) to The Office of the Secretary at (202) 3 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 942–7070. 4 The Amex has requested that the Commission 6 These procedures were included in Amendment waive the five-business day pre-filing notice No. 2 to the proposal adopting temporary Amex Dated: October 17, 2001. requirement and the 30-day operative delay. See Rule 220T on a temporary ten-business day basis Jonathan G. Katz, Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii). and were discussed in the October 1 Release. See Secretary. 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44890 note 5, supra. The current proposal codifies the (October 1, 2001), 66 FR 51482 (October 9, 2001) procedures applicable to floor brokers in the text of [FR Doc. 01–26570 Filed 10–17–01; 3:57 pm] (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File temporary Amex Rule 220T. BILLING CODE 8010–01–M No. SR–Amex–2001–82 (‘‘October 1 Release’’). 7 See October 1 Release, supra note 5.
VerDate 11
use personal cellular telephones in the 2. Statutory Basis in furtherance of the purposes of the event that their service on the Amex’s Act. The Exchange believes that the telephone system continues to be A proposed rule change filed under proposed rule change is consistent with limited. In addition, the Amex proposes Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not Section 6(b) of the Act,9 in general, and to amend temporary Amex rule 220T to become operative prior to 30 days after furthers the objectives of Section include in the text of temporary Amex the date of filing. However, Rule 19b– 6(b)(5),10 in particular, in that it is Rule 220T procedures applicable to a 4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designed to prevent fraudulent and floor broker who receives an incoming designate a shorter time if such action manipulative acts and practices, to call on a cellular telephone or initiates is consistent with the protection of promote just and equitable principles of an outgoing call on a cellular telephone. investors and the public interest. The Under temporary Amex Rule 220T, trade, to remove impediments to and Amex has asked the Commission to the use by members of personal cellular perfect the mechanism of a free and designate such shorter time period so telephones is subject to the following open market and a national market that the proposed rule change may conditions: system, and, in general, to protect become operative immediately. In this • A member must have (1) tested his investors and the public interest. The regard, the Amex believes that it would or her Exchange-provided telephones Exchange also believes that the be prudent to permit members to use and found significant limitations on proposed rule change is not designed to personal cellular telephones as a service, and (2) furnished a written permit unfair discrimination between temporary back up in the event that statement to the Exchange to that effect. customers, issuers, brokers, and dealers. regular phone service is not fully Members that previously applied to use B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s restored. In addition, the Amex notes a personal cellular telephone will be Statement on Burden on Competition that the Commission previously has required to reapply for the extension of permitted floor brokers, lead market the effectiveness of temporary Amex The Amex believes that the proposed makers, specialists, and registered Rule 220T; rule change will impose no burden on traders on the Pacific Exchange and the • A member may not use a personal competition. Philadelphia Stock Exchange to use cellular telephone once full service is C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s personal cellular telephone to conduct restored to the member’s or member Statement on Comments on the business.13 Moreover, the Amex notes organization’s Exchange telephone Proposed Rule Change Received From that its proposal contemplates the use of systems; Members, Participants or Others personal cellular telephones on a • A member must maintain his or her temporary basis until the current cellular telephone records, including No written comments were solicited telecommunications difficulties logs of calls placed, for a period of not or received with respect to the proposed resulting from the September 11, 2001, less than one year. The Exchange rule change. attacks on the World Trade Center are reserves the right to inspect and/or III. Date of Effectiveness of the resolved. examine such telephone records; Proposed Rule Change and Timing for The Commission, consistent with the • If a floor broker receives an Commission Action protection of investors and the public incoming call on a cellular telephone interest, has determined to make the and the caller wishes to give the floor The Amex has filed the proposed rule proposed rule change operative broker an order for a security traded at change as a ‘‘non-controversial’’ rule immediately to allow Amex members to the post where the broker is standing, change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) continue to use personal cellular the broker must step out of the crowd of the Act 11 and subparagraph (f)(6) of telephones through and including prior to accepting the order. In contrast, Rule 19b–4 thereunder.12 Because the November 9, 2001, subject to the if a broker receives an incoming call on foregoing proposed rule change: (1) requirements of temporary Amex Rule a cellular telephone and the caller Does not significantly affect the 220T.14 The Commission finds that wishes to give the broker an order for a protection of investors or the public permitting the proposal to become security traded at some other location interest; (2) does not impose any operative immediately is consistent on the floor, the broker does not have significant burden on competition; and with the protection of investors and the to leave the crowd where he or she is (3) does not become operative for 30 public interest because it will help the standing in order to receive the order. A days after the date of the filing, or such Amex to continue to operate effectively floor broker also may initiate an shorter time as the Commission may while the Exchange and its outgoing call on a cellular telephone designate, it has become effective telecommunications service providers and (1) accept an order for a security pursuant to Section 19(b)(3) of the Act work to repair the damage to the Amex’s traded at the post where the broker is and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder. At any telecommunications facilities resulting standing without leaving the trading time within 60 days of the filing of the from the September 11, 2001, attacks on crowd, or (2) accept an order for a proposed rule change the Commission the World Trade Center. security traded at some other location may summarily abrogate such rule The Commission notes that temporary on the floor; and change if it appears to the Commission Amex Rule 220T is effective only on a • Except as provided in temporary that such action is necessary or temporary basis through and including Amex Rule 220T, all other requirements appropriate in the public interest, for November 9, 2001. In addition, the applicable to the use of Exchange- the protection of investors, or otherwise provided telephones by members shall 13 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. apply to the use by members of personal 43972 (February 15, 2001), 66 FR 12579 (February record-maintenance requirements of temporary 27, 2001) (order approving File No. SR–PHLX–00– 8 cellular telephones. Amex Rule 220T, which requires members to 48); and 43836 (January 11, 2001), 66 FR 6727 maintain OSC cellular telephone records for at least (January 22, 2001) (order approving File No. SR– one year and to give the Exchange the authority to 8 The rules of the Exchange continue to prohibit PCX–00–33). inspect such records. individuals who are not properly qualified to take 14 For purposes only of accelerating the operative 9 public orders for securities (i.e., non-Series 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). date of the proposal, the Commission has member or member firm employees) from 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). considered the proposed rule’s impact on interacting with the public. Surveillance of such 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 telephone usage will be accomplished through the 12 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). U.S.C. 78c(f).
VerDate 11
Commission notes that the relief change that are filed with the comments on the proposed rule change, provided under temporary Amex Rule Commission, and all written as amended, from interested persons. 220T applies in limited circumstances. communications relating to the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Specifically, the Commission notes that proposed rule change, as amended, Statement of the Terms of Substance of under temporary Amex Rule 220T a between the Commission and any member may use a personal cellular person, other than those that may be the Proposed Rule Change telephone only if the member has withheld from the public in accordance Nasdaq proposes to modify the fees provided the Amex with a written with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will for use of the Nasdaq National Markett statement indicating that service on the be available for inspection and copying Execution System (‘‘NNMS’’ or member’s Exchange-provided telephone in the Commission’s Public Reference ‘‘SuperSOES’’) charged to national is limited significantly. In addition, a Room. Copies of such filing will also be securities exchanges trading Nasdaq- member may not continue to use a available for inspection and copying at listed securities pursuant to grants of personal cellular telephone after full the principal office of the Amex. All unlisted trading privileges (‘‘UTP service is restored to the member’s submissions should refer to File No. Exchanges’’), on a pilot basis.4 The rule Amex telephone systems. The SR–Amex–2001–86 and should be filing will become effective upon Commission also notes that temporary submitted by November 9, 2001. approval by the Commission and will be Amex Rule 220T provides safeguards in For the Commission, by the Division of implemented the later of (i) December 1, connection with the use of personal Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 2001, or (ii) the first day of the month cellular telephones. In this regard, authority.15 immediately following Commission temporary Amex Rule 220T requires a Margaret H. McFarland, approval. The rule filing will remain in member to maintain records of his or effect, on a pilot basis, until November her cellular telephone calls, including Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 01–26400 Filed 10–8–01; 8:45 am] 30, 2002. During the pilot period, logs of calls placed, for a period of not Nasdaq will assess the effect of the rule BILLING CODE 8010–01–M less than one year. In addition, as change on market participants and described more fully above, temporary Nasdaq and may file additional changes Amex Rule 220T specifies procedures to the level or structure of its fees. The applicable to a floor broker who receives SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE text of the proposed rule change is set an incoming call on a cellular telephone COMMISSION forth below. Proposed new language is or initiates an outgoing call on a cellular Self Regulatory Organizations; Notice in italics; proposed deletions are in telephone. of Filing of a Proposaed Rule Change A proposed rule change filed under brackets. by the National Association of Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally requires that * * * * * Securities Dealers, Inc., Relating to the self-regulatory organization give the Nasdaq National Market Execution 7010. System Services Commission written notice of its intent System Fees Charged to Non-Members to file the proposed rule change, along (a)(1) Nasdaq Level 1 Service with a brief description and text of the October 12, 2001. The charge to be paid by the proposed rule change, at least five Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the subscriber for each terminal receiving business days prior to the date of filing Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Nasdaq Level 1 Service is $20 per of the proposed rule change. However, (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 month. This Service includes the Rule 196-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the notice is hereby given that on October following data: Commission to waive the five-business 9, 2001, the National Association of day pre-filing notice requirement. The Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’) (A) inside bid/ask quotations Amex has asked the Commission waive through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq calculated for securities listed in The the pre-filing notice requirement. The Stock Market, Inc. (‘‘Nadaq’’) filed with Nasdaq Stockk Market and securities Commission finds good cause to waive the Securities and Exchange quoted in the OTCC Bulletin Board the five-business day pre-filing Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) (OTCBB) service; requirement because the Exchange’s the proposed rule change as described (B) the individual quotations or staff discussed with the Commission in Items I, II and III below, which Items indications of interest of broker/dealers staff the need for an extension of have been prepared by Nasdaq. On utilizing the OTCBB service; and temporary Amex Rule 220T prior to October 11, 2001, Nasdaq filed (C) last sale information on securities filing the proposed rule change. In Amendment No. 1 with the classified as designated securities in the addition, the Commission notes that the 3 Commission. The Commission is Rule 4630, 4640, and 4650 Series and Amex submitted a draft of its proposal publishing this notice to solicit securities classified as over-the-counter for review prior to filing the proposal. equity securities in the Rule 6600 IV. Solicitation of Comments 15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). Series. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). Interested persons are invited to 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 4 Nasdaq also filed a companion rule filing (SR– 3 submit written data, views and See Letter from John M. Yetter, Assistant NASD–2001–71) to apply these rule changes to arguments concerning the foregoing, General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, NASD members. See Securities Exchange Act Nasdaq, to Katherine A. England, Assistant Release No. 44918 (October 10, 2001). SR–NASD– including whether the proposed rule Director, Division of Market Regulation change is consistent with the Act. (‘‘Division’’), Commission (October 11, 2001) 2001–71, proposes on a pilot basis, or: (1) Modify Persons making written submissions (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). Amendment No. 1 is a the fees for use of SuperSOES; (2) modify Nasdaq’s liquidty provider rebate; (3) institute a quotation should file six copies thereof with the technical amendment that amends the proposed rule language to clarify that the filing seeks to update charge; and (4) introduce a mechamism for Secretary, Securities and Exchange modify the fees for use of NNMSs by non-NASD sharing market data revenue with NASD members Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., members. Amendment No. 1 also notes that the rule that report substantially all of their trades through Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies of filing, once effective, will be implemented the later the Automated Confirmation Transaction Service the submission, all subsequent of (i) December 1, 2001, or (ii) the first day of the (‘‘ACT’’). SR–NASD–2001–71 is effective upon month immediately following Commission filing, and Nasdaq will implement it for a pilot amendments, all written statements approval, and will remain in effect, on a pilot basis, period commencing on December 1, 2001 and with respect to the proposed rule until November 30, 2002. ending on November 30, 2002.
VerDate 11
(2) Market Data Revenue Sharing trades in Eligible Securities reported to Full Contribution Members. Nasdaq For a pilot period commencing on ACT by NASD members. may request that a member submit data December 1, 2001 and lasting until (iv) ‘‘Member’s Overall Volume demonstrating that it satisfies the November 30, 2002, Full Contribution Percentage’’ shall mean the average of: definition of a Full Contribution a. the percentage derived from Members (as defined in Rule 7010(i)(2)) Member, and may deem a member that dividing the total number of trades in shall receive a market data revenue fails to submit such data upon request Eligible Securities that the member sharing credit. The total credit consist of to be a Partial Contribution Member. reports in accordance with NASD trade two components, a ‘‘Base Credit’’ and a b. ‘‘Partial Contribution Member’’ reporting rules to ACT by the total ‘‘Supplemental Credit.’’ 5 shall mean any NASD member that is number of trades in Eligible Securities (A) A Full Contribution Member’s not a Full Contribution Member. reported to ACT by NASD members, Base Credit shall be calculated in and c. ‘‘Full Contribution UTP Exchange’’ accordance with the following formula: b. the percentage derived from shall mean any national securities × Base Credit = (0.50) (Eligible Revenue) dividing the total number of shares exchange trading Nasdaq securities × (Member’s Volume Percentage) represented by trades in Eligible pursuant the Nasdaq UTP Plan (as (B) A Full Contribution Member’s Securities that the member reports in defined in NASD Rule 4720) that Supplemental Credit shall be calculated accordance with NASD trade reporting chooses to participate in the automatic in accordance with the following rules to ACT by the total number of execution functionality of the Nasdaq formula: shares represented by all trades in National Market Execution System. Supplemental Credit = (Eligible Eligible Securities reported to ACT by (3) No change. × Revenue (Member’s Volume NASD members. (4) Liquidity provider rebate. Percentage) × (Member’s Overall (v) ‘‘Nasdaq UTP Plan’’ shall have the For a pilot commencing on December Volume Percentage, not to exceed meaning set forth in NASD Rule 4720. 1, 2001 and lasting until November 30, 10%) (b)–(h) No change. 2002: (C) Definitions. The following (i) Transaction Execution Services. definitions shall apply to this Rule: (1) No change. (A) Full Contribution Members that (2) Nasdaq National Market Execution (i) ‘‘Eligible Revenue’’ shall mean: do not charge an access fee to market System (SuperSOES).6 a. the portion of the net distributable participants accessing their quotations (A) The following charges shall apply revenues that Nasdaq, through the through the Nasdaq National Market to the use of the Nasdaq National NASD, is eligible to receive under the Execution System will receive a rebate Market Execution System: Nasdaq UTP Plan, that is attributed to of $0.001 per share when their quotation the Nasdaq Level 1 Service for Eligible Order Entry Charge: $0.10 per order is executed against by a Nasdaq Securities, minus entry (entering party only) National Market Execution System b. the portion of the fee charged to Per Share Charge: $0.001 per share order. Nasdaq by NASD Regulation, Inc. for executed for all fully or partially (B) Partial Contribution Members that regulatory services allocated to the executed orders (entering party only) do not charge an access fee to market Nasdaq Level 1 Service for Eligible Cancellation Fee: $0.25 per order participants accessing their quotations Securities. cancelled (cancelling party only) through the Nasdaq National Market (ii) ‘‘Eligible Securities’’ shall mean (B)(i) For a pilot period commencing Execution System will receive a rebate all Nasdaq National Market securities on December 1, 2001 and lasting until of $0.0005 per share when their and any other security that meets the November 30, 2002, the per share charge quotation is executed against by a definition of ‘‘Eligible Security’’ in the will be determined as follows: Nasdaq National Market Execution Nasdaq UTP Plan. Full Contribution Members: $0.002 per System order. (iii) ‘‘Member’s Volume Percentage’’ share executed for all fully or partially (C) Full Contribution Members and shall mean the average of: executed orders (entering party only) Partial Contribution Members will a. the percentage derived from Partial Contribution Members: $0.003 receive a rebate of $0.001 per share dividing the total number of trades in per share executed for all fully or when they send a Nasdaq National Eligible Securities conducted on non- partially executed orders (entering Market Execution System order that Nasdaq transaction systems that the party only) executes against the quotation of a member reports in accordance with Full Contribution UTP Exchanges: market participant that charges an NASD trade reporting rules to the $0.003 per share executed for all fully access fee to market participants Automated Confirmation Transaction or partially executed orders (entering accessing its quotations through the Service (‘‘ACT’’) by the total number of party only) Nasdaq National Market Execution trades in Eligible Securities reported to (ii) Definitions. The following System. ACT by NASD members, and definitions shall apply to this Rule: b. the percentage derived from a. ‘‘Full Contribution Member’’ shall (5) Quotation Updates. dividing the total number of shares mean an NASD member that reports For a pilot period commencing on represented by trades in Eligible substantially all of its trades during December 1, 2001 and lasting until Securities conducted on non-Nasdaq regular market hours through the November 30, 2002, the following transaction systems taht the member Automated Confirmation Transaction charges shall apply to NASD members reports in accordance with NASD trade Service; provided, however, that for the for quotation updates at the Nasdaq reporting rules to ACT by the total first three months of the pilot period, all quotation montage: number of shares represented by all NASD members shall be deemed to be Full Contribution Members: $0.01 per quotation update 5 Nasdaq corrected a typographical error that 6 Nasdaq corrected a typographical error that appeared in the proposed rule language. Telephone appeared in the proposed rule language. Telephone Partial Contribution Members: $0.03 per conversation between John M. Yetter, Assistant conversation between John M. Yetter, Assistant quotation update General Counsel, Nasdaq and Susie Cho, Special General Counsel, Nasdaq and Susie Cho, Special Counsel, Division, Commission, October 10, 2001. Counsel, Division, Commission, October 10, 2001. (j)–(q) No change.
VerDate 11
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Nasdaq filed a rule change, on a pilot Contribution Members. Thereafter, Statement of the Purpose of, and basis, to increase the per share charge Nasdaq may request that a member Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule for use of the NNMS, and introduced a submit data demonstrating that it Change liquidity provider rebate for NASD satisfies the definition of a Full 9 In its filing with the Commission, members. Contribution Member, and may deem a Nasdaq included statements concerning With this filing and SR–NASD–2001– member that fails to submit such data the purpose of, and basis for, the 71, Nasdaq is making additional upon request to be a Partial proposed rule change and discussed any modifications to the fees for use of the Contribution Member. A ‘‘Full comments it received on the proposed NNMS and the liquidity provide rebate Contribution UTP Exchange’’ is defined rule change. The text of these statements to calibrate the level of fees and rebates as any UTP Exchange that chooses to may be examined at the places specified to the contributions that each type of participate in the automatic execution in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared market participant makes to the support functionality of the NNMS. of the Nasdaq market. Nasdaq is also summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, Charges for order execution and introducing a mechanism for sharing and C below, of the most significant quotation updates. Under the proposal, market data revenue with NASD aspects of such statements. the per share charge for orders executed members that report substantially all in the NNMS by Partial Contribution A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s trades through ACT. Finally, Nasdaq is Members and Full Contribution UTP Statement of the Purpose of, and introducing a quotation update charge. Exchanges will increase to $0.003 per Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Nasdaq represents that the proposal is share and will remain at $0.002 per Change designed to enhance market efficiency share for Full Contribution Members. and fairness by offering incentives to 1. Purpose Nasdaq is also institution a quotation market participants that provide update fee that is applicable to NASD On January 14, 2000, the Commission liquidity through the NNMS and members (but not UTP Exchanges), in issued an order approving a rule change support Nasdaq operations through recognition of the fact that the ability to that: (1) Established the NNMS, a new trade reporting. The proposal imposes post quotes in the Nasdaq quotation platform for the trading of Nasdaq new charges on market participants that montage provides market participants National Market (‘‘NNM’’) securities; (2) use the Nasdaq quotation mechanism to with the valuable opportunity to modified the rules governing the use of quote, but do not provide meaningful advertise the liquidity that they offer. SelectNet for trading NNM issues; and liquidity by exposing and executing Nasdaq believes that the absence of any (3) left unchanged trading of Nasdaq orders in Nasdaq. The proposal seeks to charges for quotation updates has SmallCap securities through the Small reward those who provide meaningful encouraged market participants to quote Order Execution System (‘‘SOES’’) and quotes and expose orders for execution inefficiently, imposing unnecessary 7 in Nasdaq, while building in economic SelectNet. Nasdaq began implementing burdens on Nasdaq system capacity. incentives to discourage posting of these system changes on July 9, 2001 Moreover, to the extent that quotations inefficient quotations that impose and completed implementation on July are accessed through non-Nasdaq burdens on system capacity. In 30, 2001. Through these changes, the systems, the firms that post the particular, Nasdaq is concerned about NNMS has become the primary trading quotations are currently free riding on the extent to which the quotes of market platform for NNM securities, and the quotation infrastructure provided by participants that are displayed in SelectNet is intended to be used Nasdaq. Accordingly, Nasdaq will Nasdaq are accessed and/or reported primarily for the transmittal and charge Full Contribution Members $0.01 through non-Nasdaq systems. Market execution of ‘‘non-liability’’ orders for each time their quotation is updated and participants may advertise their market makers in NNM securities, as Partial Contribution Members $0.03 well as the transmittal and execution of liquidity on Nasdaq, but contribute very each time their quotation is updated.10 ‘‘liability’’ orders to market participants little to supporting the quotation, Liquidity Provider Rebate. Effective on that do not participate in the automatic execution, and regulatory infrastructure December 1, 2001, Nasdaq will modify execution functionality of the NNMS. that underpins the Nasdaq market. the liquidity provider rebate instituted On September 28, 2001, Nasdaq filed The proposal delineates three types of by SR–NASD–2001–67,11 by setting the modification to the pricing structure for market participants. A ‘‘Full rebate for Partial Contribution Members SelectNet and the NNMS.8 These Contribution Member’’ is defined as an NASD member that reports substantially that do not charge an access fee to changes were designed as an interim market participants accessing their modification to begin the process of all of its trades during regular market hours through ACT (either directly or as quotations through the NNMS at aligning the charges to market $0.0005 per share when their quotation participants for using the NNMS and a result of an execution through a Nasdaq transaction execution system). is executed against via the NNMS. The SelectNet more closely with the costs of rebate for Full Contribution Members providing these services and the All other NASD members would be considered ‘‘Partial Contribution that do not charge an access fee to benefits that they provide to market market participants accessing their participants. On October 3, 2001, Members’’ under the proposal. For the first three months of the pilot period, all quotations through the NNMS will remain $0.001 per share when their 7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42344 NASD members are deemed to be Full (January 14, 2000), 65 FR 3987 (January 25, 2000) quotation is executed against via the (SR–NASD–99–11). 9 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44910 NNMS, and a rebate of $0.001 per share 8 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44899 (October 5, 2001) (SR–NASD–2001–67) and will remain for all members when they (October 2, 2001) (SR–NASD–2001–63) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44914 (October send an NNMS order that executes Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44898 (October 9, 2001) (SR–NASD–2001–68). SR–NASD–2001–67 2, 2001) (SR–NASD–2001–64). SR–NASD–2001–63 applied these pilot changes to NASD members, against the quotation of a market applied the new fees to NASD members, effective effective upon filing, for a pilot period from upon filing, and was implemented on October 1, November 1, 2001 through October 31, 2002. SR– 10 A quotation update charge will not be imposed 2001. SR–NASD–2001–64 will apply the new fees NASD–2001–68 will apply the increase in the per on UTP Exchanges at this time, because the Nasdaq to UTP Exchanges and will be implemented on the share charge to UTP Exchanges, and will be Unlisted Trading Privileges Plan (the ‘‘Nasdaq UTP first day of the month immediately following implemented on the first day of the month Plan’’) does not currently authorize such a charge. Commission approval. immediately following Commission approval. 11 See supra note 9.
VerDate 11
participant that charges an access fee to Plan minus an allocated portion of the benefits of posting quotations on Nasdaq market participants accessing its NASDR regulation fee, and the systems but pay relatively little to quotation through the NNMS. member’s non-Nasdaq transaction support the operation of those systems. Market Data Revenue Sharing. Nasdaq system trade report activity being Thus, the economic incentives proposes to share a portion of market measured by total number of trades and embodied by the new fee structure are data revenue with Full Contribution share volume. designed to promote behavior that Members, the members that do the most In addition, a member may receive a benefits both the market structure that to generate such revenues. The proposal Supplemental Credit, equal to a Nasdaq offers to investors and Nasdaq is similar to the transaction credit percentage of the product of Eligible as a business. As another self-regulatory already in effect to share Consolidated Revenue and the Member’s Volume organization noted when it established Tape Association revenue with NASD Percentage. The percentage will be the a credit available only to certain of its members that trade exchange-listed lesser of 10% or the Member’s Overall market participants, ‘‘measures * * * stocks through Nasdaq’s Intermarket Volume Percentage, which is defined as designed to promote and encourage Trading System 12 and similar revenue the average of (i) the percentage derived certain behaviors and/or discourage sharing programs established by UTP from dividing the total number of trades others * * * [are] an appropriate, Exchanges.13 A member’s total credit in Eligible Securities that the member nondiscriminatory business strategy.’’ 17 will consist of two parts, a Base Credit reports in accordance with NASD trade Moreover, Nasdaq believes that the and a Supplemental Credit. reporting rules to ACT by the total level of fees charged to market A member’s Base Credit will be 50% number of trades in Eligible Securities participants under the proposal is of the product of Eligible Revenue and reported to ACT by NASD members, reasonable. Nasdaq anticipates that the Member’s Volume Percentage. and (ii) a percentage calculated by overall fees for the NNMS, SelectNet, Eligible Revenue is defined as (i) the dividing the total number of shares and SOES, net of the liquidity provider portion of the net distributable revenues represented by trades in Eligible rebate and the market data revenue that Nasdaq, through the NASD, is Securities that the member reports in sharing credit, will be comparable to eligible to receive under the Nasdaq accordance with NASD trade reporting overall fees for the NNMS, SelectNet, UTP Plan, that is attributed to the rules to ACT by the total number of and SOES under Nasdaq’s recently Nasdaq Level 1 Service for NNM shares represented by all trades in implemented pricing changes. Such fees securities or other securities covered by Eligible Securities reported to ACT by are, in turn, estimated to slightly lower the Nasdaq UTP Plan (‘‘Eligible NASD members. In other words, the than overall fees for SelectNet and SOES Securities’’), minus (ii) the portion of Supplemental Credit of up to 10% is prior to the introduction of the NNMS. the fee charged to Nasdaq by NASD based upon all of the member’s trade Regulation, Inc. (‘‘NASDR’’) for reports, as measured by the total B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s regulatory services allocated to the number of trades and share volume. Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq Level 1 Service for Eligible 2. Statutory Basis Securities. The Member’s Volume Nasdaq does not believe that the Percentage is defined as the average of Nasdaq believes that the proposed proposed rule change will impose any (i) the percentage derived from dividing rule change is consistent with the Act, burden on competition that is not the total number of trades in Eligible including Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,14 necessary or appropriate in furtherance Securities conducted on non-Nasdaq which requires that the rules of the of the purposes of the Act. transaction systems that the member NASD provide for the equitable C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s reports in accordance with NASD trade allocation of reasonable fees, dues, and Statement on Comments on the reporting rules to ACT by the total other charges among members and Proposed Rule Change Received From number of trades in Eligible Securities issuers and other persons using any Members, Participants, or Others reported to ACT by NASD members, facility or system which the NASD and (ii) the percentage derived from operates or controls, and Section Nasdaq did not solicit or receive dividing the total number of shares 15A(b)(6) of the Act,15 which requires written comments on the proposed rule represented by trades in Eligible rules that are not designed to permit change. Securities conducted on non-Nasdaq unfair discrimination between III. Date of Effectiveness of the transaction systems that the member customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. Proposed Rule Change and Timing for As the Commission has noted in the reports in accordance with NASD trade Commission Action reporting rules to ACT by the total context of another self-regulatory number of shares represented by all organization’s fees, the Act ‘‘prohibits Within 35 days of the date of trades in Eligible Securities reported to ‘unfair discrimination,’ not publication of this notice in the Federal 16 ACT by NASD members. In other words, ‘discrimination’ simpliciter * * *.’’ Register or within such longer period (i) the Base Credit is 50% of the net Level Nasdaq believes that the proposed fee as the Commission may designate up to 1 revenue attributable to the member’s structure distinguishes among market 90 days of such date if it finds such reports of non-Nasdaq transaction participants in order to reward those longer period to be appropriate and system trades in Eligible Securities, who do the most to finance market publishes its reasons for so finding or with the pool of sharable revenue being innovations such as SuperSOES and (ii) as to which the NASD consents, the comprised of Level 1 revenues who contribute the most to the liquidity Commission will: and efficient operation of Nasdaq’s distributable to Nasdaq under the UTP (A) by order approve such proposed market, while imposing higher fees on rule change, or market participants that receive the 12 See NASD Rule 7010(c)(2). (B) institute proceedings to determine 13 See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 14 whether the proposed rule change 41238 (March 31, 1999), 64 FR 17204 (April 8, 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(5). should be disapproved. 1999) (SR–CSE–99–03); Securities Exchange Act 15 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). Release No. 40591 (October 22, 1998), 63 FR 58078 16 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37250 (October 29, 1998) (SR–BSE–98–9); Securities (May 29, 1996), 61 FR 28629 (June 5, 1996) (SR– 17 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44292 Exchange Act Release No. 38237 (February 4, 1997), CBOE–96–23) (quoting Timpinaro v. SEC, 2 F.3d (May 11, 2001), 66 FR 27715 (May 18, 2001) (SR– 62 FR 6592 (February 12, 1997) (SR–CHX–97–01). 453, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). Phlx–2001–49).
VerDate 11
IV. Solicitation of Comments Business Administration, 100 East ‘‘B’’ as amended, I hereby determine that the Interested persons are invited to Street, Suite 4001, Casper, Wyoming objects to be included in the exhibit submit written data, views, and 82601, (307) 261–6503 phone (307) 261 ‘‘The Emergence of Jewish Artists in arguments concerning the foregoing, 6535 fax. Nineteenth Century Europe,’’ imported from abroad for the temporary including whether the proposed rule Steve Tupper, change, as amended, is consistent with exhibition without profit within the Committee Management Office. United States, are of cultural the Act. Persons making written [FR Doc. 01–26330 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] submissions should file six copies significance. These objects are imported BILLING CODE 8025–01–P thereof with the Secretary, Securities pursuant to loan agreements with and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth foreign lenders. I also determine that the temporary exhibition or display of the Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549– SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 0609. Copies of the submission, all exhibit objects at The Jewish Museum, subsequent amendments, all written Region V: Wisconsin District Advisory of New York, NY, from on or about statements with respect to the proposed Council; Public Meeting November 18, 2001, to on or about rule change that are filed with the March 17, 2002, is in the national Commission, and all written The Small Business Administration interest. Public Notice of these communications relating to the Region V Wisconsin District Advisory determinations is ordered to be proposed rule change between the Council, located in the geographical published in the Federal Register. Commission and any person, other than area of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, will hold FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For those that may be withheld from the a public meeting at 12 noon central time further information, including a list of public in accordance with the on Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at the exhibit objects, contact Julianne provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be MMAC building, 756 North Milwaukee Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of available for inspection and copying at Street, 4th Floor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of the Commission’s Public Reference 53202, to discuss such matters as may State (telephone: 202/619–6529). The Room. Copies of such filing will also be be presented by members, staff of the address is U.S. Department of State, SA– available for inspection and copying at Small Business Administration, or 44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, the principal office of the NASD. All others present. Washington, DC 20547–0001. Anyone wishing to make an oral submissions should refer to File No. Dated: October 11, 2001. presentation to the Board must contact SR–NASD–2001–72 and should be Patricia S. Harrison, submitted by November 9, 2001. Yolanda Staples Lassiter, in writing by letter or fax no later than Monday, Assistant Secretary for Educational and For the Commission, by the Division of October 22, 2001, in order to be put on Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State. Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated [FR Doc. 01–26398 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] authority.18 the agenda. The contact information is as follows: Yolanda Staples Lassiter, BILLING CODE 4710–08–P Margaret H. McFarland, EDS, U.S. Small Business Deputy Secretary. Administration, 310 West Wisconsin [FR Doc. 01–26401 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Ave, Suite 400, Milwaukee, Wisconsin DEPARTMENT OF STATE BILLING CODE 8010–01–M 53202, telephone—(414) 297–1090 or (414) 297–3928 fax. [Public Notice 3799]
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Steve Tupper, Advisory Panel to the United States Committee Management Officer. Section of the North Pacific Region VIII: Wyoming Regulatory [FR Doc. 01–26331 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Anadromous Fish Commission; Notice Fairness Board; Public Hearing BILLING CODE 8025–01–P of a Closed Meeting The Small Business Administration The Advisory Panel to the United Region VIII Wyoming Regulatory States Section of the North Pacific Fairness Board and the SBA Office of DEPARTMENT OF STATE Anadromous Fish Commission will meet on October 29, 2001, at the the National Ombudsman, will hold a [Public Notice 3820] Public Hearing Monday, October 29, Victoria Conference Center, 720 Douglas 2001 at 8:30 a.m. at the Best Western Culturally Significant Objects Imported Street, Victoria, B.C. V8VV 3M7, Dunmar Inn, 1601 Harrison Dr. for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘The Canada. This session will involve (Highway 30 West), Evanston, Wyoming Emergence of Jewish Artists in discussion of the Eighth Annual 82930, phone (307) 789–3770, to receive Nineteenth Century Europe’’ Meeting of the North Pacific comments and testimony from small Anadromous Fish Commission, to be business owners and representatives of DEPARTMENT: United States Department held on October 28–November 2, 2001. trade associations concerning regulatory of State. The discussion will begin at 8 a.m. and enforcement or compliance actions ACTION: Notice. is closed to the public. taken by federal agencies. The members of the Advisory Panel Anyone wishing to make an oral SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the will examine various options for the presentation must contact Mr. Mahlon following determinations: Pursuant to U.S. position at the Ninth Annual Sorensen, Regulatory Fairness the authority vested in me by the Act of Meeting. These considerations must Coordinator, in writing by letter or fax October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. necessarily involve review of sensitive no later than October 22, 2001, in order 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and matters, the disclosure of which would to put on the agenda. Mahlon Sorensen, Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. frustrate U.S. participation at the Regulatory Fairness Coordinator, 2681 et seq.), Delegation of Authority Annual Meeting. Accordingly, the Wyoming District Office, U.S. Small No. 234 of October 1, 1999 (64 FR determination has been made to close 56014), and Delegation of Authority No. the 8:00 a.m. meeting pursuant to 18 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 236 of October 19, 1999 (64 FR 57920), Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory
VerDate 11
Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. Section Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 552b(c)(9). 366–5846; E-Mail: James J. Ballough, Manager, Continuous Requests for further information on [email protected]. Airworthiness Maintenance Division, the meeting should be directed to Ms. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August Flight Standards Service, Federal Sally Cochran, International Relations 15, 2001, at the request of industry, we Aviation Administration, 800 Officer, Office of Marine Conservation published a notice announcing plans to Independence Avenue, SW., (OES/OMC), Room 5806, U.S. host a public meeting to solicit Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267–3546. Department of State, Washington, DC comments for consideration by DOT in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 20520–7818. Ms. Cochran can be developing additional guidance as to Background reached by telephone on (202) 647–1073 when a reasonable person, offering, or by FAX (202) 736–7350. accepting, or transporting a hazardous The FAA established the Aviation Dated: October 5, 2001. material in commerce would be deemed Rulemaking Advisory Committee to Mary Beth West, to have knowledge of facts giving rise to provide advice and recommendations to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and a violation of the Federal Hazardous the FAA Administrator on the FAA’s Fisheries, Department of State. Materials law or the Hazardous rulemaking activities with respect to [FR Doc. 01–26397 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Materials regulations, 66 FR 42909. Due aviation-related issues. The Committee addresses a wide range of aviation BILLING CODE 4710–09–P to exigencies following the events of September 11, 2001, DOT has received issues. The committee will address a request from the Air Transport these tasks under Air Carrier and General Aviation Maintenance Issues. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Association to postpone the meeting. DOT agrees and hereby postpones the On July 30, 2001, the FAA issued a Office of the Secretary meeting that had been scheduled for final rule that revised part 145 of Title November 14, 2001. DOT intends to 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations [Docket No. OST–01–10380] reschedule a public meeting on the (66 FR 41088). In Notice of Proposed Rulemaking No. 99–09 (64 FR 33142; Hazardous Materials: Knowledge same topic in 2002. We are also June 21, 1999), the FAA proposed a new Required for Civil Penalty Enforcement extending the comment period to system of rating and classes and Proceedings; Postponement of Public February 28, 2002. solicited comments on requirements for Meeting and Extension of Comment Issued in Washington, DC on October 15, a quality assurance program for Period 2001. Jackie A. Goff, aeronautical repair stations. AGENCY: Commenters overwhelmingly objected Office of the Secretary, DOT. Director, Intermodal Hazardous Materials ACTION: Postponement of public meeting Program, Office of Intermodalism. to these proposals. The FAA is seeking advice and recommendations from the and extension of comment period. [FR Doc. 01–26465 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Committee before promulgating SUMMARY: Due to exigencies following BILLING CODE 4910–62–P additional rulemaking on these topics. the events of September 11, 2001, DOT is postponing a public meeting that had Task 1—Repair Station Ratings System DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION been scheduled for November 14, 2001 Recommendations and extending the comment period to Federal Aviation Administration Task Summary February 28, 2002. The purpose of the Recommend a system to rate public meeting was to solicit comments Aviation Rulemaking Advisory aeronautical repair stations that for consideration by DOT in developing Committee; Air Carrier and General mitigates problems associated with the additional guidance as to when a Aviation Maintenance Issues—New existing system of ratings and reasonable person, offering, accepting, Tasks or transporting a hazardous material in accommodate the growth of the aviation commerce would be deemed to have AGENCY: Federal Aviation industry. knowledge of facts giving rise to a Administration (FAA), DOT. Committee Activity ACTION: Notice of new tasks assigned to violation of the Federal Hazardous • Review the existing system of Materials law or the Hazardous the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). ratings and classes contained in the Materials regulations. current part 145 and any other DATES: Written comments must be SUMMARY: The FAA has assigned two documents issued by the FAA received by February 28, 2002. new tasks to the Aviation Rulemaking pertaining to aeronautical repair ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the Advisory Committee. The tasks are stations. Dockets Management System, U.S. related to aeronautical repair station • Review comments submitted to Department of Transportation, Room PL regulations. The first task involves FAA in response to the public meetings 401, 400 Seventh Street SW, evaluating the current system of ratings held in 1989 and the system of ratings Washington, DC 20590–0001. and classes for aeronautical repair proposed in June 1999 in Notice No. 99– Comments should identify Docket stations and, if appropriate, 09. Number OST–01–10380 and be recommending a new system. The • Review challenges reported by submitted in two copies. You may also second task involves evaluating the Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASIs) under submit comments by e-mail by current requirements for quality the existing system of ratings. accessing the DOT Dockets Management assurance programs for aeronautical • Identify the challenges that System website at http://dms.dot.gov. repair stations and recommending aeronautical repair stations encounter FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: whether the FAA should include such under the existing system of rating and LCDR Thomas Sherman, Intermodal systems in the regulations. The classes, including those pertaining to: Hazardous Materials Program, Office of Committee has elected to work these • Current business practices that are Intermodalism, U.S. Department of tasks itself rather than establish working not regulated that may require some Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW, groups to develop recommendations. form of control;
VerDate 11
• Provisions in the current regulation The new tasks and a plan for Comments Invited that prevent repair stations from accomplishing these tasks will be The FAA invites interested parties to performing desired business practices; discussed at the next meeting on Air comment on this notice. Comments and Carrier and General Aviation • should identify the subject, and be Enforcement problems associated Maintenance Issues. The Committee submitted to the address specified with the current regulations. may be required to meet every 4 to 6 under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION • Draft a Technical Report that— weeks to accomplish the tasks within • CONTACT. The FAA will consider all Presents a review of the existing the scheduled completion date. Meeting comments received by the closing date system of ratings and classes; attendance is open to the interested before issuing final guidance. • Identifies various options for rating public but space may be limited. The systems; FAA will arrange teleconference Background • Identifies the advantages and capability for individuals wishing to The FAA Aircraft Certification disadvantages of each option; participate in meetings if we receive • Service (AIR) has recently had several Provides economic information for notification within the time specified in certification projects in which the each of the alternative rating systems; each notice of meeting. applicability of the requirement to and The Secretary of Transportation develop Instructions for Continuing • Recommends a preferred system of determined that the information and use Airworthiness (ICA) was a matter of ratings. of the ARAC is necessary and in the contention. The FAA staff wanted Task 2—Repair Station Quality public interest in connection with the clarity as to whether 14 CFR 21.50(b) Assurance Program Recommendations performance of duties imposed on the requires ICA for supplemental type FAA by law. certificates (STCs) for products for Task Summary which the the original type certificate Issued in Washington DC, on October 15, Recommend a quality assurance 2001. (TC) was applied for before January 28, program that reflects the industry 1981. The language of 14 CFR 21.50(b) James Ballough, requirements of aeronautical repair is clear, stating, in relevant part: stations and accounts for the varying Assistant Executive Director, Air Carrier and General Aviation Maintenance Issues, The holder of a design approval, including scope of repair station operations. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. either the type certificate or supplemental type certificate for an aircraft, aircraft engine, Committee Activity [FR Doc. 01–26460 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] or propeller for which application was made • Review the discussion about quality BILLING CODE 4910–13–M after January 28, 1981, shall furnish at least assurance in the June 1999 Notice of one set of complete Instructions for Proposed Rulemaking (Notice No. 99– Continued Airworthiness * * * DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 09). Both STCs and amended TCs (ATCs) • Review comments relating to Federal Aviation Administration are design approvals. Under 14 CFR quality assurance submitted to FAA in 21.50(b), all STCs and ATCs for which response to the public meetings held in Guidance on Instructions for application was filed after January 28, 1989 and the quality assurance program Continued Airworthiness (ICA) 1981, must provide ICA. This is requirements proposed in Notice No. regardless of the date of application for 99–09. AGENCY: Federal Aviation the original TC. • Review current industry practices Administration (FAA), DOT. FAA’s AIR predecessor, the Office of relating to quality assurance issues to— Airworthiness, issued memoranda dated • ACTION: Request for comments on Identify quality assurance systems withdrawal of policy memoranda, August 3, 1982 and August 8, 1983. currently used by some repair stations, clarification of regulatory intent, and Both stated that: and implementation guidance. 14 CFR 21.50(b) applies only to type • Analyze the elements of the systems certification, supplemental type certification, used by the aviation industry. SUMMARY: and amended type certification projects, • The FAA invites public Develop a Technical Report that— comment on its intent to rescind two whose original certification basis includes a • requirement for ICA as amended on Presents a review of regulatory policy memoranda issued in 1982 and requirements that comprise a quality September 11, 1980 (effective January 28, 1983 regarding ICA submittals, and to 1981). assurance program; clarify that ICA are required for all • Identifies various options for design approvals applied for after The 1983 memorandum further states regulating quality assurance programs; that a project to amend 14 CFR 21.50(b) January 28, 1981, per Title 14, Code of • Identifies the advantages and was initiated to reflect this Federal Regulations (CFR), section disadvantages of each option; interpretation. An amendment was 21.50(b). Lastly, a six-point • Provides information on the never issued. These memoranda have implementation plan is included. economic impacts of applying a quality sometimes been relied on as a basis for assurance system to various segments of DATES: Comments must be received by not requiring ICA for some STC projects. the repair station industry; and November 19, 2001. • FAA Policy Recommends a preferred quality FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: assurance program/system. Ruth Harder, FAA, Aircraft Certification FAA legal counsel has determined Delivery Date: The Committee must Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, that these memoranda did not change complete this task by February 28, 2002. Delegation and Airworthiness Programs the plain meaning of 14 CFR 21.50(b). The 1982 and 1983 memoranda are ARAC Acceptance of Task Branch, AIR–140, ARB Room 304, 6500 S. MacArthur Boulevard, Oklahoma hereby rescinded. AIR’s policy is to The Committee has accepted these require adherence to 14 CFR 21.50(b) by City, Oklahoma 73169; telephone: (405) tasks and elected not to establish submittal of ICA for all design approvals 954–7073; fax: (405) 954–4104; e-mail working groups to assist in analyzing (TC, STC, and ATC) for which [email protected]. these tasks because the tasks are time application is made after January 28, critical. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1981.
VerDate 11
In response to comments already DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ‘‘MAX LOAD 770 LBS AT 36 PSI received from Aircraft Certification COLD.’’ Offices (ACOs) and Aircraft Evaluation National Highway Traffic Safety According to Cooper, this mislabeling Groups (AEGs), points one through six Administration does not present a safety-related defect. below provide interim guidance in [Docket No. NHTSA 2000–8247; Notice 2] The tires involved are designed to carry applying this requirement. AIR–100 will a heavier load (770 lbs.) than the work with ACOs and AEGs to provide Cooper Tire & Rubber Company; Grant incorrect labeling specified (760 lbs.). follow-on guidance on development and of Application for Decision of Consequently, any misapplication of the submittal of ICA. Inconsequential Noncompliance tire would be for the user to carry a 1. Effective immediately, each lighter load than the load for which the applicant for a TC, STC, or ATC must Cooper Tire & Rubber Company tires are designed. The tires produced submit a complete set of ICA. (Cooper) has determined that from this mold during the 2. Design approvals for STCs and approximately 8,824 motorcycle tires aforementioned production periods ATCs should not be issued until ACO produced at the Melksham, England, comply with all other requirements of and AEG personnel have accepted the tire manufacturing facility of Cooper- 49 CFR 571.119. ICA. Avon Tyres Limited, do not meet the Based on the agency’s telephone 3. The FAA will not address labeling requirements mandated by discussions with the petitioner, Cooper certification projects previously Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard management has extensively reviewed approved without ICA at this time. We (FMVSS) No. 119, ‘‘New Pneumatic the processes, the causes of these will not require development of ICA for Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger noncompliances have been isolated, and those products unless ACO and AEG Cars,’’ and has filed an appropriate changes in the processes have been personnel determine that ICA are report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, instituted to prevent any future necessary to prevent or correct an ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’ occurrences. The noncompliance is unsafe condition. Cooper has also applied to be exempted limited to the equipment addressed in 4. The ICA for an STC or ATC need from the notification and remedy this notice. In addition, Cooper stated only address continued airworthiness requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301— that all of its motorcycle tires assembled with respect to the design change for ‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety’’ on the basis that after this noncompliance were which application is made, as well as the noncompliance is inconsequential to constructed in compliance with FMVSS parts or areas of the aircraft affected by motor vehicle safety. No. 119 requirements. the design change. We consider such Notice of receipt of the application The agency has reviewed Cooper’s ICA ‘‘complete’’ for the purposes of 14 was published, with a 30-day comment petition and believes this labeling CFR 21.50(b). period, on January 2, 2001, in the noncompliance is inconsequential as it 5. An applicant’s submitted Federal Register (66 FR 131). NHTSA relates to motor vehicle safety. The assessment of the need for ICA may received no comments. primary safety purpose of this label is to satisfy the ‘‘complete set of ICA.’’ If the The purpose of FMVSS No. 119, ensure that the owners can select a tire assessment shows that the certification according to S2, is ‘‘to provide safe appropriate for their motorcycle. In this project did not change any information, operational performance levels for tires case, Cooper understated the load procedures, process, requirements, or used on motor vehicles other than carrying capability of the tire by labeling limitations in the current ICA, or require passenger cars, and to place sufficient the maximum load on the tire as 760 new ICA, and the FAA concurs, no information on the tires to permit their pounds instead of 770 pounds. Cooper, further ICA development is necessary. proper selection and use.’’ Paragraph in effect, produced a better tire than the a. A statement should be placed on S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119 requires that label would indicate to the purchaser. the design approval indicating that each tire be marked with the maximum Regarding the mis-marked inflation additional ICA change is not required. load rating and corresponding inflation pressure, Cooper stated, in a telephone b. For an STC, that statement may be pressure, and provides the following conversation, that the pressure was placed under the ‘‘Limitations and example ‘‘Max Load lll lbs at lll initially to be labeled on the tire as 36 Conditions’’ section. psi cold.’’ psi, even though the tire was designed 6. If previous ICA or maintenance Cooper’s noncompliance relates to the to accommodate a much higher inflation documents do not exist, or were mislabeling of approximately 8,824 pressure. [Note: Per the Tire and Rim developed before January 28, 1981, the tires. The tires are the MT90–16 71H, Association’s 2000 Yearbook, page 7–09: ICA submitted for a design change Load Range B, motorcycle tires sold to A motorcycle tire of size MT–90–16, should follow the format and contents one original equipment manufacturer/ Load Range B, is 783 pounds at 36 psi. specified in the appropriate customer under the brand names AVON In addition, footnote no. 2 on that page airworthiness standards (14 CFR parts MT90–16 Roadrunnner, AVON MT90– states ‘‘For special operating conditions, 23–35) appendix to the extent possible. 16 Gangster, and Avon MT90–16 Indian. inflation pressure may be increased up ACOs and AEGs should give These tires were produced with the to 40 psi maximum with no increase in consideration to any submittal of ICA incorrect maximum load rating on the load]. During the agency’s technical containing the essential information to serial side of the tire during the first discussions with Cooper, the tire maintain the design change in an through the twentieth production weeks manufacturer stated that the tires were airworthy condition. of 2000. Approximately 8,124 of the designed to accommodate a higher This guidance does not create any tires involved have been accounted for inflation pressure than the mis-marked new requirements. in either Cooper’s inventory or the maximum inflation pressure of 42 psi. Issued in Washington, DC, on October 11, inventory of original equipment Cooper verified with the motorcycle 2001. manufacturer/customer, leaving an manufacturer using the subject tire as a Thomas E. McSweeny, estimated 700 tires not accounted for in rear tire that when the tire is inflated to Associate Administrator for Regulation and either inventory. The incorrect plate 40 psi, it could safely carry the Certification. read ‘‘MAX LOAD 345 KG AT 2.9 BAR maximum load. Cooper conducted a [FR Doc. 01–26461 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] COLD, 760 LBS AT 42 PSI COLD.’’ The safety verification of these various BILLING CODE 4910–13–M correct information should have been inflation pressures with indoor test
VerDate 11
wheels and production motorcycles on opposing comments are timely filed, authority but also controls two other a closed track. this notice will be the final Board motor passenger carriers: Autobuses The agency agrees with Cooper’s action. Amigos, L.L.C. (MC–340462), operating rationale that a motorcycle equipped DATES: Comments must be filed by between Brownsville and Houston, TX; with the mis-labeled tires and loaded December 3, 2001. Applicants may file and Gonzalez, Inc., d/b/a Golden State per the incorrect maximum load rating a reply by December 18, 2001. If no Transportation (MC–173837), operating would not cause an unsafe condition, comments are filed by December 3, between Mexican border points and because the motorcycle would carry a 2001, this notice is effective on that points in various Western States. Adame lighter load than the load for which the date. holds operating authority (MC–237411) tires are designed and be inflated to a to conduct regular-route passenger ADDRESSES: pressure level below the tire’s designed Send an original and 10 operations between the Mexican border maximum inflation pressure. copies of any comments referring to STB points at Roma, Hidalgo, and In consideration of the foregoing, Docket No. MC–F–20982 to: Surface Brownsville, TX, and such cities as Transportation Board, Office of the NHTSA has decided that the applicant Houston, TX, Chamblee, GA, Charlotte, Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K has met its burden of persuasion that NC, Wilson, NC, Tallahassee, FL, and Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423– the noncompliance it describes is Immokalee, FL. 0001. In addition, send one copy of inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Acquisition has entered into an comments to applicants’ representative: Accordingly, Cooper’s application is agreement to purchase the operating Fritz R. Kahn, 1920 N Street, NW. (8th hereby granted, and the applicant is assets of Adame, including its operating floor), Washington, DC 20036–1601. exempted from the obligation of authority. At some point at or before the providing notification of, and a remedy FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: time of closing, it is expected that for, the noncompliance. Beryl Gordon, (202) 565–1600. [TDD for Acquisition will be merged with the hearing impaired: 1–800–877–8339.] Americanos, leaving Americanos as the (49 U.S.C. 30118; delegations of authority at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: surviving corporation. However, if the 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8) Americanos (MC–309813) is authorized merger has not been completed at the Issued on: October 15, 2001. to conduct regular-route passenger time of closing, Acquisition will be the Stephen R. Kratzke, operations between certain points in the entity acquiring Adame’s properties. Associate Administrator for Safety Southwestern States, focusing Accordingly, authority is sought to Performance Standards. particularly on the Mexican border permit either Acquisition or Americanos [FR Doc. 01–26463 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] crossing points at El Paso, Laredo, and to be the purchaser, and to permit the BILLING CODE 4910–59–P McAllen, TX. Americanos and merger of Acquisition and Americanos, Acquisition are controlled by SITA, if necessary. which, in turn is controlled by Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), we must DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Greyhound. Laidlaw, a noncarrier, approve and authorize a transaction that indirectly controls Greyhound,1 which we find consistent with the public Surface Transportation Board holds nationwide operating authority interest, taking into consideration at 2 [STB Docket No. MC–F–20982] (MC–1515). SITA holds no operating least: (1) The effect of the proposed transaction on the adequacy of Americanos U.S.A., L.L.C., et al.— 1 In addition to Greyhound (Delaware), Laidlaw transportation to the public; (2) the total Acquisition—Autobuses Adame, Inc. (Canada) controls (through its subsidiaries Laidlaw fixed charges that result; and (3) the Investments, Ltd. (Ontario) and Laidlaw interest of affected carrier employees. AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. Transportation, Inc. (Delaware)) Hotard Coaches, Inc. (Louisiana) (MC–143881), Coastliner d/b/a Applicants have submitted the ACTION: Notice tentatively approving Mississippi Coast Lines (Mississippi) (MC–14388), information required by 49 CFR 1182.2, finance transaction. Laidlaw Transit, Inc. (Delaware) (MC–161299), including information to demonstrate Chatham Coach Lines, Inc. (Delaware) (MC– that the proposed transactions are SUMMARY: Americanos U.S.A., L.L.C. 172751), Willett Motor Coach Co. (New Jersey) (MC–16073), and (through noncarrier Laidlaw consistent with the public interest (Americanos), a motor passenger carrier, Transit Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)) Laidlaw Transit under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b). Specifically, and Americanos Acquisition Co., L.L.C. Services, Inc. (Delaware) (MC–163344), and Safe applicants have shown that the (Acquisition), a noncarrier, seek Ride Services, Inc. (Arizona) (MC–246193). In proposed transaction will have a approval under 49 U.S.C. 14303 for addition Laidlaw controls, through Laidlaw Transit Ltd. (Ontario) (MC–102189), a number of other positive effect on the adequacy of acquisition, by either Americanos or motor passenger carriers conducting special and transportation to the public and will Acquisition, of the operating authority charter operations in the United States, including: result in no increase in fixed charges. As and certain other properties of (a) Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp. to the effect on employees (see 49 CFR Autobuses Adame, Inc. (Adame), a (Ontario) (MC–304126), which also controls Voyageur Corp. (Canada) (MC–360339); and (b) 1182.2(a)(7)), applicants state that the motor passenger carrier. Additionally, Gray Line of Vancouver Holdings Ltd. (Canada) proposed transaction will have no Sistema Internacional de Transporte de (MC–357855), The Gray Line of Victoria Ltd. significant adverse effect on employees. Autobuses, Inc. (SITA), Greyhound (Canada) (MC–380234), J. I. DeNure (Chatham) Applicants state that Americanos will Lines, Inc. (Greyhound), and Laidlaw, Limited (Canada) (MC–111143 (Sub-No. 1)), and Penetang-Midland Coach Lines Limited (Canada) be able to offer employment to qualified Inc. (Laidlaw), through their control of (MC–139953 and MC–139953 (Sub-No. 1)). Adame employees, who they say will be Americanos and Acquisition, seek 2 Greyhound also controls several regional motor needed to operate the expanded approval to acquire control of the passenger carriers: Carolina Coach Company, Inc. operations of the combined entities. operating rights and properties of (MC–13300), operating in Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; On the basis of the application, we Adame and to continue in control of Continental Panhandle Lines, Inc. (MC–8742), find that the proposed transactions are Acquisition if and when it becomes a operating in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas; Peoria consistent with the public interest and motor passenger carrier. Persons Rockford Bus Lines, L.L.C. (MC–66810), operating should be authorized. If any opposing wishing to oppose the application must in Illinois; Texas, New Mexico & Oklahoma Coaches, Inc. (MC–61120), operating in Colorado, comments are timely filed, this finding follow the rules under 49 CFR 1182.5 Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; Valley and 1182.8. The Board has tentatively Transit Company, Inc. (MC–74), operating in Texas; operating in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and approved the transaction, and, if no and Vermont Transit Co., Inc. (MC–45626), Vermont.
VerDate 11
will be deemed vacated, and unless a Board’s Carload Waybill Samples. A The purpose of the transaction is to final decision can be made on the record copy of the requests may be obtained eliminate multiple filing, reporting and as developed, a procedural schedule from the Office of Economics, record keeping to and for various will be adopted to reconsider the Environmental Analysis, and entities. application. See 49 CFR 1182.6(c). If no Administration. This is a transaction within a opposing comments are filed by the The waybill sample contains corporate family of the type specifically expiration of the comment period, this confidential railroad and shipper data; exempted from prior review and decision will take effect automatically therefore, if any parties object to these approval under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3). and will be the final Board action. requests, they should file their The parties stated that the transaction Board decisions and notices are objections with the Director of the will not result in adverse changes in available on our website at Board’s Office of Economics, service levels, significant operational www.stb.dot.gov. Environmental Analysis, and changers, or change in the competitive This decision will not significantly Administration within 14 calendar days balance with carriers outside the affect either the quality of the human of the date of this notice. The rules for corporate family. environment or the conservation of release of waybill data are codified at 49 Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board energy resources. CFR 1244.9. may not use its exemption authority to It is ordered: Contact: James A. Nash, (202) 565– relieve a rail carrier of its statutory 1. The proposed acquisition is 1542. obligation to protect the interests of its approved and authorized, subject to the employees. Although applicants do not Vernon A. Williams, filing of opposing comments. expect any employees to be adversely 2. The proposed merger and the Secretary. affected by this merger and control resulting acquisition and/or [FR Doc. 01–26436 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] transaction, they have agreed to apply continuance in control, if necessary, are BILLING CODE 4915–00–P employee protective conditions approved and authorized, subject to the pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11326(a). filing of opposing comments. Therefore, any employees adversely 3. If timely opposing comments are DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION affected by the merger and control filed, the findings made in this decision Surface Transportation Board transaction will be protected by the will be deemed to be vacated. conditions set forth in New York Dock 4. This decision will be effective on [STB Finance Docket No. 34099] Ry.—Control—Brooklyn Eastern Dist., December 3, 2001 unless timely 360 I.C.C. 60 (1979). opposing comments are filed. The Kansas City Southern Railway If the notice contains false or 5. A copy of this notice will be served Company—Acquisition and Merger misleading information, the exemption on: (1) The U.S. Department of Exemption—Gateway Western Railway is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Company and Kansas City Southern exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) Safety Administration, 400 7th St., SW., Transportation Company may be filed at any time. The filing of Room 8214, Washington, DC 20590; (2) a petition to revoke will not the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCSR), Gateway Western automatically stay the transaction. Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania An original and 10 copies of all Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530; Railway Company (GWWR), and Kansas City Southern Transportation Company pleadings, referring to STB Finance and (3) the U.S. Department of Docket No. 34099 must be filed with the Transportation, Office of the General (KCSTC) jointly filed a verified notice of exemption.1 As part of a proposed Surface Transportation Board, Office of Counsel, 400 7th Street, SW., the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Washington, DC 20590. corporate restructuring: (1) KCSTC will convey to KCSR all of the stock it owns Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423– Decided: October 15, 2001. in GWWR, which is all of GWWR’s 0001. In addition, a copy of each By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice issued and outstanding stock, of all pleading must be served on William A. Chairman Clyburn, and Commissioner classes; and (2) KCSTC and GWWR will Mullins, 401 Ninth Street, NW., Suite Burkes. be merged into KCSR, with KCSR as the 1000, Washington, DC 20004. Vernon A. Williams, surviving entity. After the transaction is Board decisions and notices are Secretary. consummated, GWER will remain a available on our website at [FR Doc. 01–26435 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] wholly owned subsidiary of KCSR. ‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’ BILLING CODE 4915–00–P Under the agreement and plan of Decided: October 12, 2001. merger, KCSR will assume all rights, By the Board, David M. Konschnik, obligations and business functions of its Director, Office of Proceedings. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION subsidiaries. Vernon A. Williams, The transaction was scheduled to be Surface Transportation Board Secretary. consummated on or shortly after [FR Doc. 01–26283 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] September 28, 2001, the effective date of Release of Waybill Data BILLING CODE 4915–00–P the exemption. The Surface Transportation Board has received requests from Bowling Green 1 KCSR, a Class I carrier, operating in the States State University, Department of of Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Economics (WB580, August 30, 2001), Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alabama, owns all of the issued and Customs Service The University of Missouri St. Louis, outstanding stock of KCSTC. KCSTC, a noncarrier Center for Transportation Studies holding company, owns all of the issued and Performance Review Board— (WB579, August 23, 2001), and the outstanding stock of GWWR. GWWR, a Class II carrier operating in the States of Kansas, Missouri, Appointment of Members Association of American Railroads and Illinois, owns all of the issued and outstanding (WB463–4, September 28, 2001) for stock of Gateway Eastern Railway (GWER), a Class AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, permission to use certain data from the III carrier operating in the State of Illinois. Department of the Treasury.
VerDate 11
ACTION: General notice. Performance Review Board 1 executives except those rated by the The purpose of this Board is to review Commissioner of Customs. The SUMMARY: This notice announces the the performance appraisals of senior members are: appointment of the members of the U.S. executives rated by the Commissioner William F. Riley, Director, Office of Customs Service Performance Review of Customs. The members are: Planning, Office of the Commissioner Boards (PRB’s) in accordance with 5 Donnie Carter, Deputy Assistant Assistant Commissioners: U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The purpose of the Director, Recruitment and Hiring, Douglas M. Browning, International PRB’s is to review senior executives’ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Affairs performance appraisals and to make Firearms, Department of the Treasury Marjorie L. Budd, Training and recommendations regarding Anna Fay Dixon, Director, Office of Development performance appraisals and Finance and Administration, Office of S.W. Hall, Information and Technology/ performance awards. the Under Secretary for Enforcement, CIO Department of the Treasury EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2001. C. Wayne Hamilton, Finance/CFO Kenneth Papaj, Deputy Commissioner, Dennis H. Murphy, Public Affairs FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Financial Management Service, William A. Keefer, Internal Affairs Robert M. Smith, Assistant Department of the Treasury Robert M. Smith, Human Resources Commissioner, Human Resources Barry Hudson, Director, Office of Management Management, U.S. Customs Service, Financial Management, Department of Deborah J. Spero, Strategic Trade 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room the Treasury Bonni G. Tischler, Field Operations 2.4–A, Washington, DC 20229; Tim Skud, Director, Office of Trade and John C. Varrone, Investigations. Tariff Affairs, Department of the Telephone (202) 927–1250. Dated: October 15, 2001. Treasury. Background Robert C. Bonner, Performance Review Board 2 Commissioner of Customs. There are two PRB’s in the U.S. The purpose of this Board is to review [FR Doc. 01–26367 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Customs Service. the performance appraisals of all senior BILLING CODE 4820–02–P
VerDate 11
Part II
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 627 et al. Design-Build Contracting; Proposed Rule
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Administration (HIPA), (202) 366–1562. 14)—Innovative Contracting.1 Under For legal information: Mr. Harold SEP–14, twenty-four States and several Federal Highway Administration Aikens, Office of the Chief Counsel local public agencies evaluated the (HCC–32), (202) 366–1373, Federal design-build contracting technique. 23 CFR Parts 627, 635, 636, 637 and Highway Administration, 400 Seventh 710 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590– Century [FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2000–7790] 0001. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, Section 1307 of the TEA–21 defines RIN 2125–AE79 except Federal holidays. the term ‘‘design-build contract’’ as ‘‘an agreement that provides for design and Design-Build Contracting SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: construction of a project by a contractor, regardless of whether the agreement is AGENCY: Federal Highway Electronic Access and Filing in the form of a design-build contract, Administration (FHWA), DOT. You may submit or retrieve comments a franchise agreement, or any other form ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking online through the Document of contract approved by the Secretary.’’ (NPRM); request for comments. Management System (DMS) at: http:// In addition, section 1307 amends 23 U.S.C. 112 to allow the design-build SUMMARY: The FHWA is proposing to dmses.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable contracting method after the FHWA implement regulations for design-build formats include: MS Word (versions 95 promulgates a regulation prescribing the contracting as mandated by section to 97), MS Word for Mac (versions 6 to policies and procedures for utilizing the 1307(c) of the Transportation Equity Act 8), Rich Text File (RTF), American design-build contracting method on for the 21st Century (TEA–21), enacted Standard Code Information Interchange qualified Federal-aid highway projects. on June 9, 1998. The TEA–21 requires (ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document The TEA–21 defined qualified projects the Secretary of Transportation Format (PDF), and WordPerfect as projects that comply with the criteria (Secretary) to issue regulations to allow (versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available in this regulation and whose total costs design-build contracting for selected 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. are estimated to exceed: (1) $5 million projects. The regulations list the criteria Electronic submission and retrieval help for intelligent transportation system and procedures that will be used by the and guidelines are available under the projects, and (2) $50 million for any FHWA in approving the use of design- help section of the web site. other project. It also provides certain build contracting by State An electronic copy of this document key requirements that the FHWA must Transportation Departments (STDs). may also be downloaded by using a address in the development of these The regulation would not require the computer, modem and suitable regulations. These requirements use of design-build contracting, but communications software from the include, but are not limited to, the allows STDs to use it as an optional Government Printing Office’s Electronic following: technique in addition to traditional Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512– • Prior to initiating the rulemaking contracting methods. The FHWA is 1661. Internet users may also reach the process, the FHWA must consult with soliciting comments on its proposed Office of the Federal Register’s home representatives from the American regulation which would establish page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and Association of State Highway and prescribed policies and procedures for the Government Printing Office’s web Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and utilizing the design-build contracting page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/ representatives from other affected technique on Federal-aid highway nara. industries; projects. • The FHWA must complete the Background DATES: Written comments must be rulemaking process within three years received on or before December 18, Section 112(b)(1) of title 23, United of the date of TEA–21 enactment, or by 2001. States Code, requires highway June 9, 2001; and • The regulation must: (1) Identify the ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver construction contracts to be awarded criteria to be used by the Secretary in comments to the U.S. Department of competitively to the lowest responsive approving design-build projects, and (2) Transportation, Dockets Management bidder. A State must use competitive establish the procedures to be followed Facility, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh bidding procedures, unless it by Federal-aid recipients in seeking the Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590– demonstrates that some other method is more cost effective or that an emergency FHWA’s approval. 0001, or submit electronically at In addition, section 1307 modifies http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. All exists. Similarly, 23 U.S.C. 112(b)(2) requires engineering service contracts to FHWA’s statutes with several other key comments should include the docket provisions regarding the use of the be awarded using qualifications-based number that appears in the heading of design-build contracting method, selection procedures. Under the this document. All comments received including the following: will be available for examination and ‘‘design-build contracting method,’’ one • In general, an FHWA recipient may copying at the above address from 9 entity (known as the design-builder) award a design-build contract for a a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through performs both engineering and ‘‘qualified’’ project using any Friday, except Federal holidays. Those construction of a project under a single procurement process permitted by desiring notification of receipt of contract with the owner. Prior to the applicable State and local law; comments must include a self- TEA–21 (Public Law 105–178, 112 Stat. • Section 112(e)(2) of title 23, U.S.C., addressed, stamped envelope or 107 (1998)), the design-build contracting Standardized Contract Clause postcard or you may print the method did not fully comply with acknowledgment page that appears after existing statutes; however, the FHWA 1 Information concerning Special Experimental submitting comments electronically. allowed the States to evaluate the Project No. 14 (SEP–14), ‘‘Innovative Contracting FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: design-build method on an Practices,’’ is available on FHWA’s home page: For http://www.fhwa.dot.gov. Additional information technical information: Mr. Gerald experimental basis under Special may be obtained from the FHWA Division Yakowenko, Office of Program Experimental Projects Number 14 (SEP– Administrator in each State.
VerDate 11
Concerning Site Conditions, does not small sample size and the data field review of existing design-build apply to design-build contracts; variability, the direct cost comparison projects. This team interviewed • Final design under a design-build was inconclusive). However, the average engineers and administrators who are contract shall not commence before design-build construction time was 21.1 involved with design-build projects in compliance with section 102 of the percent less than the average for design- seven States: Arizona, California, National Environmental Policy Act of bid-build projects. Also, the researchers Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and noted significant differences in the Utah. Representatives from construction • Prior to the final rule and for average increases for contract cost. The contractors, design consultants, the projects outside of the qualified project design-build projects had an average STDs, toll road agencies and other limits, the FHWA may continue cost increase of 4.09 percent versus individuals were interviewed to share experimental evaluation and approval FDOT’s 1990 design-bid-build project experiences and capture the lessons procedures under Special Experimental average cost increase of 8.78 percent. learned regarding the design-build Project No. 14 (SEP–14)—Innovative By the time the report to Congress is contracting technique. Contracting. developed, the FHWA anticipates that The FHWA representatives attended Report to Congress there will be more experience with the design-build contracting technique. The outreach sessions related to the design- Section 1307(f) of the TEA–21, FHWA will be in a better position to build rulemaking effort at two national ‘‘Report to Congress,’’ requires the assess the true impacts of design-build conferences. The first annual ‘‘Design- FHWA to assess the impacts of design- contracting on the transportation Build for Transportation Conference’’ build contracting by June 9, 2003. industry. was held April 21–23, 1999, in Salt Lake Specifically, the FHWA is required to The FHWA welcomes comments on City, UT. This conference was report on the following items: this subject. The agency invites sponsored by the Design-Build Institute • An assessment of the effect of recommendations concerning how we of America, the American Society of design-build contracting on project might assess the cost effectiveness of Civil Engineers, and the FHWA. A quality, project cost, and timeliness of design-build contracting. Also, we special two-hour outreach session was project delivery; sponsored by the FHWA to seek • invite comment on what techniques and Recommendations on the procedures should be used in assessing comments and suggestions concerning appropriate level of design for design- the issues identified by Congress in our development of this regulation. The build procurements; • section 1307(f). second annual ‘‘Design-Build for An assessment of the impact of Transportation Conference’’ was held Pre-Rule Workshop and Outreach design-build contracting on small March 29–31, 2000, in Tampa, FL. This businesses; Throughout 1998, 1999, and 2000, the conference was sponsored by the • An assessment of the subjectivity FHWA representatives met with Design-Build Institute of America, the used in design-build contracting; and • representatives from the AASHTO and AASHTO, and the FHWA. An FHWA Such recommendations concerning other affected industries. During these design-build contracting procedures as representative presented an update on meetings, the FHWA, the AASHTO and the status of the rulemaking effort and the Secretary determines to be industry discussed issues relating to appropriate. several members of the audience design-build contracting. The FHWA expressed their recommendations for Presently the FHWA has little data was invited to attend numerous available concerning the cost- items that should be considered in the association annual meetings and also rulemaking process. effectiveness of design-build contracting met individually at the request of some in the transportation industry. industry representatives. The FHWA In addition, on December 16, 1999, Transportation Research Record No. employees attended the following the FHWA sponsored a one-day pre-rule 1351, titled ‘‘Final Evaluation of the meetings: workshop for the design-build Florida Department of Transportation’s • The American Consulting regulation in Washington, D.C. More 2 Pilot Design/Build Program,’ Engineer’s Council (ACEC), March 5, than 100 registrants from 26 States, documents the Florida DOT’s (FDOT) 1999, Washington, DC; Puerto Rico, and the District of early experience with eleven State- • The Associated General Contractors Columbia attended. They represented 13 funded design-build projects. This study of America (AGC), March 23, 1999, Las STDs, 1 county, 3 Federal agencies, 2 was performed by the University of Vegas, NV; construction organizations, 12 Florida, Gainesville, FL in 1992. • The American Road Builders and construction companies, 16 engineering In a comparison with FDOT’s Transportation Association (ARTBA), firms, and 1 engineering organization. traditional design-bid-build projects, the March 24, 1999, Las Vegas, NV; Representatives from law firms, auditing researchers found that the average • The Design-Build Institute of agencies, insurance companies, and the design-build direct cost was 4.59 America (DBIA), March 25, 1999, Las media also attended the December 16 percent greater than the average design- Vegas, NV; workshop. Representatives from the • bid-build cost. However, the statistical AASHTO’s Standing Committee on AASHTO and each of the major analysis of the data did not confirm the Highways, April 17, 1999, Little Rock, industry associations presented their difference in means (because of the AR; • viewpoints on issues that should be AASHTO’s Subcommittee on considered in the rulemaking process. 2 R. D. Ellis, Jr. and A. Kumar, ‘‘Final Evaluation Design, June 22, 1999, Dewey Beach DE; of the Florida Department of Transportation’s Pilot • AASHTO’s Value Engineering Many of the comments received at Design/Build Program,’’ 1992, pp. 94–105 of the these meetings have been incorporated Transportation Research Record No. 1351, Conference, July 14, 1999, Branson, MO; Transportation Research Board (TRB). This and into this document. A summary of the publication is out of print, but a photocopy may be • AASHTO’s Subcommittee on minutes from the December 16, 1999 purchased from the TRB Publications Sales Office Construction, August 2, 1999, New meeting is available on the FHWA’s web at Lockbox 289, Washington, DC 20055. Telephone page at the following address: http:// (202) 334–3213. See TRB web site at URL: http:// Orleans, LA. nationalacademies.org/trb. A copy is in the file for In 1999, employees from the FHWA’s www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/ FHWA Docket No. 2000–7790. Fort Worth, Texas office performed a progadmin/contracts/d_build.htm.
VerDate 11
Section-by-Section Analysis Construction firms often have different which may utilize a best-value selection This section includes a section-by- opinions depending on such factors as process through competitive section analysis of the proposed their size and culture. Both the ARTBA negotiation. Federal agencies, which requirements and incorporates summary and the AGC stated that the traditional contract directly with the private sector 3 information regarding comments ‘‘design-bid-build’’ system is the for goods and services, currently have received during the FHWA’s pre-rule preferred delivery system for publicly such standards in the Federal workshop and outreach sessions. The financed transportation construction Acquisition Regulations (FAR). These comments are, of necessity, summarized projects and should be used whenever regulations define the standards for in each of the relevant sections of the possible. The AGC said that States contracting in direct Federal proposed rule and are intended to should demonstrate how a specific procurement, including design-build provide an overall perspective on the project would benefit from the use of and competitive negotiation. comments submitted to the FHWA the design-build method before a Specifically, the concepts in 48 CFR concerning design-build contracting. delivery system is chosen. Both Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, associations are concerned with the provide standards which have been General Comments potential for subjectivity in the selection tested by numerous contracting agencies During the pre-rule workship, many process and the need for a fair, and the courts. individuals and associations equitable, and consistent procurement The FHWA proposes to adopt a recommended that the FHWA keep the process. modified version of the FAR provisions. rules simple and flexible. It is apparent The ACEC recommended that the We believe our proposed rule would that States which have evaluated proposed rule be crafted in a manner to satisfy both of the above mentioned design-build under SEP–14 have their allow the STDs to evaluate and select goals. Accordingly, the STDs will then own unique needs and preferences. the project delivery system which will have the same degree of flexibility in Each would like to maintain that represent the best value for a specific procurement as other Federal agencies flexibility and not be limited by any project. The proposed rule should which procure directly for contract regulation which might hinder project promote a best value/value-based services. Also, industry representatives delivery, innovation, or cost savings. selection process that evaluates cost, who contract in both the direct Federal The industry associations, on the other technical qualifications, technical and Federal-aid transportation markets hand, raised specific issues concerning approach, and quality. In broad terms, will be subject to the same standards of the procurement process and the the ACEC recommended a process fairness in competitive negotiation. which would encourage innovation in importance of minimizing subjectivity Specific Comments in the selection process. Position papers addition to design and construction for the AASHTO and the major industry flexibility. Part 627—Value Engineering associations, which participated in the The Design-Build Institute of America It is necessary to amend the existing December 16, 1999, pre-rule workshop (DBIA) illustrated the positive aspects of value engineering regulations in 23 CFR meeting are posted on the FHWA’s web the design-build process and hoped that 627 to clarify how the FHWA’s value site at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ the FHWA’s proposed rule would engineering policies apply to design- infrastructure/progadmin/contracts/ provide STDs and local agencies with build projects. d_build.htm. maximum flexibility in structuring their During the pre-rule workshop process, In general terms, the AASHTO procurement processes. The DBIA both the AASHTO and the AGC expressed the need for a simple, yet strongly supports the use of a best value provided recommendations on this flexible rule which will create a selection process in procurement. It subject. The AASHTO believes that the framework for encouraging the blends the attributes of price, STDs should have the flexibility to use development of a design-build process qualifications and other technical value engineering clauses where in each State. The rule should not properties to arrive at the best value for appropriate. The AGC stated that value impede project delivery, innovation, or the project owner. engineering proposals should not be cost savings. The AASHTO encouraged Based on a review of all of the permitted during the proposal stage of the FHWA to develop a rule which comments received during the pre-rule design-build procurement, but the AGC would foster the mainstreaming of the workshop process, the FHWA proposes believes that post-award value design-build process into the to give Federal-aid recipients as much engineering proposals may be transportation arena. Finally, the flexibility as possible in the selection of acceptable. AASHTO asserted that a rule cannot be the appropriate form of design-build The FHWA believes that flexibility is written to ensure complete fairness in contracting for their individual projects. appropriate for this issue. New the procurement process, but AASHTO We have developed the proposed paragraph (e) in § 627.5 would provide noted that STDs must make every regulation with two goals in mind: several options for meeting the value • Continue the flexibility that exists reasonable effort to provide an open and engineering provision of § 627.1(a). This under the current SEP–14 design-build understandable process. provision requires States to perform a The construction industry was program, and value engineering analysis on all • Develop a model for the appropriate represented at the pre-rule workshop National Highway System (NHS) use of the design-build process in each meeting by the Associated General projects with an estimated cost of $25 State. million or more. The first option noted Contractors of America (AGC) and the This proposed rule would provide a in the proposed rule would allow STDs American Road and Transportation general framework for the procurement to perform a value engineering analysis Builders Association (ARTBA). They of design-build projects, ranging from prior to the initiation of the echoed similar comments and simple projects which may be awarded procurement process. In lieu of this, reservations regarding issues that on a low-bid basis to complex projects, should be considered in the proposed STDs may require the design-builder or rule. The ARTBA stated that there is no 3 Design-bid-build’’ means the traditional delivery other parties to perform a value clear industry consensus regarding the method where design and construction are engineering analysis at other points in design-build contracting method. sequential steps in the project development process. the project development process. Also,
VerDate 11
in keeping with the FHWA’s existing This is being done to be consistent with condition clauses may be appropriate philosophy regarding value engineering the terminology in the U.S. DOT’s DBE for certain design-build projects. Others change proposal clauses, these program in 49 CFR part 26. Paragraph may be included at the discretion of the provisions may be used at the STD’s (a) would also be modified to provide contracting agency depending on the discretion, but are not required, for the correct reference to 49 CFR part 26. risk allocation for a given project. design-build projects. Second, we are proposing to add new Specifically, the differing site paragraph (b) to clarify how DBE conditions clause (or a modified version Part 635—Construction and requirements will apply to design-build of the clause in 23 CFR 635.109(a)(1)) Maintenance projects. These provisions would state may be specified by an owner Section 635.102 Definitions that offerors do not need to furnish the depending on the specific risks and specific commitment information responsibilities which are being It is necessary to amend the existing required by 49 CFR 26.53(b)(2) prior to allocated to the design-builder. regulations to clarify how the FHWA’s the award of a contract. However, the The ‘‘Suspensions of Work Ordered requirements for Federal-aid design-builder must indicate that it can by the Engineer’’ clause is appropriate construction contracts will apply to obtain the necessary DBE commitments. in any situation where the contracting design-build projects. A definition is If the design-builder cannot obtain the agency suspends or delays the work for added for ‘‘design-build project.’’ necessary commitments, it must an unreasonable time period. Therefore, The term ‘‘certification acceptance’’ is document to the STD its good faith the FHWA is requiring its use on all removed. Section 1604 of the TEA–21, efforts, as described in 49 CFR 26.53. design-build contracts. which replaced 23 U.S.C. 117 (formerly Under 49 CFR 26.53(e), the STD or The intent of the ‘‘Significant Changes titled ‘‘Certification Acceptance’’), contracting agency must maintain in the Character of Work’’ clause in 23 removed this term and replaced it with oversight to ensure contractual CFR 635.109(a)(3) is to provide the new program ‘‘High Priority Projects requirements are met throughout the life equitable adjustments for changes in Program.’’ of the contract. Lastly, the proposed rule quantities and other alterations in the Section 635.104 Method of would prohibit STDs from providing work (designed by the owner) as Construction additional credit during the proposal necessary to complete the project. In the evaluation process for offerors who case of a design-build project, the STD New paragraph (c) would be added to indicate that they will attain DBE may have delegated this responsibility provide a reference to new part 636 and participation above the contract goal. to the design-builder and it may not be the contracting provisions for Federal- The DBE program requirements are one appropriate to include such change aid design-build projects. of many contractual requirements which clauses in a design-build contract. In Section 635.107 Participation by are binding on the design-builder; addition, the ‘‘lump sum payment’’ Disadvantaged Business Enterprise however, STDs must not give structure of most design-build contracts preferences to offerors who exceed the does not correlate with the ‘‘unit price During the design-build pre-rule DBE contract goals. payment’’ structure of traditional workshop process, the AASHTO design-bid-build contracts. In other Section 635.109 Standardized recommended that specific cases, an owner may believe that it is changed condition clauses Disadvantaged Business Enterprise appropriate to include provisions (DBE) commitments should not be Section 1307(b) of TEA–21 modified similar to the ‘‘significant changes in the mandated at the time of award. The 23 U.S.C. 112(e)(2) such that the character of work’’ clause in a design- AGC stated its belief that DBE FHWA’s requirement to utilize build contract. However, such use requirements should be the same as for standardized changed condition clauses would be optional under this proposed traditional projects; however, where on all Federal-aid construction projects rule. STDs are meeting goals through race will not apply to design-build projects. New paragraph (c) would be added to neutral means, contractual goals should However, depending on the level of risk require the use of the standardized not be stated in the Request for sharing between the STD and the suspensions of work ordered by the Proposals document. The AGC also design-builder, modified versions of engineer clause (23 CFR 635.109(a)(2)) stated that DBE utilization should not be these clauses may be appropriate in for all design-build projects. However, a weighted factor in selecting the certain circumstances. the STDs would be encouraged to successful offeror. During the pre-rule meeting with the consider using differing site condition The DBE program requirements under AASHTO and industry, the AGC stated clauses and significant changes in the the U.S. DOT’s DBE regulation in 49 that the proposed rule should require character of work clauses which are CFR part 26 are applicable to FHWA the use of a changed condition clause in appropriate for the risk and design-build projects. The STDs may design-build contracts. The AGC responsibilities that are shared with the establish an overall DBE contract goal asserted that such clauses will limit design-builder. for design-build projects. The design- litigation and reduce overall project cost builder in turn may establish by precluding the need to include Section 635.110 Licensing and appropriate goals for the subcontracts it contingencies in prices for unknown Qualification of Contractors lets to meet the overall design-build conditions or for undertaking extensive The FHWA proposes to amend this contract goal. The STDs are to maintain pre-proposal geologic studies. The section to clarify how the requirements oversight of the design-builder’s ACEC addressed this issue indirectly in for licensing and qualification of activities to ensure compliance with the recommending that the preliminary contractors would apply to design-build provisions of 49 CFR part 26. design should be advanced to the point contracts. During the pre-rule workshop We are proposing several different where risks, such as differing site process there were several comments on changes to § 635.107. First, we are conditions, are identified and properly this issue. proposing to change the title from allocated. The other associations did not The AASHTO recommended that ‘‘Small and disadvantaged business comment on this issue. contracting agencies be permitted to participation’’ to ‘‘Participation by The FHWA believes that certain require contractor prequalification and disadvantaged business enterprise.’’ elements of the standardized changed licensed engineers in accordance with
VerDate 11
the owner’s requirements or State and retitled to read ‘‘Advertising for bids that must be accomplished by the local statutes. The ACEC recommended and proposals.’’ We prefer the term design-builder. Therefore, the proposed that flexibility be provided in ‘‘proposal’’ rather than ‘‘bids’’ for rule would not apply the existing 30 prequalification and licensing design-build contracting. The term percent requirement to design-build requirements to allow a design firm to ‘‘bid’’ is usually associated with an projects. At their discretion, STDs may lead the design-build team. While the invitation for bids under the design-bid- establish minimum percentages of the AGC did not specifically comment on build method of contracting. The term work which would be accomplished by this issue, it indicated that ‘‘proposal’’ is usually associated with the design-builder. prequalification is a necessary element the design-build contracting method. Accordingly, we propose to add new in the design-build process to limit the Second, we are proposing to add new paragraph (d). Paragraph (d) would number of design-builders that will paragraph (i). Paragraph (i) would allow the STDs to determine the incur the expense of preparing amend the requirements of this section minimum amount of work which must proposals. for a design-build project. The FHWA be accomplished by the design-builder. The ARTBA suggested that Division Administrator’s approval of the In addition, the FHWA has also contracting agencies should use some Request for Proposals (RFP) document included a prohibition on any type of screening process which might will constitute the FHWA’s project procedure, requirement, or preference be based on prequalification, a surety authorization and the FHWA’s approval which imposes minimum bond system, or merely a demonstration of the STD’s request to release the RFP subcontracting requirements or goals of understanding technical document. The STD may decide the (other than those necessary to meet the requirements. However, the ARTBA appropriate solicitation schedule for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise recommended against a short listing project advertising, release of the program requirements of 49 CFR part process as it believes that anyone who request for proposals, and proposal 26). Subcontracting goals may serve as is qualified to perform the work should submission deadlines. a local contracting preference, thereby be allowed to submit a proposal. The presenting an artificial contractual DBIA stated that prequalification is Section 635.113 Bid Opening and Bid barrier to the design-builder’s ability to essential for effective design-build Tabulations manage an efficient contract. Therefore, contracting. The DBIA recommended New paragraph (c) would be added to we are proposing to prohibit that the proposed rules provide that allow STDs to use their own procedures subcontracting goals. design-builders must clearly for the process of receiving, reviewing demonstrate their ability to become and processing design-build proposals. Section 635.122 Participation in licensed or to practice professionally in The STD will submit a tabulation of Progress Payments the State in which the project is located. proposal costs to the FHWA Division The proposed rule would add In consideration of all of these Administrator as is presently done for paragraph (c) which would require comments, the FHWA has proposed to traditional design-bid-build projects. STDs to specify how progress payments allow States to require certain will be made in the RFP document on prequalification requirements if Section 635.114 Award of Contract lump sum design-build contracts. required by their own statutes or and Concurrence in Award Section 635.309 Authorization procedures. Prequalification may be New paragraph (k) would provide a required as a condition of a proposal reference to the design-build contracting This proposed rule would define the submission if it is required by State requirements of part 636. RFP document approval as the key point statute or policy; however, the STD in the Division Administrator’s Section 635.116 Subcontracting and authorization of a design-build project. must allow adequate time between Contractor Responsibilities project advertisement and the opening The Division Administrator’s approval of cost/technical proposals for proposers The FHWA’s current subcontracting of the RFP document would constitute to become prequalified. provision requires the prime contractor the FHWA’s authorization of the project. In addition, new paragraph (f) would to perform at least 30 percent of the This includes approval to proceed with be added to allow the STDs to use their work (less specialty items). During the the advertisement /release of the RFP own bonding, insurance, licensing and pre-rule workshop process, the document and, subject to concurrence- qualification procedures for any phase AASHTO recommended that the States in-award, proceed with the design and of design-build procurement. be allowed to determine the required construction of the project. The Geographic preferences are prohibited. percentage of work to be performed by requirements for authorization of a The STDs may require offerors to the design-builder and/or its design-build project are added in a new demonstrate their ability to become subcontractors. The DBIA recommended paragraph (p). licensed; however, licensing procedures that the FHWA not establish a requirement, but leave this issue to the Section 635.411 Material or Product may not serve as a barrier for the Selection consideration of otherwise responsive discretion of the design-builder. The proposals. ACEC recommended flexibility in all In general, the associations supported procurement policies to allow the the concept of applying the existing Section 635.112 Advertising for Bids situation where a design firm serves as restrictions for proprietary products to During the pre-rule workshop process, the leader on a design-build team. The design-build projects. The current the AASHTO recommended that the AGC recommended no change in the requirement for traditional design-bid- FHWA authorization should take place existing requirement. The other build construction projects generally prior to offering the project for associations did not provide comments prohibits the STDs from specifying advertisement. The AASHTO suggested on this issue. proprietary products in the plan and that this authorization should carry The FHWA proposes to provide specifications, unless the proprietary through the rest of the project’s greater flexibility in this area for design- product is: (1) Bid competitively with development. build contracts. We believe that the equally suitable unpatented products, We are proposing two changes to this contract agency is in the best position to (2) used for research, or (3) necessary for section. First, this section would be establish minimum percentages of work synchronization purposes. For design-
VerDate 11
build projects, the prohibition on current warranty regulation in 23 CFR which will encourage the use of design- specifying proprietary products would 635.413 which limits the application of build. On the other hand, both the apply to the requirements in the RFP warranties to specific products or ARTBA and the AGC expressed document. The design-builder would be construction features on NHS projects. reservations with the design-build free to use a proprietary product if it The STDs would continue to use their method and recommended that the met the requirements of the design- own warranty procedures on non-NHS traditional design-bid-build method build contract. projects. remain the preferred method of The AASHTO stated that the Part 636—Design-Build Contracting contracting. The AGC stated that design- proprietary product restrictions should build should only be allowed for use on be in accordance with current This part would provide new Federal-aid projects where it can be requirements. Any allowable exceptions requirements for Federal-aid design- demonstrated that traditional should be clearly defined in the contract build projects. The agency believes it is contracting methods are not appropriate documents. The AGC stated that the necessary to provide additional or where there are unique problems or specification of proprietary products in explanation for certain new circumstances associated with a requirements which are not self- the RFP should be strongly discouraged. particular project. The ARTBA explanatory. Specific comments on The AGC believed that specifying recognized that there may be certain these new provisions follow. proprietary products undermines the projects that will lend themselves to design-builder’s creativity in developing Section 636.102 Does This Part Apply design-build including projects a proposal to meet the owner’s needs. to Me? incorporating innovative financing The DBIA stated the current prohibition arrangements (certainty in price and/or for specifying proprietary products in This part is written in the plain- scheduling), and projects incorporating the contract documents should be language format. The pronoun ‘‘you’’ specific technical challenges. The continued. The STDs employing design- refers to the STD, the primary recipient ARTBA, however, believes that design- build should be using performance of Federal-aid funds in a State. Where build should only be used where it specifications seeking quality end the STD has an agreement with a local results in lieu of means and methods public agency (or other governmental would provide the public with a real prescriptive specifications. The FHWA agency) to administer a Federal-aid advantage which is not readily provided concurs with the recommendations of design-build project, the term ‘‘you’’ by the traditional design-bid-build the associations and this proposed rule will also apply to that contracting method. The ARTBA also recommended would extend the current requirements agency. that the estimated contract amount to the design-build RFP document. The should not be a determining factor in an Section 636.103 What Are the owner’s criteria to use design-build. requirements for material or product Definitions of Terms Used in This Part? selection in design-build contracts are Considering the sharp division of Many of the definitions used in this added in paragraph (f). comments offered by the associations, section are taken from the DBIA’s and the congressional mandate of Section 635.413 Warranty Clauses ‘‘Design-Build Manual of Practice,’’ 4 section 1307, we propose providing Document Number 103. Modifications There was a difference of opinion broad discretion to the States regarding among the associations regarding the are made to certain terms to agree with the actual use in the Federal-aid project selection criteria. We have not use of warranty clauses on design-build set specific criteria which limit the type projects. Some, but not all, of the highway program. Other definitions, such as the definition of a ‘‘qualified of projects which are suitable for design- associations elected to comment on the build contracting. This is a subject warranty issue. The AASHTO stated project,’’ are taken from section 1307 of the TEA–21. which is better addressed in non- that the use of warranties should be at regulatory guidance. the owner’s discretion. If an owner Section 636.106 What Type of Projects Under SEP–14, the States have believes that warranties are desirable, May Be Used With Design-Build evaluated more than 140 design-build they should carefully consider and Contracting? clearly communicate the requirements projects since 1991. These projects in the RFP document. The ACEC In its recommendations to the FHWA, include various types of surface expressed concern over any attempt to the AASHTO stated that the proposed transportation projects, including the extend uninsurable warranty provisions rules for design-build should not limit following: simple roadway resurfacing, a State’s ability to gain maximum to professional engineering services. bridge replacements, interchange benefit from the process. States should The AGC stated that warranty modifications, intelligent transportation not be prohibited from using the most requirements should not be addressed system installation, roadways on new effective selection process for each in the proposed rule. The AGC believes alignment, vehicle emission inspection individual project. Similarly, the ACEC that this is a significant issue that stations, ferry boats, tunnel recommended that owners should be should be addressed separately. The reconstruction and mega-construction provided with the flexibility to adopt DBIA indirectly addressed this issue in projects, such as the I–15 reconstruction the project delivery method that offers the subject of risk allocation. The DBIA in Utah. Based on the FHWA’s the best value, given the unique supports the concept of appropriate risk experience with the SEP–14 program, opportunities, constraints, risks, and we do not believe that it is necessary or delegation by including warranty demands of a particular project. The appropriate to limit the design-build provisions only where certain design DBIA strongly supported a process and construction features are within the contracting technique to projects with a certain type of work or contract size. control of the design-builder. 4 The Design-Build Manual of Practice,’’ The FHWA recognizes the significant Document Number 103 (Design-Build Definitions), Federal-aid recipients will be given the concern regarding warranty issues and is available for purchase from the Design-Build flexibility to choose the correct agrees with the AASHTO that STDs Institute of America, 1010 Massachusetts Avenue, contracting method which is N.W., Suite 350, Washington, D.C. 20001 ($9 for appropriate for the project objectives should have the discretion to use DBIA members; $12 nonmembers). Online warranties where appropriate. The publication information is available at URL: http:/ based on project delivery time, cost, proposed rule would not amend the /www.dbia.org/pubs. construction schedule and/or quality.
VerDate 11
Section 636.107 Does the Definition of purposes, complies with the definition congressional intent of this provision a ‘‘Qualified Project’’ Limit the Use of of a ‘‘qualified project.’’ was to ensure full compliance with Design-Build Contracting? NEPA for all design-build projects. To Section 636.109 How Does the NEPA ensure a complete unbiased NEPA The TEA–21 requires the FHWA to Review Process Relate to the Design- process, it is imperative that the STDs establish the procedures to be followed Build Procurement Process? perform a level of design and by an owner for obtaining the Several of the associations provided Secretary’s approval for the use of environmental review which is comments regarding the application of necessary to fully evaluate the range of design-build contracting. The the FHWA’s National Environmental reasonable alternatives chosen to meet procedures for obtaining the FHWA’s Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. project goals and avoid adverse approval for traditional project 4321 et seq.) requirements to design- environmental impact. Project design authorization are established and well build projects. The following are the activities beyond this stage involve a known by the STDs. The procedures for views of the industry associations certain level of risk. requesting the FHWA authorization of concerning the relationship of the NEPA The FHWA’s NEPA review process Federal-aid design-build projects would process and the design-build was developed to ensure that be the same as any other project funded procurement process. environmental impact information for by the FHWA. However, after the The AASHTO recommended that the any federally funded action is available effective date of the final rule, design- NEPA process be completed prior to the to public officials and citizens before build projects which do not meet the award of a design-build project to decisions are made and before actions TEA–21 definition of a ‘‘qualified ensure that all environmental concerns are taken. The success of the NEPA project’’ must follow SEP–14 and remedial measures are sufficiently process is based on the assumption that procedures. detailed for the design-builder. there will be an objective and unbiased The AASHTO recommended that all However, in cases where environmental review of all reasonable alternatives that design-build projects be exempt from impacts are expected to be minimal and address project needs and are prudent the SEP–14 process once a final rule is the outcome of the NEPA review in terms of avoiding potential developed. If this is not possible, the appears certain, the AASHTO believes environmental effects. Moreover, the AASHTO recommended that the FHWA the RFP document could be released public perception of the NEPA review Division Offices be granted approval after approval of the final environmental process is very important to the FHWA authority for the SEP–14 program impact statement. The AASHTO stated and STDs. The perception of an because they have a better that the responsibility for obtaining unbiased review process should not be understanding of State and local needs. environmental approval rests with the compromised by a decision to release The AASHTO also advocates a owner. Also, the AASHTO the design-build RFP prior to the simplification of the SEP–14 process recommended that the public’s conclusion of the NEPA review process. and a change in the ‘‘qualified project’’ perception of the NEPA process and its Therefore, the NEPA review process limit from $50 million to $10 million. relation to the design-build procurement should be complete (an approval The FHWA agrees with many of the process should be carefully considered. received for a Categorical Exclusion, AASHTO’s recommendations; however, Additionally, the AASHTO suggested Finding of No Significant Impact, or a the definition of a ‘‘qualified project’’ is that the NEPA and design-build project Record of Decision as defined in 23 CFR a statutory requirement which the delivery issues are best addressed by the 771.113(a)) prior to releasing the RFP FHWA cannot change. Under the individual project owner in consultation document. proposed rule, the FHWA Division with the FHWA Division Office. The FHWA’s environmental Offices would use the provisions of the The AGC indicated that the NEPA regulations require the evaluation of final rule in approving ‘‘non-qualified’’ process should be complete prior to the alternatives, their environmental projects for inclusion under SEP–14. selection of the design-builder. The consequences, and the incorporation of Projects which do not comply with the AGC supports the concept of the owner mitigation measures (avoidance, provisions of the final rule will be being responsible for all necessary minimization, and compensation) prior referred to the FHWA Headquarters for environmental permits. to proceeding with an action. Project concept approval under SEP–14. The ACEC was concerned about the activities beyond those necessary to potential adverse public perception answer environmental questions during Section 636.108 How Does the where the design-build procurement the NEPA review process (for example: Definition of a ‘‘Qualified Project’’ process is initiated prior to the final design, right-of-way acquisition, Apply to ITS Projects? conclusion of the NEPA process. The and construction) are not permitted The AASHTO recommended that an ACEC recommended that the FHWA prior to the conclusion of the NEPA ITS design-build project be defined as discourage owners from releasing the review process. one that applies information and control RFP document prior to the completion The FHWA also agrees with the technologies to improve the safety, of the NEPA process. However, the association recommendations to ensure efficiency, and operation of the ACEC suggested the solicitation of that the RFP document address all transportation system. qualifications should be allowed at the environmental commitments and In defining a ‘‘qualified project’’ in discretion of the owner. mitigation measures. Due to the nature section 1307 of the TEA–21, the The FHWA agrees with many of the of the design-build process, proposers Congress did not provide additional recommendations provided by the often expend significant effort preparing guidance on the $5 million limitation associations. Section 1307(a)(3)(B) of the technical and cost proposals in response for ITS projects. For this reason, the TEA–21 states the following: ‘‘Final to an RFP. Therefore, STDs have a FHWA is reluctant to provide further design under a design-build contract responsibility to: (1) Ensure that the RFP clarification in the proposed rule. referred to in subparagraph (A) shall not scope of work includes the details However, we believe that for eligibility commence before compliance with related to all environmental purposes, a design-build project with an section 102 of the National commitments and (2) assure proposers estimated cost of $5 million or more, Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 that the scope will not change as a result which is primarily for ITS technology U.S.C. 4332).’’ The FHWA believes the of the environmental review process.
VerDate 11
This will minimize the need for offerors that the owner is serious about provisions to give the STDs the proposers to include contingencies in awarding a contract and receiving a necessary flexibility in procurement. their cost proposals. quality proposal. The proposed rule would allow the Section 636.116 What Organizational request for qualifications (RFQ) Section 636.113 Is the Stipend Conflict of Interest Requirements Apply solicitation to proceed prior to the Amount Eligible for Federal to Design-Build Projects? conclusion of the NEPA process. Participation? The organizational conflict of interest However, the RFP should not be The cost of stipends is eligible for subject generated significant comments released prior to the conclusion of the Federal-aid participation. The FHWA from many associations. Several NEPA process. has listed a range of costs based on the commenters requested that owners be required to list specific conflict of Section 636.110 What Procedures May estimated proposal development costs. In addition, the proposed rule states that interest provisions in all solicitations for Be Used for Solicitations and Receipt of design-build projects. Most of the Proposals? STDs may retain the right to use ideas from unsuccessful offerors if State law associations believed that the owner’s Rather than adopting a modification provides for this. consultant or sub-consultant (who was of FAR provisions for this subject, the involved in the development or FHWA has elected to allow the States to Section 636.114 What Factors Should preparation of the RFP document) use their own procedures for the Be Considered in Risk Allocation? should be excluded from the proposal solicitation and receipt of proposals. The AASHTO recommended that the process because this may present a real or an apparent conflict of interest. In Section 636.111 Can Oral assignment of risk be determined by the addition, the AASHTO recommended Presentations Be Used During the owner and clearly defined in the procurement and contract documents. that consultants or sub-consultants who Procurement Process? participate as offerors should not be The ACEC stated that the RFP document The proposed language in this section involved in the evaluation of proposals should clearly define the owner’s is a modified version of the requirement or the administration of design-build requirements and assign risk to the in 48 CFR 15.102, Oral Presentations. contracts. However, the AASHTO party who is best able to manage it. The The modifications provide flexibility for suggested that, at the option of the AGC cautioned against the temptation to State procurement officials. owner, a consultant should be allowed shift all project related risk to the Section 636.112 May Stipends Be to join multiple proposal teams. design-builder. The AGC recommended The AGC recommended that the Used? that contracts incorporate standardized regulation should not prohibit All of the associations which change condition clauses to reduce the consultants from working for more than provided comments to the FHWA offeror’s need to cover contingencies one bidder or from participating on the during the pre-rule workshop meeting through increased project costs. The successful design-build team if the supported both the owner’s use of AGC also supports the concept of consultant worked with a different firm stipends and Federal-aid participation incentive and disincentive provisions to during the proposal stage. in the cost of stipends. The AASHTO reduce the actual construction time and The ACEC is concerned about the indicated that the payment of stipends reduce impacts to the traveling public. potential for conflict of interest when an to firms submitting competitive The DBIA noted that an unfair owner’s consultant joins one of the proposals should be at the owner’s allocation of risks to offerors may lead prospective offerors. However, it discretion. The AGC recommended that to increased bid prices, change order identified cases where it may be the stipend be based on some formula disputes, and litigation costs. According appropriate to allow the owner’s sub- related to the value of the project and to the DBIA, studies have shown that consultants to participate in the not selected arbitrarily. The AASHTO the risk best belongs to the party who proposal process. One example might be also stated that owners should have full is best able to evaluate, control, and bear where the sub-consultant provides rights to retain and use ideas from the cost of the risk. Many risks and limited information in the project proposals when stipends are accepted liabilities are best shared. Every risk has development process and this by the offerors. The DBIA said that an associated and unavoidable cost, information is provided to all offerors stipends are an effective means for which must be assumed somewhere in (such as a geotechnical engineering encouraging competition. When used in the process. firm). combination with short listing or The FHWA concurs with the The DBIA stated that, as an overall prequalification procedures, the recommendations of the Associations. guideline, relationships between contracting agency will benefit from a Section 636.114 would encourage STDs owner’s consultants and design-build cost effective procurement process. to identify, consider, and allocate risks team members should be avoided. Based on our preliminary experience in the procurement documents. Owner’s consultants should not be with SEP–14 design-build projects, the Section 636.115 May I Meet With permitted to participate on design-build FHWA agrees that stipends appear to be Industry To Gather Information proposal teams. However, an exception cost effective on large projects where Concerning the Appropriate Risk may be made for certain consultants offerors may be required to incur Allocation Strategies? who assisted the owner with project significant costs to submit a proposal. development activities on very large The use of stipends in such cases The proposed requirements of this projects with multiple designers, should: (1) Offset costs incurred by the section are modified from 48 CFR provided that the information prepared offerors for their substantial efforts and 15.201, Exchanges with Industry Before by these consultants is available to all thereby ensure a minimum level of Receipt of Proposals. This section will offerors. competition through the end of the encourage the STDs to gather the We incorporated many of these procurement process, (2) ensure that appropriate information concerning risk recommendations in the proposed rule; smaller companies are not put at a allocation prior to the initiation of the however, we also recognize that it is not significant competitive disadvantage, procurement process. The FHWA is practical to address every specific and (3) send a message to potential proposing modifications to the FAR instance where the appearance of a
VerDate 11
conflict, or an actual conflict of interest Section 636.119 How Does This Part www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativefinance/ may arise. State statutes and practices in Apply to a Project Developed Under a ifg.htm). this area will govern. The proposed rule Public-Private Partnership? However, all Federal-aid recipients provides flexibility by requiring the should be aware that general Title 23, Under the proposed rule, the FHWA apparent successful offerors to submit U.S. Code, provisions (environment, is making a distinction between: (1) right-of-way, etc.) will apply to all certifications regarding actual or Public-private partnership projects apparent organizational conflicts of FHWA projects regardless of whether utilizing traditional Federal-aid funding traditional Federal-aid funding or loan interest. The owners will then have the and (2) public-private partnership ability to make a determination assistance is used. In addition, any projects utilizing some form of loan construction or design-build contract regarding actual or apparent conflicts assistance from FHWA. and take the appropriate action in which utilizes any form of FHWA The FHWA recognizes the significant funding must comply with the FHWA’s accordance with State standards prior to risks and responsibilities accepted by the award of the contract. requirements for construction contracts private entities in a public-private in 23 CFR part 635 including Buy Section 636.117 What Conflict of partnership agreement. Private entities America, Davis-Bacon minimum wage Interest Standards Apply to Individuals must often consider the risks associated rates, and others. with financing, planning, designing, Who Serve as Selection Team Members Subparts B through F for the Owner? constructing, maintaining and operating public facilities for long time periods. In These subparts propose additional The ACEC recommended that some situations, the FHWA’s requirements for the design-build members of the selection team sign non- participation in such projects may be procurement process. As previously disclosure statements, non-conflict-of- limited to a loan, loan assistance noted in the General Comments section, interest statements, and agreements not (guarantee), line of credit or other means the FHWA is adopting modified FAR to become an employee, agent, or of credit assistance. At the end of the provisions from 48 CFR Part 15, consultant to the successful designer- loan period, the Federal investment in Contracting by Negotiation, and 48 CFR builder for the duration of the project. the project may be zero. 36.3, Two-Phase Design-Build Selection In the first case, the FHWA’s Procedures. The industry The proposed rule provides flexibility procurement policies would apply to representatives at the pre-rule workshop for States to use their own standards any project that utilizes traditional meeting did not voice particular regarding personal conflicts of interest; Federal-aid funding. If an owner utilizes concerns regarding the individual however, in the absence of such State traditional Federal-aid funding in the requirements in these subparts. provisions, the requirements of Title 48 cost of work done under a public- However, the representatives did CFR Part 3, Improper Business Practices private franchise agreement, then the provide general comments regarding the and Personal Conflicts of Interest, will FHWA procurement policies apply to design-build procurement process. apply to selection team members. the procurement of the franchise. If an The AASHTO believes that the Section 636.118 Is Team Switching owner elects to utilize traditional procurement process for design-build Allowed After Contract Award? Federal-aid funding in only a portion of projects should be left to each STD’s the work done under a franchise discretion. This will allow each State to The AASHTO recommended that agreement (such as a design-build adapt a procurement system to their successful offerors be allowed to add contract under the franchise agreement), needs and their legislative authority. In members to their teams after project then the FHWA procurement policies addition, the AASHTO believes that the award with approval of the owner. In would only apply to that particular selection criteria and award formulas addition, the AASHTO said that State contract. The FHWA procurement should clearly be communicated to rules related to changes in team policies include qualification-based- offerors in the RFP document. members or changes in personnel selection procedures for engineering The ACEC recommended that the within teams should be explicitly stated service contracts, competitive bidding FHWA develop rules and regulations for by the owner in the project requirements for construction contracts, the design-build procurement process. advertisement. On the other hand, the and the requirements of this part for The process should be flexible and design-build contracts. ACEC recommended that the proposed allow the owners to select an rule prevent the switching of team In the second case, FHWA’s appropriate procurement vehicle for the size and complexity of the project. members after selection. This procurement policies would not apply However, the process should maintain a recommendation was based on the to work done under a public-private system of checks and balances to ACEC’s belief that if an owner uses partnership agreement if the only form of FHWA funding is loan assistance. If guarantee the integrity of the selection qualifications and technical capabilities the procurement process for the public- process. The ACEC believes that the as a factor in the selection process, then private partnership was a competitive following steps will assist in steps need to be taken to prevent the process, then the public-private entity maintaining integrity: restructuring of the team after project may select consultants, construction (1) Develop specific judging rules and award. contractors or design-builders in a fully pre-defined point award system In general, FHWA agrees with the whatever manner it sees fit. However, that is specified in the Request for ACEC recommendation. However, some the public-private entity must comply Qualifications (RFQ) and/or RFP flexibility is appropriate to provide with State laws and procedures. This documents. owners with the ability to review team policy is consistent with the FHWA’s (2) Place significant weight on changes or team enhancements on a May 10, 1996, guidance memorandum qualifications and technical approach. case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the concerning ‘‘Guidance on Section 313(b) The cost weight may vary from project FHWA believes the proposed rule of the National Highway System Act to project; however, it should not be provides the necessary flexibility. Loan Provisions under Section 129(a)(7) over-emphasized at the expense of other of Title 23’’ (see http:// important criteria.
VerDate 11
(3) Assign knowledgeable personnel prequalified should be able to submit a majority of the acceptance testing and to the selection team. Enforce integrity proposal; inspection. and conflict-of-interest standards to (4) Proposal criteria should be as The FHWA recognizes the STD’s maintain a separation of interests objective as possible; and responsibility to ensure that the final between the owner and industry (5) Proposal cost should be the most product meets contractual requirements. representatives. significant factor in the final selection. We also recognize that the design-build (4) Require separate qualitative and The DBIA recommended that the contracting method allows for risk cost proposal submissions. Do not open regulations be structured to provide allocation strategies which are not cost proposals until after the completion owners with maximum flexibility in typical for traditional design-bid-build and publication of the qualitative structuring their procurement contracts. Therefore, it is appropriate for scoring. procedures and contracts. It further STDs to have the flexibility to require In addition, the ACEC recommended suggested that the FHWA should not try alternate contractual methods for that the rule not give preferential to impose its ideas regarding best oversight, acceptance procedures and treatment to a firm based on its size contracting practices on State and local verification testing. For this reason, we during the selection process. agencies. The FHWA should limit the have expanded the language in Subpart The AGC indicated that the FHWA proposed rule to addressing the TEA–21 B, Quality Assurance Procedures for should define the specific procurement Construction, to include alternate procedures that States would have to requirements and clarifying how certain existing rules will apply in the context contractual methods such as warranties follow in the proposed rule. They and operational requirements. However, believe STDs should have some of design-build. The DBIA suggested that the FHWA produce an advisory the concept of STD responsibility for administrative flexibility in developing quality assurance procedures remains guideline to assist the States in making their own procedures to meet State and the same as for traditional design-bid- procurement and contracting decisions. local requirements. According to the build projects. The provisions of In contrast to the AGC and the ARTBA, AGC, prequalification is a necessary § 637.205(d) requiring verification the DBIA stated that low bid is the least element in the design-build sampling and testing by the STD, or its desirable way to select a design-builder. procurement process. The AGC supports agent, are maintained for design-build The DBIA recommends best-value the use of the two-step selection projects. The States should use their selections. However, the DBIA stated process. Costs must be a major factor in own discretion in listing oversight and that if an owner requires a low bid the selection process. The separate acceptance testing procedures in the selection system, then the submission and evaluation of cost and RFP document. technical proposals should help to prequalification process must be minimize subjectivity. The selection stringent. Part 710—Right-of-Way; Subpart C— criteria, and their relative weights, must The FHWA weighed the wide range of Project Development clearly be presented to all potential recommendations provided by the The AASHTO stated that the offerors. The AGC believes that best- associations concerning procurement determination of who should have the and-final-offer (BAFO) negotiation issues. Some of the recommendations responsibility for dealing with right-of- procedures should be prohibited in the appear to be diametrically opposed. We way acquisition issues should be left to regulation. considered individual comments and the discretion of the STD. Some STDs, The ARTBA strongly believes that weighed them in relation to the overall however, may believe that it is in the public owners should have the goals of maintaining flexibility and public interest to delegate this maximum flexibility in determining establishing a model for the use of responsibility to the design-builder. The procurement methods. While the design-build in each State. In the final industry associations, on the other ARTBA recognized the FHWA’s duty to analysis, we elected to allow flexibility hand, urged caution or recommended ensure the appropriate expenditure of to the maximum extent practical and that the STDs keep such responsibility. Federal tax dollars, it hoped that the adopt modified FAR provisions for The ACEC stated that it is usually FHWA would minimize Federal control design-build and competitive advantageous for the STDs to perform and bureaucratic interference in acquisition. This will establish an right-of-way acquisition prior to the procurement. At the same time the equitable framework that has been notice-to-proceed for the design-build ARTBA expressed the need for a fair, tested by the courts for the use of project; however, there may be certain equitable, and consistent procurement design-build contracting in the Federal- cases where it is appropriate for the process which is free from the elements aid highway program. design-builder to carry this responsibility to promote innovation of subjectivity and favoritism. The Part 637—Subpart B—Quality and cost-effective design alternatives. ARTBA suggested several ‘‘guiding Assurance Procedures for Highway The ACEC stated that the RFP document principles’’ which State and local units Construction of government should consider if they should clearly address all responsibility elect to use design-build. These include The AASHTO said that owner issues concerning right-of-way the following: oversight should be sufficient to certify acquisition. The AGC, on the other (1) Use a two-step procurement. In the that the project meets the owner’s hand, stated that right-of-way first step, prequalify offerors based on quality control/quality assurance (QC/ acquisition should be the responsibility well-defined, objective, measurable QA) plan, as well as any associated of the STDs. criteria relevant to the project’s size, Federal regulations. It was The FHWA recognizes that there are value, duration, technical features, and recommended that the design-builder many and varied concerns regarding complexity; furnish a QC/QA plan for the owner’s responsibility and risk allocation for (2) Clearly communicate the approval. The AGC stated that the right-of-way issues. We have elected to prequalification criteria (and relative proposed rule should require owners to provide as much flexibility as possible weights) in the solicitation; define oversight needs in the RFP. The to the STDs who have the ultimate (3) Owners should prequalify, but AGC believes that the successful design- responsibility for right-of-way should not develop a short list of the build team should have an approved acquisition and ensuring compliance most qualified firms. Anyone who is QC/QA program and should do the with the Uniform Relocation Assistance
VerDate 11
and Real Property Acquisition Policies considered to be significant because of FHWA has evaluated the effects of this Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. the substantial State and industry proposed action on small entities and 4601, et seq.). Thus, this proposed rule interest in the design-build contracting has preliminarily determined that the would provide this flexibility by technique. proposed action would not have a requiring that certain responsibility The FHWA anticipates that the significant economic impact on a allocation issues be clarified in the RFP proposed rule would not adversely substantial number of small entities. document. affect, in a material way, any sector of However, we invite comment on this Rulemaking Analyses and Notices the economy. However, at the present subject. time the FHWA does not have sufficient By its very nature, design-build All comments received before the data to make a conclusive statement contracting is best suited to large close of business on the comment regarding the economic impacts. closing date shown above will be Interested parties are invited to transportation projects. However, considered and will be available for comment on the anticipated economic several STDs such as Pennsylvania, examination using the docket number impact. In addition, these changes Ohio and Michigan have successfully appearing at the top of this document in would not interfere with any action completed several relatively small the docket room at the above address. taken or planned by another agency and design-build contracts (less than $5 Comments received after the comment would not materially alter the budgetary million) under SEP–14. Approximately closing date will be filed in the FHWA impact of any entitlements, grants, user 50 percent of the projects approved docket identified above and will be fees, or loan programs. This rulemaking under SEP–14 have been less than $5 considered to the extent practicable, but merely allows the STDs to utilize the million. We expect that this trend will the FHWA may issue a final rule at any design-build contracting technique—a continue after the final rule is enacted. time after the close of the comment contracting method that has only been closing period. In addition to late Design-build contracts will present used on an experimental basis to date in comments, the FHWA will also subcontracting opportunities which are the Federal-aid highway program. The continue to file in the docket relevant similar to or greater than those available proposed rule would not affect the total information that becomes available after under design-bid-build contracts. In Federal funding available to the STDs the comment closing date, and many cases, design-build contractors under the Federal-aid highway program. interested persons should continue to will subcontract for design services. Therefore, it is anticipated that an examine the docket for new material. A Under the traditional design-bid-build increased use of design-build delivery final rule may be published at any time system, owners typically prepare a after the close of the comment period. method will not yield significant economic impacts to the Federal-aid design with their own staff or will Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory highway program. Consequently, a full contract with a design consultant for Planning and Review) and DOT regulatory evaluation is not required. this work. Based on data provided by Regulatory Policies and Procedures The increased usage of the design- the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), the average The FHWA has determined build contracting method may result in preliminarily that this action would be certain efficiencies in the cost and/or subcontracting amount for design-build a significant regulatory action within time it normally takes to deliver a contracts compares favorably with the the meaning of Executive Order 12866, transportation project. However, as average subcontracting amount for and within the meaning of the U.S. stated above, the FHWA presently does design-bid-build projects in the same Department of Transportation’s not have sufficient data to make a contract size range. While the number of regulatory policies and procedures. The conclusive statement regarding PennDOT completed design-build Office of Management and Budget has economic impacts. projects is small, this preliminary data reviewed this document under E.O. (shown in Table 1) shows that there are Regulatory Flexibility Act 12866. The FHWA anticipates that the comparable subcontracting economic impact of this rulemaking In compliance with the Regulatory opportunities for relatively small would be minimal. However, this rule is Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the design-build projects.
TABLE 1
Design-Build Design-Bid-Build PennDOT projects Number of Subcontracting Number of Subcontracting projects percentage projects percentage
Contract Size: $0–5 million ...... 4 20 541 29 $5–10 million ...... 1 39 21 29 $10–20 million ...... 0 ...... 13 30 >$20 million ...... 0 ...... 10 40
Large design-build contracts will present significant subcontracting opportunities for firms of all sizes. Table 2 illus- trates the subcontracting opportunities which have been associated with medium to large-sized highway design-build contracts.
TABLE 2
Contract size Subcontracting Project Owner (million) percentages
Eastern Toll Road ...... Transportation Corridors Agency, CA ...... $767 39
VerDate 11
TABLE 2—Continued
Contract size Subcontracting Project Owner (million) percentages
San Joaquin Hills Toll Road ...... Transportation Corridors Agency, CA ...... 799.7 41 I–15 Reconstruction ...... Utah DOT ...... 1,318 54 I–17 Reconstruction ...... Arizona DOT ...... 79.7 33 E–470 Segments I and II ...... E–470 Public Highway Authority ...... 323.6 90 Southern Connector ...... South Carolina DOT ...... 106.4 87 Conway Bypass ...... South Carolina DOT ...... 386.0 89
Thus, from the data available to the Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and FHWA, it appears that the 1999, and the FHWA has determined reduce burden. subcontracting opportunities for small that this action would not have Executive Order 13045 (Protection of entities will be similar under both sufficient federalism implications to Children) design-build and design-bid-build warrant the preparation of a Federal contracts. assessment. Nothing in this document We have analyzed this action under To offset potential adverse impacts on directly preempts any State law or Executive Order 13045, Protection of small entities, the proposed rule would regulation or affects the States’ ability to Children from Environmental Health eliminate the FHWA’s existing discharge traditional State governmental Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed requirement for the prime contractor to functions. Section 1307 of the TEA–21 rule is not economically significant and perform 30 percent of all contract work, directs the FHWA to develop does not concern an environmental risk less specialty items (see § 635.116). This regulations which will: (1) Identify to health or safety that may should provide greater flexibility for Secretary’s approval criteria for design- disproportionately affect children. STDs in administering design-build build contracts, and (2) establish Executive Order 12630 (Taking of contracts. For design-builders, it will procedures for obtaining FHWA’s Private Property) remove potential barriers regarding the approval for design-build contracts. This proposed rule would not effect a choice of subcontractors, and most Throughout the proposed regulation taking of private property or otherwise there is an effort to give the STDs important, it will provide greater have taking implications under flexibility in deciding where to subcontracting opportunities for firms of Executive Order 12630, Governmental appropriately use design-build all sizes. For these reasons and because Actions and Interference with this proposed rule is directed to the contracting while keeping Constitutionally Protected Property States and directly affects the STDs, administrative burdens to a minimum. Rights. which are not considered small entities Executive Order 13175 (Tribal for the purposes of the Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act Consultation) Flexibility Act, the FHWA is able to Under the Paperwork Reduction Act preliminarily certify that the proposed The FHWA has analyzed this of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et. seq.), rule will not have a significant proposal under Executive Order 13175, Federal agencies must obtain approval economic impact on a substantial dated November 6, 2000, and believes from the Office of Management and number of small entities. that the proposed rule will not have Budget (OMB) for each collection of substantial direct effects on one or more information they conduct, sponsor, or Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Indian tribes; will not impose 1995 require through regulations. The FHWA substantial direct compliance costs on has reviewed this proposal and This proposed rule would not impose Indian tribal governments; and will not determined that it does not contain unfunded mandates as defined by the preempt tribal law. The proposed rule collection of information requirements Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 does not address issues which are for the purposes of the PRA. (Pub. L. 104–4, March 22, 1995, 109 related to tribal operations. Therefore, a Since 1990 the FHWA has been Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not tribal summary impact statement is not allowing the STDs to evaluate design- result in the expenditure by State, local, required. build contracting on an experimental and tribal governments, in the aggregate, Executive Order 12372 basis through Special Experimental or by the private sector, of $100 million (Intergovernmental Review) Project No. 14 (SEP–14). To receive the or more in any one year. (2 U.S.C. 1531 FHWA’s approval, STDs were requested et seq.). This rulemaking proposes to Catalog of Federal Domestic to prepare experimental project work allow STDs to use a contracting method Assistance Program Number 20.205, plans and evaluation reports for all which has only been used in the Highway planning and construction. design-build projects. Federal-aid highway program on an The regulations implementing Executive Under the proposed rule, the STDs experimental basis to date. There is no Order 12372 regarding will no longer be required to develop requirement for a State to use the intergovernmental consultation on workplans or evaluation reports for design-build contracting technique. It is Federal programs and activities apply to ‘‘qualified projects.’’ However, because strictly an optional contracting method. this program. of the ‘‘qualified project’’ definition in Therefore, this proposed rule is not section 1307 of TEA–21, the FHWA will Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice considered an unfunded mandate. continue to approve ‘‘non-qualified’’ Reform) design-build projects under SEP–14. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) This proposed action would meet Therefore, a SEP–14 workplan and This proposed action has been applicable standards in sections 3(a) evaluation will continue to be necessary analyzed in accordance with the and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, for these projects. The evaluation principles and criteria contained in Civil Justice Reform, to minimize reports will document the lessons
VerDate 11
learned through design-build Issued on: October 12, 2001. Design-build project means a project contracting and this information will be Mary E. Peters, which utilizes a single contract to shared with others in the highway Administrator. provide for design and construction. industry. The collection of SEP–14 For reasons set forth in the preamble, * * * * * information does not entail the the FHWA proposes to amend Chapter 7. Amend § 635.104 by adding reporting of information in response to I of title 23, Code of Federal paragraph (c) to read as follows: identical questions. The SEP–14 design- Regulations, by adding part 636 and by build evaluation reports do not involve revising parts 627, 635, 637 and 710 as § 635.104 Method of construction. answering specific questions; they set forth below: * * * * * address issues relating to competitive (c) In the case of a design-build acquisition. Each is a one of a kind PART 627—VALUE ENGINEERING project, the requirements of part 636 document which relates to the lessons and the appropriate provisions 1. Revise the authority citation for learned on a particular project. pertaining to design-build contracting in part 627 to read as follows: We invite comments on this analysis. this part will apply. Authority: 23 U.S.C. 106(d), 106(f), 112(b), 8. Revise § 635.107 to read as follows: National Environmental Policy Act 302, 307, and 315; 49 CFR 18. § 635.107 Participation by disadvantaged The agency has analyzed this 2. In part 627 revise all references to business enterprises. ‘‘State highway agencies’’ to read ‘‘State proposed action for the purposes of the (a) The STD shall schedule contract transportation departments’’; and revise National Environmental Policy Act of lettings in a balanced program providing the acronyms ‘‘SHA’’ and ‘‘SHAs’’ to 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. contracts of such size and character as read ‘‘STD’’ and ‘‘STDs’’, respectively. 4321 et seq.), and has preliminarily to assure an opportunity for all sizes of 3. In § 627.5, add paragraph (e) to read determined that this proposed action contracting organizations to compete. In as follows: would not have any effect on the quality accordance with Title VI of the Civil of the environment. Design-build § 627.5 General principles and procedures. Rights Act of 1964, subsequent Federal- projects must comply with NEPA aid Highway Acts, and 49 CFR part 26, requirements and the proposed rule * * * * * (e) In the case of a Federal-aid design- the STD shall ensure equal opportunity includes guidance concerning for disadvantaged business enterprises compliance with NEPA in relation to build project meeting the project criteria in 23 CFR 627.1(a), the STDs shall fulfill (DBEs) participating in the highway the release of the Request for Proposals construction program. document. the value engineering requirements by: (1) Performing their own value (b) In the case of a design-build Regulation Identification Number engineering analysis of the concepts in project funded with title 23 funds, the the Request for Proposals document requirements of 49 CFR part 26 and the A regulation identification number prior to the initiation of the design-build following provisions apply. (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory procurement process; or (1) The STDs may establish specific action listed in the Unified Agenda of (2) Requiring a value engineering DBE goals in the request for proposal Federal Regulations. The Regulatory analysis at other key points in the document, however, offerors do not Information Service Center publishes project development process. Value have to furnish the information required the Unified Agenda in April and engineering reviews are generally not by 49 CFR 26.53(b)(2) prior to the award October of each year. The RIN contained recommended as part of the design- of contract. The STDs may determine in the heading of this document can be build proposal process. At the STD’s when this information must be used to cross reference this proposed discretion, value engineering change submitted. action with the Unified Agenda. proposal clauses may be used in design- (2) If a DBE contract goal is List of Subjects build contracts. established, the STD must require offerors to make a commitment to meet 23 CFR Part 627 PART 635—CONSTRUCTION AND the goal or provide good faith efforts, as Government procurement, Grant MAINTENANCE described in 49 CFR 26.53. (3) During the proposal evaluation programs-transportation, Highways and 4. Revise the authority citation for roads. process, the STD will make a fair and part 635 to read as follows: reasonable judgment whether a 23 CFR Part 635 Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101 (note), 109, 112, proposer, that did not meet the goal, 113, 114, 116, 119, 128, and 315; 31 U.S.C. made adequate good faith efforts as Grant programs-transportation, 6505; 42 U.S.C. 3334, 4601 et seq.; sec. 1041 described in 49 CFR 26.53. Highways and roads, Reporting and (a), Pub. L. 102–240, 105 Stat. 1914; 23 CFR (4) During the proposal evaluation recordkeeping requirements. 1.32; 49 CFR 1.48(b). process, DBE commitments above the 23 CFR Part 636 5. In part 635 revise all references to contractual requirements must not be ‘‘State highway agencies’’ to read ‘‘State used as a proposal evaluation factor in Design-build, Grant programs- transportation departments’’; and revise determining the successful offeror. transportation, Highways and roads. the acronyms ‘‘SHA’’ and ‘‘SHAs’’ to (5) The STD must maintain oversight 23 CFR Part 637 read ‘‘STD’’ and ‘‘STDs’’, respectively. of the design-builder’s DBE 6. Amend § 635.102 by placing all commitments during the project to Construction inspection and approval; definitions in alphabetical order, ensure that contract requirements are Highways and roads. removing the definition of ‘‘certification met. 23 CFR 710 acceptance,’’ and by adding the 9. Amend § 635.109 by adding definition of ‘‘design-build project’’ to paragraph (c) to read as follows: Grant programs-transportation, read as follows: Highway and roads, Real property § 635.109 Standardized changed condition acquisition, Rights-of-way, Reporting § 635.102 Definitions. clauses. and recordkeeping requirements. * * * * * * * * * *
VerDate 11
(c) In the case of a design-build design-build requests. This includes all (d) In the case of a design-build project, only the requirements of section project advertising, the release of the project, the requirements of this section (a)(2) of this section are applicable. Request for Qualifications document, are modified by the following: However, STDs may consider using the release of the Request for Proposals (1) The provisions of paragraph (a) of ‘‘differing site condition clauses’’ and document and all deadlines for the this section are not applicable to design- ‘‘significant changes in the character of receipt of qualification statements and build contracts; work clauses’’ which are appropriate for proposals. Typical advertising periods (2) At their discretion, the STDs may the risk and responsibilities that are range from six to ten weeks and can be establish a minimum percentage of work shared with the design-builder. longer for large, complicated projects. which must be done by the design- 10. Amend § 635.110 by adding (3) The STD shall obtain the approval builder; paragraph (f) to read as follows: of the Division Administrator prior to (3) No procedure, requirement or issuing addenda which result in major preference shall be imposed which § 635.110 Licensing and qualification of changes to the Request for Proposals prescribes minimum subcontracting contractors. document. Minor addenda need not requirements or goals (other than those * * * * * receive prior approval but may be necessary to meet the Disadvantaged (f) In the case of a design-build identified by the STD at the time of or Business Enterprise program project, the STDs may use their own prior to requesting the FHWA’s requirements of 49 CFR part 26). bonding, insurance, licensing, concurrence in award. The STD shall 15. Amend § 635.122 by adding qualification or prequalification provide assurance that all offerors have paragraph (c) to read as follows: procedure for any phase of design-build received all issued addenda. procurement. § 635.122 Participation in progress 12. Amend § 635.113 by adding payments. (1) The STDs may not impose paragraph (c) to read as follows: statutory or administrative requirements * * * * * which provide an in-State or local § 635.113 Bid opening and bid tabulations. (c) In the case of a design-build geographical preference in the * * * * * project, the STD shall define its solicitation, licensing, qualification, pre- (c) In the case of a design-build procedures for making progress qualification, short listing or selection project, the requirements of this section payments on lump sum contracts in the process. The geographic location of a are modified by the following: Request for Proposal document. firm’s office may not be a selection (1) All proposals received shall be 16. Amend § 635.309 by adding criteria. However, the STDs may require opened and reviewed in accordance paragraph (p) to read as follows: the successful design-builder to with the terms of the solicitation. The § 635.309 Authorization. establish a local office after the award of STD shall use its own procedures for the contract. following: * * * * * (2) If required by State statute, local (i) The process of handling proposals (p) In the case of a design-build statute, or administrative policy, the and information; project, the requirements of this section STDs may require prequalification for (ii) The review and evaluation of are supplemented with the following: (1) The FHWA’s project authorization construction contractors. The STDs may proposals; (authorization to advertise or release the require offerors to demonstrate the (iii) The submission, modification, Request for Proposals document) will ability of their engineering staff to revision and withdrawal of proposals; not be issued until the following become licensed in that State as a and conditions have been met: condition of responsiveness; however, (iv) The announcement of the (i) All projects must conform with the licensing procedures may not serve as a successful offeror. statewide and metropolitan barrier for the consideration of (2) The STD shall submit a tabulation transportation planning requirements otherwise responsive proposals. The of proposal costs to the FHWA Division (23 CFR part 450). STDs may require compliance with Administrator. The tabulation of price (ii) All projects in air quality State licensing practices as a condition proposal information may include nonattainment and maintenance areas of contract award. detailed pricing information when must meet all transportation conformity 11. Amend § 635.112 by revising the available or lump sum price information requirements (40 CFR parts 51 and 93). section heading and by adding if itemized costs are not used. (iii) The NEPA review process has paragraph (i) to read as follows: 13. Amend § 635.114 by adding been concluded. (see § 636.109). paragraph (k) to read as follows: § 635.112 Advertising for bids and (iv) The Request for Proposals proposals. § 635.114 Award of contract and document has been approved. * * * * * concurrence in award. (v) A statement is received from the (i) In the case of a design-build * * * * * STD that either all right-of-way, utility, project, the requirements of this section (k) In the case of a design-build and railroad work has been completed are modified by the following: project, the requirements of this section or that all necessary arrangements have (1) The FHWA Division are modified by the following sentence: been made for it to be undertaken and Administrator’s approval of the Request Design-build contracts shall be awarded completed as required for proper for Proposals document will constitute on the basis of the criteria specified in coordination with the design-builder’s the FHWA’s project authorization and the Request for Proposals document. See construction schedule. the FHWA’s approval of the STD’s Part 636, Design-build Contracting, for (vi) If the STD elects to include right- request to release the document. This details. of-way, utility, and/or railroad services approval will carry the same 14. Amend § 635.116 by adding as part of the design-builder’s scope of significance as plan, specification and paragraph (d) to read as follows: work, then the Request for Proposals estimate approval on a design-bid-build document must include: Federal-aid project. § 635.116 Subcontracting and contractor (A) A statement concerning scope and (2) The STD may decide the responsibilities. current status of the required services, appropriate solicitation schedule for all * * * * * and
VerDate 11
(B) A statement which requires 636.112 May stipends be used? 636.405 Are communications allowed prior compliance with the Uniform 636.113 Is the stipend amount eligible for to establishing the competitive range? Relocation and Real Property Federal participation? 636.406 Am I limited in holding Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 636.114 What factors should be considered communications with certain firms? in risk allocation? 636.407 Can communications be used to amended, and 23 CFR part 710. cure proposal deficiencies? (2) During a conformity lapse, a 636.115 May I meet with industry to gather information concerning the appropriate 636.408 Can offerors revise their proposals design-build project (including right-of- risk allocation strategies? during communications? way acquisition activities) may continue 636.116 What organizational conflict of if the FHWA authorized the design- Subpart E—Discussions, Proposal interest requirements apply to design- Revisions and Source Selection build contract prior to the lapse and the build projects? project met transportation conformity 636.117 What conflict of interest standards 636.501 What issues may be addressed in requirements (40 CFR parts 51 and 93); apply to individuals who serve as discussions? 636.502 Why should I use discussions? whether the right-of-way authorization selection team members for the owner? 636.118 Is team switching allowed after 636.503 Must I notify offerors of my intent comes before the design-build to use/not use discussions? authorization, or is part of such an contract award? 636.119 How does this part apply to a 636.504 If the solicitation indicated my authorization. project developed under a public-private intent was to award contract without (3) Changes to the design-build partnership? discussions, but circumstances change, project concept and scope may require may I still hold discussions? a modification of the transportation plan Subpart B—Selection Procedures, Award 636.505 Must a contracting agency establish and transportation improvement Criteria a competitive range if it intends to have program. The project sponsor must 636.201 What selection procedures and discussions with offerors? 636.506 What issues must be covered in comply with the metropolitan and award criteria may be used? 636.202 When are two-phase design-build discussions? statewide transportation planning 636.507 What subjects are prohibited in requirements in 23 CFR part 450 and selection procedures appropriate? 636.203 What are the elements of two-phase discussions, communications and provide appropriate approval selection procedures for competitive clarifications with offerors? notification to the design-builder for proposals? 636.508 Can price or cost be an issue in such changes. 636.204 What items may be included in a discussions? 17. Amend § 635.411 by adding phase-one solicitation? 636.509 Can offerors revise their proposals paragraph (f) to read as follows: 636.205 Can past performance be used as an as a result of discussions? 636.510 Can the competitive range be evaluation criteria? further defined once discussions have § 635.411 Material or product selection. 636.206 How do I evaluate offerors who do begun? * * * * * not have a record of relevant past 636.511 Can there be more than one round (f) In the case of a design-build performance? of discussions? 636.207 Is there a limit on short listed project, the requirements of this section 636.512 What is the basis for the source firms? are supplemented with the following: selection decision? Federal funds shall not participate, 636.208 May I use my existing directly or indirectly, in payment for prequalification procedures with design- Subpart F—Notifications and Debriefings any premium or royalty on any patented build contracts? 636.601 When must notification be 636.209 What items must be included in a or proprietary material, specification, or provided to unsuccessful offerors? phase-two solicitation? 636.602 What issues must be provided in process specifically set forth in the 636.210 What requirements apply to Request for Proposals document unless the written notification of contract award projects which use the modified design- to unsuccessful offerors? the conditions of paragraph (a) of this build procedure? 636.603 How may I notify the successful section are applicable. 636.211 When and how should tradeoffs be offeror? 18. Add Part 636 to read as follows: used? 636.604 Can offerors request preaward or 636.212 To what extent must tradeoff postaward debriefings? PART 636—DESIGN-BUILD decisions be documented? 636.605 What issues must be discussed at CONTRACTING Subpart C—Proposal Evaluation Factors preaward debriefings? 636.606 What issues must not be discussed Subpart A—General 636.301 How should proposal evaluation at preaward debriefings? factors be selected? Sec. 636.607 What issues must be discussed at 636.302 Are there any limitations on the 636.101 What does this part do? postaward debriefings? selection and use of proposal evaluation 636.102 Does this part apply to me? 636.608 What issues must not be discussed factors? 636.103 What are the definitions of terms at postaward debriefings? used in this part? 636.303 May pre-qualification standards be 636.104 Does this part apply to all Federal- used as proposal evaluation criteria in Authority: Sec. 1307 of Pub. L. 105–178, aid design-build projects? the RFP? 112 Stat. 107, at 229 (1998); 23 U.S.C. 101, 636.105 Is the FHWA requiring the use of 636.304 What process may be used to rate 109, 112, 113, 114, 115, 119, 128, and 315; design-build? and score proposals? 49 CFR 1.48(b). 636.106 What type of projects may be used 636.305 Can price information be provided with design-build contracting? to analysts who are reviewing technical Subpart A—General 636.107 Does the definition of a qualified proposals? § 636.101 What does this part do? project limit the use of design-build Subpart D—Exchanges contracting? This part describes the FHWA’s 636.108 How does the definition of a 636.401 What types of information policies and procedures for approving qualified project apply to ITS projects? exchange may take place during the design-build projects financed under 636.109 How does the NEPA review procurement process? title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). 636.402 What information may be process relate to the design-build This part satisfies the requirement of procurement process? exchanged with a clarification? 636.110 What procedures may be used for 636.403 Can a competitive range be used to section 1307(c) of the Transportation solicitations and receipt of proposals? limit competition? Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA– 636.111 Can oral presentations be used 636.404 After developing a short list, can I 21), enacted on June 9, 1998. The during the procurement process? still establish a competitive range? contracting procedures of this part
VerDate 11
apply to all design-build project funded requirement or a combination of Price proposal means the price under title 23, U.S.C. significant weaknesses in a proposal submitted by the offeror to provide the that increases the risk of unsuccessful required design and construction § 636.102 Does this part apply to me? contract performance to an unacceptable services. (a) This part uses a plain language level. Proposal modification means a format to make the rule easier for the Design-bid-build means the change made to a proposal before the general public and business community traditional project delivery method solicitation closing date and time, or to use. The section headings and text, where design and construction are made in response to an amendment, or often in the form of questions and sequential steps in the project made to correct a mistake at any time answers, must be read together. development process. before award. (b) Unless otherwise noted, the Design-build contract means a single Proposal revision means a change to pronoun ‘‘you’’ means the primary contract which provides for design and a proposal made after the solicitation recipient of Federal-aid highway funds, construction services. closing date, at the request of or as the State Transportation Department Design-builder means the entity allowed by a contracting officer, as the (STD). Where the STD has an agreement result of negotiations. with a local public agency (or other contractually responsible for delivering the project design and construction. Qualified project means any design- governmental agency) to administer a build project with a total estimated cost Federal-aid design-build project, the Discussions mean written or oral exchanges that take place after the greater than $50,000,000.00 or an term ‘‘you’’ will also apply to that intelligent transportation system project contracting agency. establishment of the competitive range with the intent of allowing the offeror to greater than $5,000,000. (23 U.S.C. 112 § 636.103 What are the definitions of terms revise its proposal. (b)(3)(C)). used in this part? Fixed price/best design means a form Request for Proposals (RFP) means the Unless otherwise specified in this of best value selection in which contract document that describes the part, the definitions in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) price is established by the owner and procurement process, forms the basis for are applicable to this part. Also, the stated in the Request for Proposals the final proposals and may potentially following definitions are used: document. Design proposals and become an element in the contract. Request for Qualification (RFQ) Adjusted low bid means a form of best management plan are evaluated and means the document issued by the value selection in which qualitative scored, with award going to the firm owner in Phase I of the two-phased aspects are scored on a 0 to 100 scale offering the best qualitative proposal for selection process. It typically describes expressed as a decimal; cost is then the established price. the project in enough detail to let divided by qualitative score to yield an Intelligent Transportation System potential offerors determine if they wish ‘‘adjusted bid’’ or ‘‘cost per quality (ITS) services—means services which to compete and forms the basis for point.’’ Award is made to offeror with provide for the acquisition of requesting qualifications submissions the lowest adjusted bid. technologies or systems of technologies from which the most highly qualified Best value selection means any (e.g., computer hardware or software, firms can be identified. selection process in which proposals traffic control devices, communications contain both cost and qualitative Single-phase selection process means link, fare payment system, automatic a procurement process where cost and/ components and award is based upon a vehicle location system, etc.) that combination of cost and qualitative or technical proposals are submitted in provide or contribute to the provision of response to an RFP. Short listing is not considerations. one or more ITS user services as defined Clarifications means a written or oral used. in the National ITS Architecture. exchange of information which takes Short listing means the narrowing of Modified design-build means a place after the receipt of proposals when the field of offerors through the variation of design-build in which the award without discussions is selection of the most qualified offerors contracting agency furnishes offerors contemplated. The purpose of who have responded to an RFQ. with partially complete plans (generally clarifications is to address minor or Solicitation means a public 30 to 35 percent complete). The design- clerical revisions in a proposal. notification of an owner’s need for Competitive range means a list of the builders role is generally limited to the information, qualifications, or proposals most highly rated proposals based on completion of the design and related to identified services. the initial proposal rankings. It is based construction of the project. Stipend means a monetary amount on the rating of each proposal against all Organizational conflict of interest sometimes paid to the most highly evaluation criteria. means that because of other activities or qualified unsuccessful offerors. Communications are exchanges, relationships with other persons, a Technical proposals means that between the contracting agency and person is unable or potentially unable to portion of a design-build proposal offerors, after receipt of proposals, render impartial assistance or advice to which contains design factors, layout, which lead to the establishment of the the owner, or the person’s objectivity in aesthetics and specifications for competitive range. performing the contract work is or might materials. Contracting agency means the agency be otherwise impaired, or a person has Tradeoff means a method of source which represents the owner for the an unfair competitive advantage. selection which allows you to select the design-build project. Prequalification means the source which represents the best value. Competitive acquisition means an contracting agency’s process for This process permits an exchange acquisition process which is designed to determining whether a firm is between cost and non-cost factors and foster an impartial and comprehensive fundamentally qualified to compete for allows you to accept other than the evaluation of offerors’ proposals, a certain project or class of projects. The lowest priced proposal. leading to the selection of the proposal prequalification process may be based Two-phase selection process means a representing the best value to the on financial, management and other procurement process in which the first contracting agency. types of qualitative data. phase consists of short listing (based on Deficiency means a material failure of Prequalification should be distinguished qualifications submitted in response to a proposal to meet a contracting agency from short listing. an RFQ) and the second phase consists
VerDate 11
of the submission of cost and technical the requirements of this part. Projects the acquisition process, however, you proposals in response to an RFP. which do not meet the requirements of must comply with the appropriate State Weakness means a flaw in the this part must be submitted to the procurement integrity standards. proposal that increases the risk of FHWA Headquarter’s for concept (b) Oral presentations may substitute unsuccessful contract performance. A approval. for, or augment, written information. significant weakness in the proposal is You must maintain a record of oral a flaw that appreciably increases the § 636.108 How does the definition of a presentations to document what qualified project apply to ITS projects? risk of unsuccessful contract information you relied upon in making performance. For the purpose of this rule, a Federal- the source selection decision. You may Weighted criteria process means a aid ITS design-build project meets the decide the appropriate method and level form of best value selection in which criteria of a ‘‘qualified project’’ if: of detail for the record (e.g., maximum point values are (a) A majority of the scope of services videotaping, audio tape recording, preestablished for qualitative and cost provides ITS services (at least 50 written record, contracting agency components, and award is based upon percent of the scope of work is related notes, copies of offeror briefing slides or high total points earned by the offerors. to ITS services); and presentation notes). A copy of the (b) The estimated contract value record should be placed in the contract § 636.104 Does this part apply to all exceeds $5 million. file and may be provided to offerors Federal-aid design-build projects? § 636.109 How does the NEPA review upon request. The provisions of this part apply to all process relate to the design-build § 636.112 May stipends be used? Federal-aid design-build projects on the procurement process? National Highway System (NHS) and In terms of the design-build At your discretion, you may elect to non-NHS projects which are located procurement process: pay a stipend to the most highly ranked within the highway right-of-way. (a) The RFQ solicitation may be unsuccessful offerors who have Projects which are not located within released prior to the conclusion of the submitted responsive proposals. The the highway right-of-way, and not NEPA review process as long as the RFQ decision to do so should be based on linked to a Federal-aid highway project solicitation informs proposers of the your analysis of the estimated proposal (i.e., the project would not exist without general status of the NEPA process. development costs and the anticipated the Federal-aid highway) may utilize (b) The RFP should not be released degree of competition during the State procedures. prior to the conclusion of the NEPA procurement process. § 636.105 Is the FHWA requiring the use of process. The NEPA review process is § 636.113 Is the stipend amount eligible for design-build? concluded with either a Categorical Federal participation? No, the FHWA is neither requiring Exclusion classification, an approved (a) Yes, stipends are eligible for nor promoting the use of the design- Finding of No Significant Impact, or an Federal-aid participation. Stipends are build contracting method. The design- approved Record of Decision as defined recommended on large projects where build contracting technique is optional. in 23 CFR 771.113(a). there is substantial opportunity for (c) The RFP must address how innovation and the cost of submitting a § 636.106 What type of projects may be environmental commitments and proposal is significant. On such used with design-build contracting? mitigation measures identified during projects, stipends are used to: You may use the design-build the NEPA process will be implemented. (1) Encourage competition; contracting technique for any qualified § 636.110 What procedures may be used (2) Compensate unsuccessful offerors or non-qualified project which you for solicitations and receipt of proposals? for a portion of their costs (usually one- deem to be appropriate on the basis of You may use your own procedures for third to one-half of the estimated project delivery time, cost, construction proposal development cost); and schedule and/or quality. the solicitation and receipt of proposals and information including the (3) Ensure that smaller companies are § 636.107 Does the definition of a qualified following: not put at a competitive disadvantage. project limit the use of design-build (a) Exchanges with industry before (b) If provided by State law, you may contracting? receipt of proposals; retain the right to use ideas from (a) No, the use of the term ‘‘qualified (b) RFQ, RFP and contract format; unsuccessful offerors if they accept project’’ does not limit the use of (c) Solicitation schedules; stipends. If stipends are used, the RFP design-build contracting. It merely (d) Lists of forms, documents, should describe the process for determines the FHWA’s procedures for exhibits, and other attachments; distributing the stipend to qualifying approval. The FHWA Division (e) Representations and instructions; offerors. Administrator may approve the design- (f) Advertisement and amendments; § 636.114 What factors should be build method for ‘‘qualified projects’’ (g) Handling proposals and considered in risk allocation? which meet the requirements of this information; and (a) You may consider, identify, and part. (h) Submission, modification, allocate the risks in the RFP document (b) The FHWA Division Administrator revisions and withdrawal of proposals. and define these risks in the contract. may also approve other design-build § 636.111 Can oral presentations be used Risk should be allocated with projects (which do not meet the during the procurement process? consideration given to the party who is ‘‘qualified projects’’ definition) by using (a) Yes, the use of oral presentations in the best position to manage and Special Experimental Projects No. 14 control a given risk. (SEP–14), ‘‘Innovative Contracting as a substitute for portions of a written proposal can be effective in streamlining (b) Risk allocation will vary according Practices,’’ 1 provided the project meets the source selection process. Oral to the type of project and location, however, the following factors should 1 Information concerning Special Experimental presentations may occur at any time in Project No. 14 (SEP–14), ‘‘Innovative Contracting be considered: Practices,’’ is available on FHWA’s home page: may be obtained from the FHWA Division (1) Governmental risks, including the http://www.fhwa.dot.gov. Additional information Administrator in each State. potential for delays, modifications,
VerDate 11
withdrawal, scope changes, or additions (4) One-on-one meetings with (iii) Where all information generated that result from multi-level Federal, potential offerors (any meetings that are by the sub-consultant is provided to all State, and local participation and substantially involved with potential offerors. sponsorship; contract terms and conditions should (2) All solicitations for design-build (2) Regulatory compliance risks, include the contracting officer; also see contracts, including related contracts for including environmental and third- paragraph (e) of this section regarding inspection, administration or auditing party issues, such as permitting, restrictions on disclosure of services, must include a provision railroad, and utility company risks; information); which: (3) Construction phase risks, (5) Presolicitation notices; (i) Directs offerors attention to this including differing site conditions, (6) Draft RFPs; subpart; traffic control, interim drainage, public (7) Request for Information (RFI) ; (ii) States the nature of the potential access, weather issues, and schedule; (8) Presolicitation or preproposal conflict as seen by the owner; (4) Post-construction risks, including conferences; and (iii) States the nature of the proposed public liability and meeting stipulated (9) Site visits. restraint or restrictions (and duration) performance standards; and (d) RFIs may be used when you do not upon future contracting activities, if (5) Right-of-way risks including intend to award a contract, but want to appropriate; acquisition costs, appraisals, relocation obtain price, delivery, other market (iv) Depending on the nature of the delays, condemnation proceedings, information, or capabilities for planning acquisition, states whether or not the including court costs and others. purposes. Responses to these notices are terms of any proposed clause and the not offers and cannot be accepted to application of this subpart to the § 636.115 May I meet with industry to form a binding contract. There is no contract are subject to negotiation; and gather information concerning the required format for an RFI. (v) Requires the apparent successful appropriate risk allocation strategies? (e) When specific information about a offeror to provide information (a) Yes, information exchange at an proposed acquisition that would be concerning potential organizational early project stage is encouraged if it necessary for the preparation of conflicts of interest prior to the award facilitates your understanding of the proposals is disclosed to one or more of contract. The apparent successful capabilities of potential offerors. potential offerors, that information shall offerors must disclose all relevant facts However, any exchange of information be made available to the public as soon concerning any past, present or must be consistent with State as practicable, but no later than the next currently planned interests which may procurement integrity requirements. general release of information, in order present an organizational conflict of Interested parties include potential to avoid creating an unfair competitive interest. Such firms must state how their offerors, end users, acquisition and advantage. Information provided to a interests, or those of their chief supporting personnel, and others particular offeror in response to that executives, directors, key project involved in the conduct or outcome of offeror’s request shall not be disclosed personnel, or any proposed consultant, the acquisition. if doing so would reveal the potential contractor or subcontractor may result, (b) The purpose of exchanging offeror’s confidential business strategy. or could be viewed as, an organizational information is to improve the When a presolicitation or preproposal conflict of interest. The information may understanding of your requirements and conference is conducted, materials be in the form of a disclosure statement industry capabilities, thereby allowing distributed at the conference should be or a certification. potential offerors to judge whether or made available to all potential offerors, (3) Based upon a review of the how they can satisfy your requirements, upon request. information submitted, the owner and enhancing your ability to obtain should make a written determination of quality supplies and services, including § 636.116 What organizational conflict of whether the offeror’s interests create an construction, at reasonable prices, and interest requirements apply to design-build projects? actual or potential organizational increase efficiency in proposal conflict of interest and identify any preparation, proposal evaluation, (a) State statutes or policies actions that must be taken to avoid, negotiation, and contract award. concerning organizational conflict of neutralize, or mitigate such conflict. The (c) An early exchange of information interest should be specified or owner should award the contract to the can identify and resolve concerns referenced in the design-build RFQ or apparent successful offeror unless an regarding the acquisition strategy, RFP document as well as any contract organizational conflict of interest is including proposed contract type, terms for engineering services, inspection or determined to exist that cannot be and conditions, and acquisition technical support in the administration avoided, neutralized, or mitigated. planning schedules. This also includes of the design-build contract. All design- (b) The organizational conflict of the feasibility of the requirement, build solicitations should address the interest provisions in this subpart including performance requirements, following situations as appropriate: provide minimum standards for STDs to statements of work, and data (1) Consultants and/or sub- identify, mitigate or eliminate apparent requirements; the suitability of the consultants who assist the owner in the or actual organizational conflicts of proposal instructions and evaluation preparation of a RFP document will not interest. To the extent that State- criteria, including the approach for be allowed to participate as an offeror or developed organizational conflict of assessing past performance information; join a team proposing on that project. interest standards are more stringent the availability of reference documents; However, a State may determine there is than that contained in the rule, the State and any other industry concerns or not an organizational conflict of interest standards prevail. questions. Some techniques to promote for a sub-consultant where: early exchanges of information are as (i) The sub-consultant or registered § 636.117 What conflict of interest follows: design professional provides only standards apply to individuals who serve as (1) Industry or small business preliminary design services, or selection team members for the owner? conferences; (ii) The sub-consultant has had no State laws and procedures governing (2) Public hearings; involvement with this design-build improper business practices and (3) Market research; procurement process, or personal conflicts of interest will apply
VerDate 11
to the owner’s selection team members. engineering service contracts, (c) Except as noted above, the State In the absence of such State provisions, construction contracts and design-build must ensure such public-private the requirements of 48 CFR Part 3, contracts must follow the appropriate partnership projects comply with all Improper Business Practices and Federal-aid requirements (Brooks other 23 U. S. Code provisions, Personal Conflicts of Interest, will apply Architect-Engineers Act, 40 U.S.C. 541 regardless of the form of the FHWA to selection team members. et seq; competitive bidding procedures funding (traditional Federal-aid funding for construction contracts, 23 U.S.C. § 636.118 Is team switching allowed after or loan assistance). This includes contract award? 112; and the design-build requirements compliance with all FHWA policies of this part). If an owner is only Where the offeror’s qualifications are such as environmental and right-of-way requesting traditional Federal-aid a major factor in the selection of the requirements and compliance with funding for one particular contract successful design-builder, team member construction contracting requirements, under a franchise agreement, then switching (adding or switching team such as Buy America, Davis-Bacon Federal-aid procurement procedures members) is discouraged after contract minimum wage rate requirements, etc., will only apply to the work under that award. However, the owner may use its for federally funded construction or particular Federal-aid contract and not discretion in reviewing team changes or design-build contracts under the to the selection of the public-private team enhancement requests on a case- franchise agreement. entity. by-case basis. Specific project rules (b) For projects developed under related to changes in team members or Subpart B—Selection Procedures, public-private partnership agreements changes in personnel within teams Award Criteria where the only FHWA funding is in the should be explicitly stated by the STD form of a loan, a loan guarantee, a line in all project solicitations. § 636.201 What selection procedures and of credit, or some other form of loan award criteria may be used? § 636.119 How does this part apply to a assistance, the requirements of this part project developed under a public-private do not apply. In such cases, the public- You should consider using two-phase partnership? private entity may select consultants, selection procedures for all design-build (a) When an owner utilizes traditional construction contractors or design- projects. However, if you do not believe Federal-aid funds for work done under builders in whatever manner it sees fit two-phase selection procedures are a public-private partnership agreement provided: appropriate for your project (based on (or a portion of the work under a public- (1) The procurement process for the the criteria in § 636.202), you may use private agreement), the provisions of 23 selection of the public-private entity is a single phase selection procedure or U.S.C. 112 apply to the contracts funded a competitive process; and the modified-design-build contracting with Federal-aid funds. In such (2) The selection process follows State method. The following procedures are instances, the procurement of laws and procedures. available:
Selection procedure Criteria for using a selection procedure Award criteria options
(a) Two-Phase Selection Procedures (RFQ fol- § 636.202 ...... Lowest Cost, Adjusted low-bid (cost per qual- lowed by RFP). ity point), meets criteria/low bid, weighted criteria process, fixed price/best design, best value, tradeoff. (b) Single Phase (RFP) ...... Project not meeting the criteria in § 636.202 ... All of the award criteria in item (a) above. (c) Modified Design-Build (may be one or two Projects with relatively simple scope.2 ...... Lowest price technically acceptable. phases). 2 The modified design-build contracting technique, as defined above, should be reserved for projects which are relatively simple in scope (such as pavement resurfacing, simple pavement rehabilitation, or other projects) where the design-builder’s role is primarily limited to completing the design and constructing the project.
§ 636.202 When are two-phase design- (3) The capability and experience of (b) The phase-one evaluation factors build selection procedures appropriate? potential contractors? and their relative weights, including: You may consider the following (4) Your capability to manage the two- (1) Technical approach (but not criteria in deciding whether two-phase phase selection process? detailed design or technical selection procedures are appropriate. A (5) Other criteria that you may information); negative response may indicate that consider appropriate? (2) Technical qualifications, such as— two-phase selection procedures are not (i) Specialized experience and appropriate. § 636.203 What are the elements of two- phase selection procedures for competitive technical competence; (a) Are three or more offers proposals? (ii) Capability to perform (including anticipated? key personnel); and The first phase consists of short (b) Will offerors be expected to listing based on a RFQ. The second (iii) Past performance of the members perform substantial design work before phase consists of the receipt and of the offeror’s team (including the developing price or cost proposals? evaluation of cost and technical architect-engineer and construction (c) Will offerors incur a substantial proposals in response to a RFP. members); expense in preparing proposals? (3) Other appropriate factors (d) Have you identified and analyzed § 636.204 What items may be included in (excluding cost or price related factors, other contributing factors, including: a phase-one solicitation? which are not permitted in phase-one); (1) The extent to which you have You may consider including the (c) Phase-two evaluation factors; and defined the project requirements? following items in any phase-one (d) A statement of the maximum (2) The time constraints for delivery solicitation: number of offerors that will be short of the project? (a) The scope of work; listed to submit phase-two proposals.
VerDate 11
§ 636.205 Can past performance be used § 636.208 May I use my existing importance must be clearly stated in the as an evaluation criteria? prequalification procedures with design- solicitation; and build contracts? (a) Yes, past performance information (2) The solicitation shall also state, at Yes, you may use your existing is one indicator of an offeror’s ability to a minimum, whether all evaluation prequalification procedures for either perform the contract successfully. Past factors other than cost or price, when construction or engineering design firms performance information may be used combined, are— as a supplement to the procedures in (i) Significantly less important than as an evaluation criteria in either phase- this part. cost or price; or one or phase-two solicitations. If you (ii) Approximately equal to cost or elect to use past performance criteria, § 636.209 What items must be included in a phase-two solicitation? price. As a minimum, cost or price must the currency and relevance of the have a weight of at least 50 percent in information, source of the information, You must include the requirements the award criteria. context of the data, and general trends for technical proposals and price in contractor’s performance may be proposals in the phase-two solicitation. § 636.212 To what extent must tradeoff considered. All factors and significant subfactors decisions be documented? (b) Describe your approach for that will affect contract award and their When tradeoffs are performed, the evaluating past performance in the relative importance must be stated source selection records shall include solicitation, including your policy for clearly in the solicitation. Use your own the following: procedures for the solicitation as long as evaluating offerors with no relevant (a) An assessment of each offeror’s it complies the requirements of this ability to accomplish the technical performance history. You should part. requirements; and provide offerors an opportunity to (b) A summary, matrix, or quantitative identify past or current contracts § 636.210 What requirements apply to ranking, along with appropriate (including Federal, State, and local projects which use the modified design- build procedure? supporting narrative, of each technical government and private) for efforts proposal using the evaluation factors. similar to the current solicitation. (a) Modified design-build selection (c) If you elect to request past procedures (lowest price technically Subpart C—Proposal Evaluation performance information, the acceptable source selection process) Factors may be used for projects which are solicitation should also authorize § 636.301 How should proposal evaluation offerors to provide information on relatively simple in scope. (b) The solicitation must clearly state factors be selected? problems encountered on the identified the following: (a) The proposal evaluation factors contracts and the offeror’s corrective (1) The identification of evaluation and significant subfactors should be actions. You may consider this factors and significant subfactors that tailored to the acquisition. information, as well as information establish the requirements of (b) Evaluation factors and significant obtained from any other sources, when acceptability. subfactors should: evaluating the offeror’s past (2) That award will be made on the (1) Represent the key areas of performance. You may use your basis of the lowest evaluated price of importance and emphasis to be discretion in determining the relevance proposals meeting or exceeding the considered in the source selection of similar past performance information. acceptability standards for non-cost decision; and (d) The evaluation should take into factors. (2) Support meaningful comparison account past performance information (c) The contracting agency may forgo and discrimination between and among regarding predecessor companies, key a short listing process and advertise for competing proposals. personnel who have relevant the receipt of proposals from all responsible offerors. The contract is § 636.302 Are there any limitations on the experience, or subcontractors that will selection and use of proposal evaluation perform major or critical aspects of the then awarded to the lowest responsive factors? bidder. requirement when such information is (a) The selection of the evaluation relevant to the current acquisition. (d) Tradeoffs are not permitted, however, you may incorporate cost- factors, significant subfactors and their § 636.206 How do I evaluate offerors who plus-time bidding procedures (A+B relative importance are within your do not have a record of relevant past bidding), lane rental, or other cost-based broad discretion subject to the following performance? provisions in such contracts. requirements: (e) Proposals are evaluated for (1) You must evaluate cost or price in In the case of an offeror without a every source selection. As a minimum, record of relevant past performance or acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors. cost or price must have a weight of at for whom information on past least 50 percent in the award criteria. performance is not available, the offeror (f) Exchanges may occur (see subpart D of this part). (Cost is assumed to have a weight of at may not be evaluated favorably or least 50 percent under the ‘‘adjusted unfavorably on past performance. § 636.211 When and how should tradeoffs low-bid’’ and the ‘‘fixed price/best be used? § 636.207 Is there a limit on short listed design’’ award criteria.) firms? (a) At your discretion, you may (2) You must evaluate the quality of consider a tradeoff process when it is the product or service through Normally, three to five firms are short desirable to award to other than the consideration of one or more non-cost listed, however, the maximum number lowest priced offeror or other than the evaluation factors. These factors may specified shall not exceed five unless highest technically rated offeror. include (but are not limited to) such you determine, for that particular (b) If you use a tradeoff process, the criteria as: solicitation, that a number greater than following apply: (i) Compliance with solicitation five is in your interest and is consistent (1) All evaluation factors and requirements; with the purposes and objectives of two- significant subfactors that will affect (ii) Completion schedule (contractual phase design-build contracting. contract award and their relative incentives and disincentives for early
VerDate 11
completion may be used where evaluation criteria. Such instances § 636.305 Can price information be appropriate); or include situations where: provided to analysts who are reviewing technical proposals? (iii) Technical solutions. (1) The scope of work involves very (3) At your discretion, you may specialized technical expertise, and Normally, technical and price evaluate past performance and proposals are reviewed independently management experience (subject to (2) Where prequalification procedures by separate evaluation teams. However, § 636.303(b)). or two-phase selection procedures are there may be occasions where the same (b) All factors and significant not used (short listing is not performed). experts needed to review the technical subfactors that will affect contract § 636.304 What process may be used to proposals are also needed in the review award and their relative importance rate and score proposals? of the price proposals. This may occur must be stated clearly in the solicitation. where a limited amount of technical (a) Proposal evaluation is an expertise is available to review § 636.303 May pre-qualification standards assessment of the offeror’s proposal and be used as proposal evaluation criteria in proposals. Price information may be the RFP? ability to perform the prospective provided to such technical experts in contract successfully. You must accordance with your procedures. (a) If you use a prequalification evaluate proposals solely on the factors procedure or a two-phase selection and subfactors specified in the Subpart D—Exchanges procedure to develop a short list of solicitation. qualified offerors, then pre-qualification § 636.401 What types of information criteria should not be included as (b) You may conduct evaluations exchange may take place during the proposal evaluation criteria. using any rating method or combination procurement process? (b) The proposal evaluation criteria of methods including color or adjectival Certain types of information exchange should be limited to the quality, ratings, numerical weights, and ordinal may be desirable at different points in quantity, value and timeliness of the rankings. The relative strengths, the procurement process. The following product or service being proposed. deficiencies, significant weaknesses, table summarizes the types of However, there may be circumstances and risks supporting proposal communications that will be discussed where it is appropriate to include evaluation must be documented in the in this subpart. These communication prequalification standards as proposal contract file. methods are optional.
Type of information exchange When Purpose Parties involved
(a) Clarifications ..... After receipt of proposals ...... Used when award without discussions Any offeror whose proposal is not clear contemplated. to the contracting agency. Used to clarify certain aspects of a proposal (resolve minor errors, cler- ical errors, obtain additional past performance information, etc.). (b) Communications After receipt of proposals, prior to the Used to address issues which might Any offeror whose exclusion from, or establishment of the competitive prevent a proposal from being inclusion in, the competitive range is range. placed in the competitive range. uncertain. All offerors whose past performance in- formation is the determining factor preventing them from being placed in the competitive range. (c) Discussions After receipt of proposals and after the Enhance contracting agency under- Must be held with all offerors in the (see Subpart E of determination of the competitive standing of proposals and offerors competitive range. this part). range. understanding of scope of work. Facilitate the evaluation process.
§ 636.402 What information may be purposes of efficiency, you may limit based on qualifications criteria. The exchanged with a clarification? the number of proposals to the greatest competitive range is based on the rating You may wish to clarify any aspect of number that will permit an efficient of technical and price proposals. proposals which would enhance your competition. However, you must understanding of an offeror’s proposal. provide written notice to any offeror § 636.405 Are communications allowed prior to establishing the competitive range? This includes such information as an whose proposal is no longer considered offeror’s past performance, or to be included in the competitive range. Yes, prior to establishing the information regarding adverse past Offerors excluded or otherwise competitive range, you may conduct performance to which the offeror has eliminated from the competitive range communications to: not previously had an opportunity to may request a debriefing. Debriefings (a) Enhance your understanding of respond. Clarification exchanges are may be conducted in accordance with proposals; discretionary. They do not have to be your procedures as long as you comply (b) Allow reasonable interpretation of held with any specific number of with the provisions of Subpart F, the proposal; or offerors and do not have to address Notifications and Debriefings. specific issues. (c) Facilitate your evaluation process. § 636.404 After developing a short list, can § 636.403 Can a competitive range be used I still establish a competitive range? § 636.406 Am I limited in holding communications with certain firms? to limit competition? Yes, if you have developed a short list If the solicitation notifies offerors that of firms, you may still establish a Yes, if you establish a competitive the competitive range can be limited for competitive range. The short list is range, you must do the following:
VerDate 11
(a) Hold communications with (a) Notify offerors that discussions (b) Reveals an offeror’s technical offerors whose past performance may or may not be held depending on solution, including unique technology, information is the determining factor the quality of the proposals received innovative and unique uses of preventing them from being placed (except clarifications may be used as commercial items, or any information within the competitive range; described in § 636.401). Therefore, the that would compromise an offeror’s (b) Address adverse past performance offeror’s initial proposal should contain intellectual property to another offeror; information to which an offeror has not the offeror’s best terms from a cost or (c) Reveals an offerors price without had a prior opportunity to respond; and price and technical standpoint; or that offeror’s permission; (c) Hold communications only with (b) Notify offerors of your intention to (d) Reveals the names of individuals those offerors whose exclusion from, or establish a competitive range and hold providing reference information about inclusion in, the competitive range is discussions. an offeror’s past performance; or uncertain. (e) Knowingly furnish source § 636.504 If the solicitation indicated my selection information which could be in § 636.407 Can communications be used to intent was to award contract without violation of State procurement integrity cure proposal deficiencies? discussions, but circumstances change, standards. (a) No, communications must not be may I still hold discussions? used to: Yes, you may still elect to hold § 636.508 Can price or cost be an issue in (1) Cure proposal deficiencies or discussions when circumstances dictate, discussions? material omissions; as long as the rationale for doing so is You may inform an offeror that its (2) Materially alter the technical or documented in the contract file. Such price is considered to be too high, or too cost elements of the proposal; and/or circumstances might include situations low, and reveal the results of the (3) Otherwise revise the proposal. where all proposals received have analysis supporting that conclusion. At (b) Communications may be deficiencies, when fair and reasonable your discretion, you may indicate to all considered in rating proposals for the prices are not offered, or when the cost offerors your estimated cost for the purpose of establishing the competitive or price offered is not affordable. project. range. § 636.505 Must a contracting agency § 636.509 Can offerors revise their § 636.408 Can offerors revise their establish a competitive range if it intends to proposals as a result of discussions? proposals during communications? have discussions with offerors? (a) Yes, you may request or allow (a) No. Communications shall not Yes, if discussions are held, they must proposal revisions to clarify and provide an opportunity for an offeror to be conducted with all offerors in the document understandings reached revise its proposal, but may address the competitive range. If you wish to hold during discussions. At the conclusion of following: discussions and do not formally discussions, each offeror shall be given (1) Ambiguities in the proposal or establish a competitive range, then you an opportunity to submit a final other concerns (e.g., perceived must hold discussions with all proposal revision. deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, responsive offerors. (b) You must establish a common cut- omissions, or mistakes); and off date only for receipt of final proposal § 636.506 What issues must be covered in revisions. Requests for final proposal (2) Information relating to relevant discussions? revisions shall advise offerors that the past performance. (a) Discussions should be tailored to (b) Communications must address final proposal revisions shall be in each offeror’s proposal. Discussions adverse past performance information to writing and that the contracting agency must cover significant weaknesses, which the offeror has not previously intends to make award without deficiencies, and other aspects of a had an opportunity to comment. obtaining further revisions. proposal (such as cost or price, Subpart E—Discussions, Proposal technical approach, past performance, § 636.510 Can the competitive range be further defined once discussions have Revisions and Source Selection and terms and conditions) that could be altered or explained to enhance begun? § 636.501 What issues may be addressed materially the proposal’s potential for Yes, you may further narrow the in discussions? award. You may use your judgment in competitive range if an offeror originally In a competitive acquisition, setting limits for the scope and extent of in the competitive range is no longer discussions may include bargaining. discussions. considered to be among the most highly The term bargaining may include: (b) In situations where the solicitation rated offerors being considered for persuasion, alteration of assumptions stated that evaluation credit would be award. That offeror may be eliminated and positions, give-and-take, and may given for technical solutions exceeding from the competitive range whether or apply to price, schedule, technical any mandatory minimums, you may not all material aspects of the proposal requirements, type of contract, or other hold discussions regarding increased have been discussed, or whether or not terms of a proposed contract. performance beyond any mandatory the offeror has been afforded an minimums, and you may suggest to opportunity to submit a proposal § 636.502 Why should I use discussions? offerors that have exceeded any revision. You must provide an offeror You should use discussions to mandatory minimums (in ways that are excluded from the competitive range maximize your ability to obtain the best not integral to the design), that their with a written determination and notice value, based on the requirements and proposals would be more competitive if that proposal revisions will not be the evaluation factors set forth in the the excesses were removed and the considered. solicitation. offered price decreased. § 636.511 Can there be more than one § 636.503 Must I notify offerors of my § 636.507 What subjects are prohibited in round of discussions? intent to use/not use discussions? discussions, communications and Yes, but only at the conclusion of Yes, in competitive acquisitions, the clarifications with offerors? discussions will the offerors be solicitation must notify offerors of your You may not engage in conduct that: requested to submit a final proposal intent. You should either: (a) Favors one offeror over another; revision. Thus, regardless of the length
VerDate 11
or number of discussions, there will be manufacturing processes and § 636.607 What issues must be discussed only one request for a revised proposal techniques, or other confidential at postaward debriefings? (i.e., only one best and final offer). business information to any other At a minimum, the debriefing offeror. information shall include the following: § 636.512 What is the basis for the source (a) Your agency’s evaluation of the selection decision? § 636.603 How may I notify the successful offeror? significant weaknesses or deficiencies in (a) You must base the source selection the offeror’s proposal, if applicable; decision on a comparative assessment of You may notify the successful offeror (b) The overall evaluated cost or price proposals against all selection criteria in in accordance with your own (including unit prices) and technical the solicitation. While you may use procedures. rating, if applicable, of the successful reports and analyses prepared by others, offeror and the debriefed offeror, and the source selection decision shall § 636.604 Can offerors request preaward past performance information on the represent your independent judgment. or postaward debriefings? debriefed offeror; (b) The source selection decision shall (a) Yes, any offeror may request a (c) The overall ranking of all offerors, be documented, and the documentation debriefing. You may provide oral or when any ranking was developed by shall include the rationale for any written debriefings. business judgments and tradeoffs made your agency during the source selection; (b) Offerors who have been excluded (d) A summary of the rationale for or relied on, including benefits from the competitive range or otherwise associated with additional costs. award; and excluded from the competition before (e) Reasonable responses to relevant Although the rationale for the selection award may request a debriefing before decision must be documented, that questions about whether source award by submitting a written request selection procedures contained in the documentation need not quantify the within three days after receipt of a tradeoffs that led to the decision. solicitation, applicable regulations, and notice of exclusion from further other applicable authorities were consideration. You should provide the Subpart F—Notifications and followed. debriefing as soon as practicable. Debriefings However, at your discretion, you may § 636.608 What issues must not be § 636.601 When must notification be delay the debriefing until after contract discussed at postaward debriefings? provided to unsuccessful offerors? award. (a) The debriefing shall not include You must provide written notification (c) If the offeror does not submit a point-by-point comparisons of the to unsuccessful offerors, as follows: timely request, the offeror need not be debriefed offeror’s proposal with those (a) Preaward notification. When you given either a preaward or a postaward of other offerors. exclude an offeror from the competitive debriefing. Offerors are entitled to no (b) The debriefing shall not reveal any range or otherwise eliminate an offeror more than one debriefing for each information prohibited from disclosure from competition prior to the award of proposal. under the Freedom of Information Act contract, you must provide a written (d) An official summary of the (5 U.S.C. 552) including the following: notification to the offeror. The preaward or postaward debriefing shall (1) Trade secrets; notification shall state the basis for the be included in the contract file. (2) Privileged or confidential determination and that a proposal manufacturing processes and revision will not be considered. § 636.605 What issues must be discussed techniques; at preaward debriefings? (b) Postaward notification. You must (3) Commercial and financial provide written notification of contract At a minimum, preaward debriefings information that is privileged or award within three working days to: shall include: confidential, including cost (1) Each offeror whose proposal was (a) The agency’s evaluation of breakdowns, profit, indirect cost rates, in the competitive range, but did not significant elements in the offeror’s and similar information; and receive award; and proposal; (4) The names of individuals (2) Offerors who did not receive a (b) A summary of the rationale for providing reference information about preaward notification. eliminating the offeror from the an offeror’s past performance. § 636.602 What issues must be provided in competition; and PART 637—CONSTRUCTION the written notification of contract award to (c) Reasonable responses to relevant INSPECTION AND APPROVAL unsuccessful offerors? questions about whether source (a) The written notification must selection procedures contained in the 19. The authority citation for part 637 include: solicitation, applicable regulations, and is revised to read as follows: (1) The number of offerors solicited; other applicable authorities were (2) The number of proposals received; Authority: Sec. 1307, Pub. L. 105–178, 112 followed in the process of eliminating Stat. 107, at 229 (1998); 23 U.S.C. 109, 114, (3) The name and address of each the offeror from the competition. and 315; 49 CFR 1.48(b). offeror receiving an award; (4) The items, quantities, and unit § 636.606 What issues must not be PART 637—[AMENDED] prices of awarded contracts, except discussed at preaward debriefings? where it its impractical to furnish unit You must not disclose: 20. In part 637 revise all references to prices, the total contract price may be (a) The number of offerors; ‘‘State highway agency’s’’ to read ‘‘State furnished; and (b) The identity of other offerors; transportation department’s’’; revise the (5) In general terms, the reason(s) the acronyms ‘‘SHA’’ and ‘‘SHAs’’ to read (c) The content of other offerors’ offeror’s proposal was not accepted, ‘‘STD’’ and ‘‘STDs’’, respectively; and proposals; unless the price information readily revise the references to ‘‘non-SHA’’ to reveals the reason. (d) The ranking of other offerors; read ‘‘non-STD’’. (b) The notification must not reveal an (e) The evaluation of other offerors; or 21. Amend § 637.207 by adding offeror’s cost breakdown, profit, (f) Any of the information prohibited paragraph (a)(1)(iv) and paragraph (b) to overhead rates, trade secrets, in § 636.608. read as follows:
VerDate 11
§ 637.207 Quality assurance program. 1970, as amended, and STD right-of-way frames which may not be violated. (a) * * * procedures. The procedures in § 710.311 Accordingly, the time frames estimated (1) * * * regarding responsibility for the review for right-of-way acquisition will not be (iv) In the case of a design-build and approval of right-of-way availability compressed in the event other necessary project on the National Highway statements and certifications also apply actions preceding right-of-way System, warranties may be used where to design-build projects. acquisition miss their assigned due appropriate. Warranties which are (b) The decision to advance a right-of- dates. limited in scope or duration may be way segment to the construction stage (2)(i) The design-builder must supplemented by quality control and shall not impair the safety or in anyway establish a project tracking system and verification sampling and testing. be coercive in the context of 49 CFR quality control system. This system Warranty provisions shall generally be 24.102(h) with respect to unacquired or must show the appraisal, acquisition for a specific product or feature. occupied properties on the same or and relocation status of all parcels. * * * * * adjacent segments of project right-of- (ii) The quality control system may be (b) In the case of a design-build way. administered by an independent (c) Certain right-of-way acquisition project funded under title 23, U.S. Code, consultant with the necessary expertise and clearance services may be the STD’s quality assurance program in appraisal, acquisition and relocation incorporated into the design-build should consider the specific contractual policies and procedures, who can make contract if allowed under State law. The needs of the design-build project. All contract may include language that periodic reviews and reports to the provisions of § 637.207(a) are applicable provides that construction will not design-builder and the STD. to design-build projects. In addition, the commence until all property is acquired (3) The STD may consider the quality assurance program may include and relocations have been completed. In establishment of a hold off zone around the following: situations where large, multi-year all occupied properties to ensure (1) Reliance on a combination of construction projects are undertaken, compliance with right-of-way contractual provisions and acceptance the construction could be phased or procedures prior to starting construction methods; segmented to allow right-of-way activities in affected areas. The limits of (2) Reliance on quality control activities to be completed in phases, this zone should be established by the sampling and testing as part of the thereby allowing certification for each STD prior to the design-builder entering acceptance decision, provided that section. on the property. There should be no adequate verification of the design- (d) If the STD elects to include right- construction related activity within the builder’s quality control sampling and of-way services in the design-build hold off zone until the property is testing is performed to ensure that the contract, the following provisions must vacated. The design-builder must have design-builder is providing the quality be addressed in the request for written notification of vacancy from the of materials and construction required proposals document: right-of-way quality control consultant by the contract documents. (1)(i) The design-builder must submit or STD prior to entering the hold off (3) Contractual provisions which written acquisition and relocation zone. require the operation of the completed procedures to the STD for approval (4) Adequate access shall be provided facility for a specific time period. prior to commencing right-of-way to all occupied properties to insure PART 710—RIGHT-OF-WAY AND REAL activities. These procedures should emergency and personal vehicle access. ESTATE contain a prioritized appraisal, (5) Utility service must be available to acquisition, and relocation strategy as all occupied properties at all times prior 22. The authority citation for part 710 well as check points for STD approval, to and until relocation is completed. is revised to read as follows: such as approval of just compensation, (6) Open burning should not occur Authority: Sec. 1307, Pub. L. 105–178, 112 replacement housing payment within 305 meters (1,000 feet) of an Stat. 107, at 229 (1998); 23 U.S.C. 101(a), 107, calculations, replacement housing occupied dwelling. 108, 111, 114, 133, 142(f), 156, 204, 210, 308, payment and moving cost claims, (7) The STD will provide a right-of- 315, 317, and 323; 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., appraisals, administrative and way project manager who will serve as 4633, 4651–4655; 49 CFR 1.48(b) and (cc), stipulated settlements that exceed the first point of contact for all right-of- 18.31, and parts 21 and 24; 23 CFR 1.32. determined thresholds based on a risk way issues. 23. Amend part 710 by adding management analysis, etc. (e) If the STD elects to perform all (ii) The written relocation plan must § 710.313 to subpart C to read as right-of-way services relating to the provide reasonable time frames for the follows: design-build contract, the provisions in orderly relocation of residents and § 710.311 will apply. The STD will § 710.313 Design-build projects. businesses on the project. It should be notify potential offerors of the status of (a) In the case of a design-build understood that these time frames will all right-of-way issues in the request for project, right-of-way must be acquired be based on best estimates of the time proposal document. and cleared in accordance with the it will take to acquire the right-of-way Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real and relocate families in accordance with [FR Doc. 01–26234 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] Property Acquisition Policies Act of certain legal requirements and time BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
VerDate 11
Part III
Department of Defense General Services Administration National Aeronautics and Space Administration
48 CFR Parts 1, 36, and 53 Federal Acquisition Regulation; New Consolidated Form for Selection of Architect-Engineer Contractors; Proposed Rule
VerDate 11
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Federal-industry] Survey on the Use of B. Regulatory Flexibility Act SFs 254 and 255 for Architect-Engineer The Councils do not expect this GENERAL SERVICES Qualifications,’’ 1996 (The Federal proposed rule to have a significant ADMINISTRATION Facilities Council is an arm of the economic impact on a substantial Congressionally charted National number of small entities within the NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND Academy of Sciences.) The report states meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility SPACE ADMINISTRATION that Federal agencies and the architect- Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the engineer industry strongly endorse rule only replaces two standard forms, 48 CFR Parts 1, 36, and 53 maintaining a structured format for with one consolidated streamlined [FAR Case 2000–608] presenting architect-engineer standard form. An Initial Regulatory qualifications. The report also RIN 9000–AJ15 Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not concludes that the SFs 254 and 255 been performed. We invite comments need improvement. Federal Acquisition Regulation; New from small businesses and other Consolidated Form for Selection of Both Federal and industry architect- interested parties. The Councils will Architect-Engineer Contractors engineer practitioners believe that the consider comments from small entities forms need streamlining, as well as concerning the affected FAR Parts 1, 36, AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), updating to facilitate electronic usage. and 53 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. General Services Administration (GSA), Hence the SFs 254 and 255 have been Interested parties must submit such and National Aeronautics and Space consolidated into SF 330. The SF 330 comments separately and should cite 5 Administration (NASA). reflects current architect-engineer U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR case 2000–608), ACTION: Proposed rule. practices in a streamlined and updated in correspondence. form organized in data blocks that SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency readily support automation. C. Paperwork Reduction Act Acquisition Council and the Defense The proposed rule replaces SFs 254 The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. Acquisition Regulations Council and 255 with SF 330 and makes related L. 104–13) applies because the proposed (Councils) are proposing to amend the FAR revisions in 1.106, 36.603, 36.702, rule contains information collection Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 53.236–2 and 53.301–330. The proposed requirements. The proposed rule replace SF 254, Architect-Engineer and rule makes the following changes: replaces the current SF 254, Architect- Related Services Questionnaire, and SF • Merges the SFs 254 and 255 into a Engineer and Related Services, and the 255, Architect-Engineer and Related current SF 255, Architect-Engineer and Services Questionnaire for Specific single streamlined SF 330. • Related Services Questionnaire for Projects, with SF 330, Architect- Expands essential information Specific Project, Questionnaire, with a Engineer Qualifications. SF 330 reflects about qualifications and experience new SF 330, Architect-Engineer current architect-engineer practices in a such as an organizational chart of all Qualifications. The current SF 254 streamlined and updated form, participating firms and key personnel. approved information collection organized in data blocks that readily • Reflects current architect-engineer requirement states that it takes 1 hour to support automation. disciplines, experience types and complete; and the current SF 255 DATES: Interested parties should submit technology. approved information collection comments in writing on or before • Eliminates information of marginal requirement states that it takes 1.2 hours December 18, 2001 to be considered in value such as a list of all offices of a to complete. Experience has shown that the formulation of a final rule. firm. these hours are substantially ADDRESSES: Submit written comments • Permits limited submission length underestimated. The SF 330, Architect- to: General Services Administration, thereby reducing costs for both the Engineer Qualifications, has been FAR Secretariat (MVP), 1800 F Street, architect-engineer industry and the developed by an interagency ad hoc NW., Room 4035, ATTN: Laurie Duarte, government. committee, based on Federal Facilities Washington, DC 20405. Submit (FCC) Council Technical Report No. • Facilitates electronic usage by electronic comments via the Internet to: 130, ‘‘[Joint Federal-industry] Survey on organizing the form in data blocks. farcase.2000–[email protected] the Use of SFs 254 and 255 for Please submit comments only and cite SF 330, Part II, Block 5.b. requests Architect-Engineer Qualifications,’’ FAR case 2000–608 in all information based on the North 1996. Accordingly, the FAR Secretariat correspondence related to this case. American Industry Classification has submitted a request for approval of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The System (NAICS). Effective October 1, a new information collection FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS 2000, the FAR was revised to convert requirement concerning OMB control Building, Washington, DC, 20405, at size standards and other programs in the number 9000–00XX, New Consolidated (202) 501–4755 for information FAR that are currently based on the Form for Selection of Architect-Engineer pertaining to status or publication Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Contractors, to the Office of schedules. For clarification of content, code system to NAICS (65 FR 46055). Management and Budget under 44 contact Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, The SF 330 has been revised to comply U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Procurement Analyst, at (202) 219– with the aforementioned, October 1, 0202. Please cite FAR case 2000–608. 2000, FAR revision. Annual Reporting Burden SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pending public comment, this is not Public reporting burden for this considered a significant regulatory collection of information is estimated to A. Background action and, therefore, is not subject to average 29 hours (25 hours for Part 1 An interagency ad hoc committee review under Section 6(b) of Executive and 4 hours for Part 2) per response, developed SF 330. The ad hoc Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and including the time for reviewing committee based the development of the Review, dated September 30, 1993. This instructions, searching existing data form on Federal Facilities (FCC) Council rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. sources, gathering and maintaining the Technical Report No. 130, ‘‘[Joint 804. data needed, and completing and
VerDate 11
reviewing the collection of information. 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 36.702 Forms for use in contracting for Because of the tailoring required by the parts 1, 36, and 53 continues to read as architect-engineer services. form for each project submittal, there follows: * * * * * are virtually no savings in burden hours Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. (b) The SF 330, Architect-Engineer by repeat submittals. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). The annual reporting burden is Qualifications, shall be used to evaluate estimated as follows: PART 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION firms before awarding a contract for Respondents: 5000. REGULATIONS SYSTEM architect-engineer services: Responses per respondent: 4. (1) Use the SF 330, Part I—Contract- Total annual responses: 20,000. 1.106 [Amended] Specific Qualifications, to obtain Preparation hours per response: 29. 2. Amend Section 1.106 in the table information from an architect-engineer Total response burden hours: 580,000. following the introductory text by firm about its qualifications for a D. Request for Comments Regarding removing from the column ‘‘FAR specific contract when the contract Paperwork Burden segment’’ the entries ‘‘SF 254’’ and ‘‘SF amount is expected to exceed the 255’’ and their corresponding OMB simplified acquisition threshold. Part 1 Submit comments, including Control Numbers; and by adding, in suggestions for reducing this burden, may be used when the contract amount sequential order, to the FAR segment not later than December 18, 2001 to: is expected to be at or below the column ‘‘SF 330’’ and the corresponding FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, simplified acquisition threshold, if the OMB Control Number ‘‘9000–00XX’’. NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a contracting officer determines that its use is appropriate. copy to the General Services PART 36—CONSTRUCTION AND Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS (2) Use the SF 330, Part II—General 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Qualifications, to obtain information Washington, DC 20405. 3. Amend Section 36.603 by— from an architect-engineer firm about its Public comments are particularly a. Revising paragraph (b) and the general professional qualifications. invited on: Whether this collection of introductory text of paragraph (c); information is necessary for the proper * * * * * performance of functions of the FAR, b. Removing from paragraph (d) PART 53—FORMS and will have practical utility; whether introductory text ‘‘shall’’ and adding our estimate of the public burden of this ‘‘must’’ in its place; 5. Amend Section 53.236–2 by collection of information is accurate, c. Removing from paragraph (d)(1) revising the section heading and and based on valid assumptions and ‘‘SF 254’’ and adding ‘‘SF 330, Part II’’ paragraph (b); and by removing methodology; ways to enhance the in its place; and quality, utility, and clarity of the paragraph (c) and redesignating d. Removing from paragraph (d)(2) information to be collected; and ways in paragraph (d) as (c). The revised text ‘‘SF’s 254 and 255’’ and inserting ‘‘SF which we can minimize the burden of reads as follows: 330’’ in its place. the collection of information on those The revised text reads as follows: 53.236–2 Architect-engineer services (SFs who are to respond, through the use of 252, 330, and 1421). appropriate technological collection 36.603 Collecting data on and appraising * * * * * techniques or other forms of information firms’ qualifications. technology. * * * * * (b) SF 330 (xx/01), Architect-Engineer Requester may obtain a copy of the Qualifications. SF 330 is prescribed for justification from the General Services (b) Qualifications data. To be use in obtaining information from Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVP), considered for architect-engineer architect-engineer firms regarding their contracts, a firm must file with the Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, professional qualifications, as specified appropriate office or board the Standard telephone (202) 501–4755. Please cite in 36.702(b)(1) and (2). OMB Control Number 9000–00XX, FAR Form 330, ‘‘Architect-Engineer Case 2000–608 New Consolidated Form Qualifications’’, Part II, and when * * * * * applicable, SF 330, Part I. for Selection of Architect-Engineer 53.301–254 and 53.301–255 [Removed] Contractors, in all correspondence. (c) Data files and the classification of 5. Sections 53.301–254 and 53.301– List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1, 36, firms. Under the direction of the parent 255 are removed. and 53 agency, offices or permanent evaluation boards must maintain an architect- 53.301–330 [Added] Government procurement. engineer qualifications data file. These Dated: October 11, 2001. offices or boards must review the SF 330 6. Section 53.301–330 is added as Al Matera, filed, and must classify each firm with follows: Director, Acquisition Policy Division. respect to— 53.301–330 Architect-Engineer * * * * * Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA Qualifications. propose to amend 48 CFR parts 1, 36, 4. Amend Section 36.702 by revising BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P and 53 as set forth below: paragraph (b) to read as follows:
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
[FR Doc. 01–26203 Filed 10–18–01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820–EP–C
VerDate 11
Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 203 Friday, October 19, 2001
CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING OCTOBER
Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–523–5227 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 523–5227 the revision date of each title. 13021 (Amended by EO 13225)...... 50291 Presidential Documents 3 CFR 13045 (Amended by Executive orders and proclamations 523–5227 Proclamations: EO 13229)...... 52013 The United States Government Manual 523–5227 7471...... 50097 13075 (Revoked by 7472...... 50099 EO 13225)...... 50291 Other Services 7473...... 50287 13080 (Revoked by Electronic and on-line services (voice) 523–3447 7474...... 50289 EO 13225)...... 50291 Privacy Act Compilation 523–3187 7475...... 50525 13090 (Revoked by Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 523–6641 7476...... 50527 EO 13225)...... 50291 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 523–5229 7477...... 51295 13130 (Revoked by 7478...... 51297 EO 13231)...... 53063 7479...... 51807 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 13134 (Amended by 7480...... 51808 EO 13225)...... 50291 World Wide Web 7481...... 51810 13138 (Amended by 7482...... 52011 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications EO 13225)...... 50523 7483...... 52015 is located at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara 13138 (Amended by 7484...... 52303 EO 13226)...... 50291 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 7485...... 52845 13168 (Revoked by Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: 7486...... 52847 EO 13225)...... 50291 http://www.nara.gov/fedreg Executive Orders: 13225...... 50291 E-mail 11145 (Amended by 13226...... 50523 EO 13225)...... 50291 13227...... 51287 FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is 11183 (Amended by 13228...... 51812 an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital EO 13225)...... 50291 13228 (See EO form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 11287 (Amended by 13231) ...... 53063 of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and EO 13225)...... 50291 13229...... 52013 PDF links to the full text of each document. 12131 (Amended by 13230...... 52841 To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select EO 13225)...... 50291 13231...... 53063 Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 12196 (Amended by Administrative Orders: (or change settings); then follow the instructions. EO 13225)...... 50291 Presidential 12216 (Amended by PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail Determinations: EO 13225)...... 50291 No. 2001–27 of service for notification of recently enacted Public Laws. To 12333 (See EO subscribe, send e-mail to [email protected] September 18, 13231) ...... 53063 2001 ...... 50807 with the text message: 12345 (Amended by No. 2001–28 of subscribe PUBLAWS-L your name EO 13225)...... 50291 September 22, 12367 (Amended by 2001 ...... 50095 Use [email protected] only to subscribe or unsubscribe. EO 13225)...... 50291 No. 2001–30 of FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 12382 (Amended by September 28, respond to specific inquiries. EO 13225)...... 50291 2001 ...... 51291 12382 (See EO No. 2001–31 of Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 13231) ...... 53063 September 28, Federal Register system to: [email protected] 12472 (See EO 2001 ...... 51293 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 13231) ...... 53063 Notices: regulations. 12656 (Amended by October 16, 2001...... 53073 EO 13228)...... 51812 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, OCTOBER 12882 (Revoked by EO 13226)...... 50523 5 CFR 49823–50094...... 1 12900 (Amended by 1604...... 50712 50095–50286...... 2 EO 13225)...... 50291 50287–50524...... 3 12900 (Revoked by 50525–50808...... 4 EO 13230)...... 52841 7 CFR 50809–51290...... 5 12905 (Amended by 29...... 53075 51291–51554...... 9 EO 13225)...... 50291 246...... 52849 51555–51818...... 10 12907 (Revoked by 457...... 53076 51819–52014...... 11 EO 13226)...... 50523 916...... 52307 52015–52306...... 12 12958 (See EO 948...... 52309 52307–52482...... 15 13231) ...... 53063 Proposed Rules: 52483–52656...... 16 12978 (See Notice of 301...... 53123 52657–52848...... 17 October 16, 2001)...... 53073 330...... 51340 52849–53072...... 18 12994 (Amended by 987...... 52363 53073–53328...... 19 EO 13225)...... 50291 1260...... 53124, 53127
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:26 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\19OCCU.LOC pfrm09 PsN: 19OCCU ii Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Reader Aids
8 CFR 50582, 50584, 50586, 50588, 22 CFR 52689, 52691, 52693, 52851 50870, 50872, 50873, 50875, 204...... 51819 41...... 49830, 52500 Proposed Rules: 50877, 50880, 50872, 50884, 212...... 51821 139...... 52502 117...... 51614 50886, 50888, 50891, 50894, 155...... 49877 9 CFR 50897, 50899, 50901, 50903, 23 CFR 156...... 49877 50906, 50910, 50912, 50915, 94...... 52483 165...... 52365 50917, 51358, 51607, 51611, Proposed Rules: 317...... 52484 627...... 53288 52066, 52068, 52070, 52072, 36 CFR 381...... 52484 635...... 53288 52073, 53131 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 636...... 53288 61...... 52878 1234...... 51740 637...... 53288 381...... 52715 71...... 52076 710...... 53288 391...... 52548 73...... 53132 37 CFR 441...... 52715 91...... 52878 24 CFR Proposed Rules: 590...... 52548 119...... 52878 260...... 51617 592...... 52548 125...... 52878 599...... 52675 888...... 50024 38 CFR 10 CFR 135...... 52878 142...... 52878 985...... 50004 Proposed Rules: 30...... 51823 3500...... 53052 3...... 49886, 53139 55...... 52657 15 CFR 4...... 49886 70...... 51823 25 CFR 14...... 49827 17...... 50594 72...... 51823, 52486 742...... 50090 Proposed Rules: 20...... 50318 150...... 51823 744...... 50090 580...... 50127 36...... 51893 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 2...... 52721 26 CFR 39 CFR 990...... 50919 15...... 50860 1...... 52675 20...... 53089 20...... 52551 16 CFR 301...... 50541 Proposed Rules: 50 ...... 51884, 52065, 52551 6...... 51862 602...... 50541 20...... 52555 72...... 52554 111...... 51617 431...... 50355 Proposed Rules: 27 CFR 1633...... 51886 852...... 53130 9...... 50564 40 CFR 9...... 53044 11 CFR 17 CFR Proposed Rules: 40...... 52730 52 ...... 50319, 50829, 51312, Proposed Rules: 230...... 50102 51566, 51568, 51570, 51572, 100...... 50359 232...... 49829 28 CFR 51574, 51576, 51578, 51868, 114...... 50359 239...... 50102 2...... 51301 51869, 52044, 52050, 52055, 117...... 50359 240...... 50103 Proposed Rules: 52317, 52322, 52327, 52333, 270...... 50102 52338, 52343, 52359, 52506, 12 CFR 100...... 50931 274...... 50102 52511, 52517, 52522, 52527, 201...... 52850 Proposed Rules: 29 CFR 52533, 52694, 52695, 52700, 204...... 53076 1...... 50786 52705, 52711, 52851, 52857, Ch. XL...... 51864 950...... 50293 41...... 50720, 50786 52862, 52867, 53090, 53094 102...... 50310 951...... 50296 190...... 50786 60...... 49830, 50110 1904...... 52031 952...... 50293 230...... 50744 61...... 50110 4022...... 52315 Proposed Rules: 232...... 50744 62 ...... 49834, 52060, 52534 4044...... 52315 Ch. IX...... 50366 239...... 50744 63 ...... 50110, 50116, 50504, 240 ...... 49877, 50744, 50786 Proposed Rules: 52361, 52537 13 CFR 242...... 50720 470...... 50010 70 ...... 49837, 49839, 50321, 249...... 50744 400...... 53078 30 CFR 50325, 50574, 51312, 51318, 269...... 50744 51581, 52538, 52874 14 CFR 210...... 50827 18 CFR 81...... 53094, 53106 Ch. VI...... 52270 218...... 50827 122...... 53044 23...... 50809, 50819 Proposed Rules: 920...... 50827 123...... 53044 25...... 51299, 52017 Ch. 1 ...... 50591 Proposed Rules: 124...... 53044 35...... 50302 37...... 50919 901...... 52879 130...... 53044 39 ...... 49823, 49825, 50304, 161...... 50919 904...... 50952 180 ...... 50329, 50829, 51585, 50306, 50307, 50529, 51555, 250...... 50919 950...... 51891 51587 51843, 51849, 51853, 51856, 284...... 50919, 53134 261...... 50332 51857, 51860, 52020, 52023, 358...... 50919 31 CFR 271...... 49841, 50833 52027, 52312, 52313, 52489, 285...... 51867 403...... 50334 19 CFR 52492, 52496, 52498, 52668, 586...... 50506 Proposed Rules: 53080, 53083 10...... 50534, 51864 587...... 50506 51...... 50135 61...... 52278 122...... 50103 52 ...... 50252, 50375, 51359, 32 CFR 63...... 52278 163...... 50534 51619, 52367, 52560 71...... 50101 320...... 52680 60...... 49894 20 CFR 73...... 50310 62 ...... 49895, 52077, 52561 91...... 50531 655...... 51095 33 CFR 63...... 50135, 50768 97 ...... 50821, 50823, 53085, 110...... 50315 70 ...... 49895, 50136, 50375, 21 CFR 53087 117 ...... 51302, 51313, 51304, 50378, 50379, 51359, 51360, 121 ...... 51546, 52278, 52834 101...... 50824 51305, 51557, 52317, 52684, 51620, 51895, 52368, 52561, 135...... 51546, 52278 1308...... 51530, 51539 52685, 52686, 52687, 52689, 52562, 52881, 52882, 53140, 142...... 51546, 52278 310...... 53088 53088 53148, 53151, 53155, 53159, 382...... 51556 Proposed Rules: 160...... 50565 53163, 53167, 53170, 53174, 1300...... 51546, 52270 589...... 50929 165 ...... 50105, 50106, 50108, 53178 Proposed Rules: 1308...... 51535 50315, 51305, 51307, 51309, 89...... 51098 13...... 52878 1309...... 52670 51558, 51562, 52035, 52036, 90...... 51098 39 ...... 50125, 50578, 50580, 1310...... 52670 52038, 52039, 52041, 52043, 91...... 51098
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:26 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\19OCCU.LOC pfrm09 PsN: 19OCCU Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Reader Aids iii
93...... 50954 46 CFR 253...... 49862, 51515 398...... 49867 94...... 51098 32...... 49877 442...... 49866 399...... 49867 124...... 52192 Proposed Rules: 572...... 51880 136...... 51518 47 CFR 1...... 53314 Proposed Rules: 141...... 50961 0...... 50833 36...... 53314 171...... 50147 142...... 50961 1...... 50834 52...... 53050 173...... 50147 228...... 51628 2...... 50834 53...... 53314 174...... 50147 260...... 52192 552...... 53193 73...... 52547 175...... 50147 261...... 50379 22...... 50841 49 CFR 176...... 50147 267...... 52192 24...... 50841 177...... 50147 270...... 52192 27...... 51594 27...... 51556 271...... 49896 64...... 50841 325...... 49867 178...... 50147 281...... 50963 73 ...... 50576, 50843, 51322, 355...... 49867 209...... 51362 300...... 50380 52711, 52712 356...... 49867 234...... 51362 1048...... 51098 Proposed Rules: 360...... 49867 236...... 51362 1051...... 51098 2...... 51905, 53191 365...... 49867 571...... 51629 1065...... 51098 21...... 51905 366...... 49867 579...... 51907 1068...... 51098 64...... 50139, 50140 367...... 49867 587...... 51629 73 ...... 50602, 50991, 51360, 370...... 49867 41 CFR 371...... 49867 51361, 51905, 52565, 52566, 50 CFR 61–250...... 51998 52567, 52733, 52734, 52735, 372...... 49867 101–46...... 51095 53192 373...... 49867 17 ...... 50340, 51322, 51598 102–39...... 51095 76...... 51905 374...... 49867 18...... 50843 375...... 49867 223...... 50350, 52362 42 CFR 48 CFR 376...... 49867 230...... 52712 51d...... 51873 202...... 49860 377...... 49867 600...... 50851 204...... 49860 378...... 49867 660 ...... 49875, 50851, 52062 Proposed Rules: 379...... 49867 81...... 50967 211...... 49860 679 ...... 50576, 50858, 52713, 212...... 49860, 49862 381...... 49867 53122 82...... 50978 383...... 49867 215...... 49862 Proposed Rules: 384...... 49867 43 CFR 219...... 49860, 49863 10...... 52282 223...... 49864 385...... 49867 17...... 50383, 51362 2560...... 52544 225...... 49862 386...... 49867 387...... 49867 20...... 51919, 52077 44 CFR 226...... 50504 232...... 49864 388...... 49867 21...... 52077 64...... 51320 236...... 49860 389...... 49867 222...... 50148, 53194 65 ...... 53112, 53114, 53115 237...... 49860 390...... 49867 223 ...... 50148, 52567, 53194, 67...... 53117 242...... 49860 391...... 49867 53195 Proposed Rules: 243...... 49865 392...... 49867 229 ...... 49896, 50160, 50390 67...... 53182, 53190 245...... 49860 393...... 49867 622...... 52370 248...... 49865 395...... 49867 648...... 51000 45 CFR 252 ...... 49860, 49862, 49864, 396...... 49867 660...... 51367 Ch. V...... 49844 49865, 50504, 51515 397...... 49867 679 ...... 49908, 51001, 52090
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:26 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\19OCCU.LOC pfrm09 PsN: 19OCCU iv Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Reader Aids
REMINDERS 01; published 8-22-01 [FR Task-order and delivery- California; comments due by The items in this list were 01-21176] order contracts; comments 10-22-01; published 9-20- editorially compiled as an aid Pears (Bartlett) grown in— due by 10-22-01; 01 [FR 01-23478] to Federal Register users. Oregon and Washington; published 8-23-01 [FR 01- ENVIRONMENTAL Inclusion or exclusion from comments due by 10-22- 21352] PROTECTION AGENCY this list has no legal 01; published 9-21-01 [FR ENVIRONMENTAL Air quality implementation significance. 01-23656] PROTECTION AGENCY plans; approval and Pears (winter) grown in— Air pollution control: promulgation; various State operating permits States: RULES GOING INTO Oregon and Washington; comments due by 10-22- programs— Colorado and Montana; EFFECT OCTOBER 19, 01; published 9-21-01 [FR Arizona; comments due comments due by 10-22- 2001 01-23657] by 10-22-01; published 01; published 9-21-01 [FR 01-23596] AGRICULTURE 9-20-01 [FR 01-23483] AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT Forest Service PROTECTION AGENCY PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Crop Insurance Alaska National Interest Lands Air pollution control: Air quality implementation Corporation Conservation Act; Title VIII State operating permits plans; approval and Crop insurance regulations: implementation (subsistence programs— promulgation; various States: Foraging seed crop; priority): New Hampshire; published 10-19-01 Wildlife; 2002-2003 comments due by 10- Colorado and Montana; COMMERCE DEPARTMENT subsistence taking; 24-01; published 9-24- comments due by 10-22- 01; published 9-21-01 [FR National Oceanic and comments due by 10-26- 01 [FR 01-23763] 01-23597] Atmospheric Administration 01; published 8-27-01 [FR ENVIRONMENTAL New Jersey; comments due 01-21129] PROTECTION AGENCY Fishery conservation and by 10-24-01; published 9- COMMERCE DEPARTMENT management: Air pollution control: 24-01 [FR 01-23220] Alaska; fisheries of National Oceanic and State operating permits New York; comments due Exclusive Economic Atmospheric Administration programs— by 10-25-01; published 9- Zone— Fishery conservation and New Hampshire; 25-01 [FR 01-23761] Halibut; correction; management: comments due by 10- ENVIRONMENTAL published 10-19-01 Alaska; fisheries of 24-01; published 9-24- PROTECTION AGENCY Exclusive Economic 01 [FR 01-23764] EMERGENCY STEEL Air quality implementation Zone— GUARANTEE LOAN BOARD Air programs; approval and plans; approval and Emergency Steel Guarantee Pacific cod; comments promulgation; State plans promulgation; various Loan Program; due by 10-22-01; for designated facilities and States: published 10-5-01 [FR pollutants: implementation: New York; comments due 01-25030] Third-party enhancement of California; comments due by by 10-25-01; published 9- guarantees; refinancing COMMERCE DEPARTMENT 10-22-01; published 9-20- 25-01 [FR 01-23762] 01 [FR 01-23480] and transfer restrictions; National Oceanic and ENVIRONMENTAL published 10-19-01 Atmospheric Administration ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROTECTION AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL Fishery conservation and Air quality implementation PROTECTION AGENCY management: Air programs; approval and plans; approval and Air programs; State authority West Coast States and promulgation; State plans promulgation; various delegations: Western Pacific for designated facilities and States: Washington; published 9-19- fisheries— pollutants: Texas; comments due by 01 Pacific Coast groundfish; California; comments due by 10-24-01; published 9-24- Air quality implementation comments due by 10- 10-22-01; published 9-20- 01 [FR 01-23624] 01 [FR 01-23479] plans; approval and 22-01; published 10-5- ENVIRONMENTAL promulgation; various 01 [FR 01-25031] Air quality implementation PROTECTION AGENCY plans; √A√approval and States: DEFENSE DEPARTMENT Air quality implementation promulgation; various California; published 8-20-01 Air Force Department plans; approval and States; air quality planning Kentucky; published 8-20-01 promulgation; various Privacy Act; implementation; purposes; designation of States: Maryland; published 8-20-01 comments due by 10-22-01; areas: published 8-21-01 [FR 01- Texas; comments due by TRANSPORTATION Oregon; comments due by 20746] 10-24-01; published 9-24- DEPARTMENT 10-22-01; published 9-20- 01 [FR 01-23625] Federal Aviation DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 01 [FR 01-23218] Water pollution control: Administration Army Department ENVIRONMENTAL Airworthiness directives: Privacy Act; implementation; PROTECTION AGENCY Marine sanitation devices— Airbus; published 10-4-01 comments due by 10-22-01; Air quality implementation Florida Keys National published 8-21-01 [FR 01- plans; √A√approval and Marine Sanctuary, FL; 20745] no discharge zone; COMMENTS DUE NEXT promulgation; various DEFENSE DEPARTMENT comments due by 10- WEEK States; air quality planning purposes; designation of 26-01; published 8-24- Federal Acquisition Regulation 01 [FR 01-21445] (FAR): areas: AGRICULTURE FEDERAL Commercial item Oregon; comments due by DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS acquisitions; sealed 10-22-01; published 9-20- COMMISSION Agricultural Marketing bidding and simplified 01 [FR 01-23219] Service procedures; comments Air quality implementation Common carrier services: Hazelnuts grown in— due by 10-22-01; plans; approval and Access charges— Oregon and Washington; published 8-22-01 [FR 01- promulgation; various National Exchange Carrier comments due by 10-22- 21191] States: Association Board of
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:26 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\19OCCU.LOC pfrm09 PsN: 19OCCU Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Reader Aids v
Directors and average reclamation plan measure; meeting; assessment; comments due schedule company submissions: comments due by 10-22- by 10-25-01; published 9- payments computation; Indiana; comments due by 01; published 7-24-01 [FR 25-01 [FR 01-23844] requirements; biennial 10-22-01; published 9-20- 01-18310] VETERANS AFFAIRS regulatory review; 01 [FR 01-23503] Airworthiness directives: DEPARTMENT comments due by 10- Iowa; comments due by 10- Agusta S.p.A.; comments Adjudication; pensions, 22-01; published 9-20- 24-01; published 9-24-01 due by 10-22-01; compensation, dependency, 01 [FR 01-23495] [FR 01-23732] published 8-23-01 [FR 01- etc.: Radio stations; table of Louisiana; comments due by 21231] State Department diplomatic assignments: 10-22-01; published 9-20- Airbus; comments due by and consular officers Oklahoma and Texas; 01 [FR 01-23505] 10-25-01; published 9-25- authorization to act as VA comments due by 10-22- Texas; comments due by 01 [FR 01-23827] agents; comments due by 01; published 9-12-01 [FR 10-22-01; published 9-20- BAE Systems (Operations) 10-22-01; published 8-22- 01-22836] 01 [FR 01-23504] Ltd.; comments due by 01 [FR 01-21135] Texas; comments due by JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 10-25-01; published 9-25- 10-22-01; published 9-12- National Instant Criminal 01 [FR 01-23828] 01 [FR 01-22835] Background Check System: Boeing; comments due by LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS Various States; comments Law-abiding firearms 10-25-01; published 9-10- due by 10-22-01; purchasers’ legitimate 01 [FR 01-22589] This is a continuing list of published 9-12-01 [FR 01- privacy interests and Bombardier; comments due public bills from the current 22832] DOJ’s obligation to by 10-25-01; published 9- session of Congress which have become Federal laws. It GENERAL SERVICES enforce laws preventing 25-01 [FR 01-23842] may be used in conjunction ADMINISTRATION prohibited firearms TRANSPORTATION purchases; balance; with ‘‘PLUS’’ (Public Laws Federal Acquisition Regulation DEPARTMENT Update Service) on 202–523– (FAR): comments due by 10-22- Federal Aviation 01; published 9-20-01 [FR 6641. This list is also Commercial item Administration 01-23349] available online at http:// acquisitions; sealed Airworthiness directives: www.nara.gov/fedreg/ bidding and simplified JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CFM International; plawcurr.html. procedures; comments Trafficking victims; protection comments due by 10-22- due by 10-22-01; and assistance; comments 01; published 8-23-01 [FR The text of laws is not published 8-22-01 [FR 01- due by 10-22-01; published 01-21221] published in the Federal 21191] 7-24-01 [FR 01-18388] Register but may be ordered TRANSPORTATION in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual Task-order and delivery- NATIONAL AERONAUTICS DEPARTMENT pamphlet) form from the order contracts; comments AND SPACE Federal Aviation Superintendent of Documents, due by 10-22-01; ADMINISTRATION Administration U.S. Government Printing published 8-23-01 [FR 01- Federal Acquisition Regulation Airworthiness directives: Office, Washington, DC 20402 21352] (FAR): Dornier; comments due by (phone, 202–512–1808). The Commercial item HEALTH AND HUMAN 10-25-01; published 9-25- text will also be made acquisitions; sealed SERVICES DEPARTMENT 01 [FR 01-23841] available on the Internet from bidding and simplified Food and Drug Eurocopter France; GPO Access at http:// Administration procedures; comments www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ due by 10-22-01; comments due by 10-22- Animal drugs, feeds, and nara005.html. Some laws may published 8-22-01 [FR 01- 01; published 8-23-01 [FR related products: not yet be available. 21191] 01-21232] Ruminant feed; animal Task-order and delivery- Honeywell; comments due H.R. 1583/P.L. 107–49 proteins prohibited; public by 10-22-01; published 8- order contracts; comments To designate the Federal hearing; comments due 23-01 [FR 01-21222] due by 10-22-01; building and United States by 10-23-01; published published 8-23-01 [FR 01- Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.; 10-5-01 [FR 01-25108] courthouse located at 121 21352] comments due by 10-26- West Spring Street in New INTERIOR DEPARTMENT STATE DEPARTMENT 01; published 9-20-01 [FR Albany, Indiana, as the ‘‘Lee 01-23412] Fish and Wildlife Service Trafficking victims; protection H. Hamilton Federal Building Alaska National interest Lands and assistance; comments Airworthiness standards: and United States Conservation Act; Title VIII due by 10-22-01; published Special conditions— Courthouse’’. (Oct. 15, 2001; implementation (subsistence 7-24-01 [FR 01-18388] Boeing Model 777-200 115 Stat. 262) priority): TRANSPORTATION series airplanes; H.R. 1860/P.L. 107–50 Wildlife; 2002-2003 DEPARTMENT comments due by 10- Small Business Technology subsistence taking; Coast Guard 24-01; published 9-24- Transfer Program 01 [FR 01-23785] comments due by 10-26- Ports and waterways safety: Reauthorization Act of 2001 01; published 8-27-01 [FR Cape Fear River and TRANSPORTATION (Oct. 15, 2001; 115 Stat. 263) 01-21129] Northeast Cape Fear DEPARTMENT H.J. Res. 42/P.L. 107–51 Migratory bird hunting: River, Wilmington, NC; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Memorializing fallen firefighters Seasons, limits, and regulated navigation area; Administration by lowering the American flag shooting hours; comments due by 10-25- Motor carrier safety standards: to half-staff in honor of the establishment, etc.; 01; published 7-27-01 [FR Commercial Driver’s License National Fallen Firefighters comments due by 10-26- 01-18681] Program; changes; Memorial Service in 01; published 10-11-01 TRANSPORTATION comments due by 10-25- Emmitsburg, Maryland. (Oct. [FR 01-25526] DEPARTMENT 01; published 7-27-01 [FR 16, 2001; 115 Stat. 267) INTERIOR DEPARTMENT Federal Aviation 01-18312] H.J. Res. 51/P.L. 107–52 Surface Mining Reclamation Administration TREASURY DEPARTMENT Approving the extension of and Enforcement Office Administrative regulations: Comptroller of the Currency nondiscriminatory treatment Permanent program and Aircraft Certification Service; National banks and District of with respect to the products of abandoned mine land resource utilization Columbia banks; fees the Socialist Republic of
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:26 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\19OCCU.LOC pfrm09 PsN: 19OCCU vi Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 203 / Friday, October 19, 2001 / Reader Aids
Vietnam. (Oct. 16, 2001; 115 enacted public laws. To SUBSCRIBE PUBLAWS-L Stat. 268) subscribe, go to http:// Your Name. Public Laws Electronic hydra.gsa.gov/archives/ Note: This service is strictly Last List October 16, 2001 Notification Service publaws-l.html or send E-mail (PENS) for E-mail notification of new to [email protected] laws. The text of laws is not with the following text available through this service. PENS is a free electronic mail message: PENS cannot respond to notification service of newly specific inquiries sent to this address.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:26 Oct 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\19OCCU.LOC pfrm09 PsN: 19OCCU