Federal Register June 10,1999 Thursday 1 II Federal Register / Vol

Pages 31105±31484 Vol. 64 6±10±99 eDt 6AR9 91 u 9 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\M1JW.X fm1PsN:10JNWS pfrm01 E:\FR\FM\10JNWS.XXX Sfmt4710 Fmt4710 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 19:19Jun09, 1999 VerDate 26-APR-99 No. 111 federal register June 10,1999 Thursday 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999

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 Paper or fiche 523–5243 interest. 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/ fedreg. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register 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 day the Federal Register is published and it includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. GPO Access users can choose to retrieve online Federal Register documents as TEXT (ASCII text, graphics omitted), PDF (Adobe Portable Document Format, including full text and all graphics), or SUMMARY (abbreviated text) files. Users should carefully check retrieved material to ensure that documents were properly downloaded. On the World Wide Web, connect to the Federal Register at http:/ /www.access.gpo.gov/nara. Those without World Wide Web access can also connect with a local WAIS client, by Telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov, or by dialing (202) 512-1661 with a computer and modem. When using Telnet or modem, type swais, then log in as guest with no password. For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access 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 free) between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday–Friday, except Federal holidays. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $555, or $607 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 $220. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The charge for individual copies in paper form is $8.00 for each issue, or $8.00 for each group of pages as actually bound; or $1.50 for each issue in microfiche form. All prices include regular domestic postage and handling. International customers please add 25% for foreign handling. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard or Discover. Mail to: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 64 FR 12345.

VerDate 26-APR-99 19:19 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\10JNWS.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNWS III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 111

Thursday, June 10, 1999

Agricultural Marketing Service Drug Enforcement Administration PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Almonds grown in— Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: California, 31153–31157 Alfa Chemical, 31289–31295 Pork promotion, research, and information order, 31158– Chattem Chemicals, Inc., 31295 31159 Los Angeles Cannabis Resources Center, Inc., 31295

Agriculture Department Education Department See Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES NOTICES Agency information collection activities: Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Submission for OMB review; comment request, 31199 Small Farms Advisory Committee, 31177 Elementary and secondary education: Elementary and Secondary Education Act— Army Department Waivers, 31199–31203 NOTICES Employment and Training Administration Meetings: NOTICES Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) Program Agency information collection activities: Subcommittee, 31198–31199 Proposed collection; comment request, 31318–31319 Broadcasting Board of Governors Energy Department NOTICES See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31178 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Public Service Co. of New Mexico, 31204–31205 NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Applications of Petroleum Technologies on Non-allotted Hepatitis education for inmates and correctional staff, Native American Lands, 31205–31206 31224–31226 Meetings: Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, 31206 Civil Rights Commission Natural gas exportation and importation: NOTICES Avista Corp. et al., 31206–31207 Meetings; State advisory committees: District of Columbia, 31178 Environmental Protection Agency Maryland, 31178 RULES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31178 Air pollutants, hazardous; national emission standards: Phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers Commerce Department production, 31358–31388 See International Trade Administration Pesticides; tolerances in food, animal feeds, and raw See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration agricultural commodities: Aminoethoxyvinylglycine, 31124–31129 Kresoxim-methyl, 31129–31136 Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Air quality implementation plans; approval and Contract market proposals: promulgation; various States: Dual trading prohibition; exemption petitions— Michigan, 31168–31170 Chicago Board of Trade, 31193–31195 Hazardous waste: Futures industry; alternative execution, or block trading, Identification and listing— procedures, 31195–31198 Fossil fuel combustion wastes; report to Congress, 31170–31171 Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Agency information collection activities: Community development corporations, projects, and other Proposed collection; comment request, 31215–31216 public welfare investments, 31160–31164 Submission for OMB review; comment request, 31216– 31217 Defense Department Air programs: See Army Department State implementation plans; adequacy status for See Navy Department transportation conformity purposes, 31217–31219 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Urban Wet Weather Flows Advisory Committee, 31219 RULES Meetings: Freedom of Information Act; implementation: Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board, 31219 Fee schedule, 31115 National Drinking Water Advisory Council, 31219–31220

VerDate 26-APR-99 19:20 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\10JNCN.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNCN IV Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Contents

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Federal Highway Administration NOTICES NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31220 Environmental statements; notice of intent: King County, WA, 31343–31345 Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents Federal Maritime Commission See Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Freight forwarder licenses: Federal Aviation Administration Transpac Services Inc. et al., 31222–31223 RULES Class E airspace, 31117–31120 Federal Reserve System NOTICES Federal Communications Commission Banks and bank holding companies: Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 31223 RULES Permissible nonbanking activities, 31223–31224 Freedom of Information Act; implementation: Fee schedule, 31139 Radio stations; table of assignments: Fish and Wildlife Service Guam, 31143 NOTICES Louisiana, 31140 Meetings: New York, 31141 Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force, 31284 North Dakota, 31140–31143 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Oregon, 31142 Endangered Species Consultation Handbook; consultation PROPOSED RULES and conference activities procedures, 31285–31287 Radio stations; table of assignments: Arizona, 31172–31174 Food and Drug Administration Colorado, 31174–31175 PROPOSED RULES Idaho, 31171–31172 , 31174–31176 Medical devices: Louisiana, 31172–31174 Obstetrical and gynecological devices— NOTICES Female condoms classification, 31164–31168 Agency information collection activities: NOTICES Proposed collection; comment request, 31220–31222 Human drugs: Rulemaking proceedings; petitions filed, granted, denied, New drug applications— etc., 31222 Merck & Co., Inc., et al., 31226–31228 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Federal Election Commission Current guidance documents at FDA; annual PROPOSED RULES comprehensive list, 31228–31280 Rulemaking petitions: In vivo pharmacokinetics and bioavailability studies and Wohlford, Mary Clare, et al., 31159–31160 in vito dissolution testing for levothyroxin sodium tablets; industry guidance, 31280 Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Conduct at Mt. Weather Emergency Assistance Center and NOTICES National Emergency Training Center, 31136–31139 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31295–31296 Privacy Act: Systems of records, 31296–31317 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES General Accounting Office Electric utilities (Federal Power Act): Rate schedules filing— NOTICES Regional Transmission Organizations, 31389–31444 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: NOTICES Seized property and forfeited assets system requirements, Electric rate and corporate regulation filings: 31224 Phibro Inc. et al., 31211–31215 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Health and Human Services Department Grand River Dam Authority, 31215 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Regional Transmission Organizations, 31445–31446 See Food and Drug Administration Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: See Health Care Financing Administration ANR Pipeline Co., 31207–31208 See Health Resources and Services Administration B-R Pipeline Co. et al., 31208–31209 See National Institutes of Health CNG Transmission Corp., 31209 See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 31209 Administration Dow Intrastate Gas Co., 31209–31210 El Paso Natural Gas Co., 31210 Health Care Financing Administration Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc., 31210 NOTICES High Island Offshore System, L.L.C., 31210–31211 Meetings: Nautilus Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 31211 Competitive Pricing Advisory Committee— Northern Border Pipeline Co., 31211 Kansas City metropolitan area, 31281–31282

VerDate 26-APR-99 19:20 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\10JNCN.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNCN Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Contents V

Health Resources and Services Administration National Institute of Justice NOTICES NOTICES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Health Professions Bureau, Medicine Division, 31282 Domestic violence cases; evaluation of multi-site demonstration for enhanced judicial oversight, Interior Department 31317–31318 See Fish and Wildlife Service Violence against Indian women; research, 31318 See Land Management Bureau National Institutes of Health See Minerals Management Service NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Meetings: National Institute of Mental Health, 31282–31283 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Group, 31284 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 31283 International Trade Administration NOTICES National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Antidumping: RULES Heavy forged hand tools from— Fishery conservation and management: China, 31178–31179 Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel from— Pacific cod, 31151–31152 Russian Federation, 31179 Northeastern United States fisheries— Uranium from— Atlantic sea scallop, 31144–31151 Kazakhstan, 31179–31188 NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Collaborative Science, Technology, and Applied Research International Trade Commission Program, 31188–31192 NOTICES Marine mammals: Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31289 Incidental taking; authorization letters, etc.— Newfield Exploration Co. et al., TX; oil and gas Justice Department structure removal activities; bottlenose and spotted See Drug Enforcement Administration dolphins, 31192–31193 See Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Permits: See National Institute of Justice Marine mammals, 31193 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Endangered Species Consultation Handbook; consultation Labor Department and conference activiites procedures, 31285–31287 See Employment and Training Administration National Science Foundation Land Management Bureau NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Alaska Native claims selection: Civil and Mechanical Systems Special Emphasis Panel, Kijik Corp., 31287 31320–31321 Public land orders: Education and Human Resources Advisory Committee, Wyoming; correction, 31287 31321 Withdrawal and reservation of lands: Engineering Education and Centers Special Emphasis Colorado, 31287–31288 Panel, 31321 Experimental and Integrative Activities Special Emphasis Legal Services Corporation Panel, 31321 Geosciences Special Emphasis Panel, 31321–31322 NOTICES Microbial Observations Advisory Panel, 31322 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31319–31320 Navy Department Minerals Management Service NOTICES NOTICES Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially Environmental statements; notice of intent: exclusive: Gulf of Mexico OCS— ECR Technology Ltd., 31199 Floating production, storage, and offloading systems, 31288–31289 Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Fee schedules revision; 100% fee recovery (1999 FY), National Credit Union Administration 31447–31483 NOTICES NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 31320 Regulatory guides; issuance, availability, and withdrawal, 31324 National Institute for Literacy Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: NOTICES Gaseous diffusion plants; standard review plan for Agency information collection activities: recertification; comment request, 31324–31325 Submission for OMB review; comment request; Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: correction, 31320 Florida Power & Light Co. et al., 31322–31324

VerDate 26-APR-99 19:20 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\10JNCN.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNCN VI Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Contents

Office of United States Trade Representative Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services See Trade Representative, Office of United States Administration NOTICES Postal Service Agency information collection activities: RULES Proposed collection; comment request, 31283–31284 Domestic Mail Manual: Experimental nonletter-size business reply mail Trade Representative, Office of United States categories and fees; implementation standards, NOTICES 31121–31124 NOTICES Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act: Domestic rates, fees, and mail classifications: Program operation; report to Congress, 31342–31343 Experimental nonletter-size business reply mail classifications and fees; changes, 31325–31326 Transportation Department See Coast Guard Presidential Documents See Federal Aviation Administration EXECUTIVE ORDERS See Federal Highway Administration Government agencies and employees: See Transportation Statistics Bureau Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, increasing NOTICES participation in Federal programs (EO 13125), U.S. Coast Guard; roles and missions; comment request, 31105–31107 31343 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Belarus; continuation of waiver authority under the Trade Transportation Statistics Bureau Act of 1974 (Presidential Determination No. 99-26 of NOTICES June 3, 1999), 31109 Agency information collection activities: China; continuation of waiver authority under the Trade Submission for OMB review; comment request, 31345– Act of 1974 (Presidential Determination No. 99-28 of 31346 June 3, 1999), 31113 Vietnam; continuation of waiver authority under the Trade Treasury Department Act of 1974 (Presidential Determination No. 99-27 of See Comptroller of the Currency June 3, 1999), 31111 Public Health Service United States Information Agency See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES See Food and Drug Administration Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: See Health Resources and Services Administration Burma Refugee Scholarship Program, 31346–31349 See National Institutes of Health Future Leaders Exchange Program, 31349–31352 See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services South Africa Teacher Training Program, 31352–31356 Administration Securities and Exchange Commission Separate Parts In This Issue NOTICES Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: American Stock Exchange LLC, 31331–31332 Part II Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., 31332–31335 Environmental Protection Agency, 31357–31388 National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 31335– 31338 Part III New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 31338–31341 Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Commission, 31389–31446 First Defined Portfolio Fund LLC, 31326–31330 Norwest Advantage Funds et al., 31330–31331 Part IV Small Business Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 31447–31483 NOTICES Agency information collection activities: Proposed collection; comment request, 31341 Reader Aids Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for Assistant Administrator, Portfolio Management, 31341– phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, 31342 and notice of recently enacted public laws.

VerDate 26-APR-99 19:20 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\10JNCN.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNCN Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Contents VII

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 Executive Orders: 13125...... 31105 Administrative Orders: Presidential Determinations: No. 99±26 of June 3, 1999 ...... 31109 No. 99±27 of June 3, 1999 ...... 31111 No. 99±28 of June 3, 1999 ...... 31113 7 CFR Proposed Rules: 981...... 31153 1230...... 31158 10 CFR 170...... 31448 171...... 31448 1703...... 31115 11 CFR Proposed Rules: 110...... 31159 12 CFR Proposed Rules: 24...... 31160 14 CFR 71 (9 documents) ...... 31115, 31116, 31117, 31118, 31119, 31120 18 CFR Proposed Rules: 35...... 31390 21 CFR Proposed Rules: 884...... 31164 39 CFR 111...... 31121 40 CFR 9...... 31358 63...... 31358 180 (2 documents) ...... 31124, 31129 Proposed Rules: 52...... 31168 261...... 31170 44 CFR 15...... 31136 47 CFR 0...... 31139 73 (10 documents) ...... 31140, 31141, 31142, 31143 Proposed Rules: 73 (12 documents) ...... 31171, 31172, 31173, 31174, 31175, 31176 50 CFR 648...... 31144 679...... 31151

VerDate 26-APR-99 19:21 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\10JNLS.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNLS 31105

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 64, No. 111

Thursday, June 10, 1999

Title 3— Executive Order 13125 of June 7, 1999

The President Increasing Participation of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Federal Programs

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Advisory Com- mittee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), and in order to improve the quality of life of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders through increased participation in Federal programs where they may be underserved (e.g., health, human services, education, housing, labor, transportation, and economic and community development), it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. (a) There is established in the Department of Health and Human Services the President’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (Commission). The Commission shall consist of not more than 15 members appointed by the President, one of which shall be designated by the President as Chair. The Commission shall include members who: (i) have a history of involvement with the Asian American and Pacific Islander communities; (ii) are from the fields of health, human services, education, housing, labor, transportation, economic and community development, civil rights, and the business community; (iii) are from civic associations representing one or more of the diverse Asian American and Pacific Islander communities; and (iv) have such other experience as the President deems appropriate. (b) The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Sec- retary) shall appoint an Executive Director for the Commission. Sec. 2. The Commission shall provide advice to the President, through the Secretary, on: (a) the development, monitoring, and coordination of Federal efforts to improve the quality of life of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders through increased participation in Federal programs where such persons may be underserved and the collection of data related to Asian American and Pacific Islander populations and sub-populations; (b) ways to increase public-sector, private-sector, and community involvement in improving the health and well-being of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders; and (c) ways to foster research and data on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, including research and data on public health. Sec. 3. The Department of Health and Human Services shall establish the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (Initiative), an interagency working group (working group) whose members shall be appointed by their respective agencies. The Executive Director of the Commis- sion shall also serve as the Director of the Initiative, and shall report to the Secretary or the Secretary’s designee. The working group shall include both career and noncareer civil service staff and commissioned officers of the Public Health Service with expertise in health, human services, education, housing, labor, transportation, economic and community development, and other relevant issues. The working group shall advise the Secretary on the implementation and coordination of Federal programs as they relate to Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders across executive departments and agencies. Sec. 4. The head of each executive department and each agency designated by the Secretary shall appoint a senior Federal official responsible for management or program administration to report directly to the agency head on activity under this Executive order, and to serve as a liaison to the

VerDate 26-APR-99 10:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4705 E:\FR\FM\10JNE0.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNE0 31106 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Presidential Documents

Initiative. The Secretary also may designate additional Federal Government officials, with the agreement of the relevant agency head, to carry out the functions of the Initiative. To the extent permitted by law and to the extent practicable, each executive department and designated agency shall provide any appropriate information requested by the working group, including data relating to the eligibility for and participation of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Federal programs. Where adequate data are not available, the Initiative shall suggest the means of collecting such data. Sec. 5. Each executive department and designated agency (collectively, the ‘‘agency’’) shall prepare a plan for, and shall document, its efforts to improve the quality of life of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders through increased participation in Federal programs where Asian Americans and Pacific Island- ers may be underserved. This plan shall address, among other things, Federal efforts to: (a) improve the quality of life for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders through increased participation in Federal programs where they may be underserved and the collection of data related to Asian American and Pacific Islander populations and sub-populations; (b) increase public- sector, private-sector, and community involvement in improving the health and well-being of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders; and (c) foster research and data on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, including research and data on public health. Each agency’s plan shall provide appropriate measurable objectives and, after the first year, shall assess that agency’s performance on the goals set in the previous year’s plan. Each plan shall be submitted at a date to be established by the Secretary. Sec. 6. The Secretary shall review the agency plans and develop for submission to the President an integrated Federal plan (Federal Plan) to improve the quality of life of Asian American and Pacific Islanders through increased participation in Federal programs where such persons may be underserved. Actions described in the Federal Plan shall address improving access by Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to Federal programs and fostering advances in relevant research and data. The Secretary shall ensure that the working group is given the opportunity to comment on the proposed Federal Plan prior to its submission to the President. The Secretary shall disseminate the Federal Plan to appropriate members of the executive branch. The findings and recommendations in the Federal Plan shall be considered by the agencies in their policies and activities. Sec. 7. Notwithstanding any other Executive order, the responsibilities of the President that are applicable to the Commission under the Federal Advi- sory Committee Act, as amended, except that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the Secretary in accordance with the guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services. Sec. 8. Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation, but shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in the Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701–5707). To the extent permitted by law and appropriations, and where practicable, agencies shall, upon request by the Secretary, provide assistance to the Commission and to the Initiative. The Department of Health and Human Services shall provide administrative support and funding for the Commission. Sec. 9. The Commission shall terminate 2 years after the date of this Executive order unless the Commission is renewed by the President prior to the end of that 2-year period. Sec. 10. For the purposes of this order, the terms: (a) ‘‘Asian American’’ includes persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent; and

VerDate 26-APR-99 10:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4705 E:\FR\FM\10JNE0.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNE0 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Presidential Documents 31107

(b) ‘‘Pacific Islander’’ includes the aboriginal, indigenous, native peoples of Hawaii and other Pacific Islands within the jurisdiction of the United States. œ–

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 7, 1999. [FR Doc. 99–14901 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–01–P

VerDate 26-APR-99 10:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4705 E:\FR\FM\10JNE0.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNE0 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Presidential Documents 31109 Presidential Documents

Presidential Determination No. 99–26 of June 3, 1999

Determination Under Subsection 402(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as Amended—Continuation of Waiver Authority

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, Public Law 93–618, 88 Stat. 1978 (hereinafter the ‘‘Act’’), I determine, pursuant to subsection 402(d)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2432(d)(1), that the further extension of the waiver authority granted by section 402 of the Act will substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of the Act. I further determine that continuation of the waiver applicable to the Republic of Belarus will substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of the Act. You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register. œ–

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, June 3, 1999. [FR Doc. 99–14859 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Billing code 4710–10–M

VerDate 26-APR-99 10:50 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\10JNO0.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNO0 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Presidential Documents 31111 Presidential Documents

Presidential Determination No. 99–27 of June 3, 1999

Determination Under Subsection 402(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as Amended—Continuation of Waiver Authority

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, Public Law 93–618, 88 Stat. 1978 (the ‘‘Act’’), I determine, pursuant to subsection 402(d)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2432(d)(1), that the further extension of the waiver authority granted by section 402 of the Act will substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of the Act. I further determine that continuation of the waiver applicable to Vietnam will substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of the Act. You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register. œ–

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, June 3, 1999. [FR Doc. 99–14860 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Billing code 4710–10–M

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:43 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\10JNO1.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNO1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Presidential Documents 31113 Presidential Documents

Presidential Determination No. 99–28 of June 3, 1999

Determination Under Subsection 402(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as Amended—Continuation of Waiver Authority

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, Public Law 93–618, 88 Stat. 1978 (the ‘‘Act’’), I determine, pursuant to subsection 402(d)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2432(d)(1), that the further extension of the wavier authority granted by section 402 of the Act will substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of the Act. I further determine that continuation of the waiver applicable to the People’s Republic of China will substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of the Act. You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register. œ–

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, June 3, 1999. [FR Doc. 99–14861 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Billing code 4710–10–M

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:44 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4790 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\10JNO2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNO2 31115

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 111

Thursday, June 10, 1999

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER ACTION: Update of FOIA fee schedule. comment in the Federal Register its contains regulatory documents having general proposed FOIA Fee Schedule. 56 FR SUMMARY: applicability and legal effect, most of which The Defense Nuclear 11114. No comments were received in are keyed to and codified in the Code of Facilities Safety Board is publishing its response to that notice and the Board Federal Regulations, which is published under annual update to the Freedom of issued a final Fee Schedule on May 6, 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. Information Act (FOIA) Fee Schedule 1991. pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by Board’s regulations. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of the Board’s regulations, the Board’s new books are listed in the first FEDERAL EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1999. REGISTER issue of each week. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Manager will update the FOIA Kenneth M. Pusateri, General Manager, Fee Schedule once every 12 months. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Previous Fee Schedule updates were DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700, published in the Federal Register and SAFETY BOARD Washington, DC 20004–2901, (202) 694– went into effect, most recently, on June 7060. 1, 1998. 63 FR 27667, May 20, 1998. 10 CFR Part 1703 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FOIA Board Action requires each Federal agency covered by FOIA Fee Schedule the Act to specify a schedule of fees Accordingly, the Board issues the applicable to processing of requests for following schedule of updated fees for AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(i). On services performed in response to FOIA Safety Board. March 15, 1991, the Board published for requests:

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR FOIA SERVICES [Implementing 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6)]

Search or Review Charge ...... $48 per hour Copy Charge (paper) ...... $.04 per page, if done in-house, or generally available commercial rate (approximately $.10 per page). Copy Charge (3.5′′ diskette) ...... $5.00 per diskette. Copy Charge (audio cassette) ...... $3.00 per diskette. Duplication of Video ...... $25.00 for each individual videotape; $16.50 for each additional individual videotape Copy Charge for large documents (e.g., maps, diagrams) ...... Actual commercial rates.

Dated: June 4, 1999. DATES: The direct final rule published at confirms that this direct final rule will Kenneth M. Pusateri, 64 FR 10940 is effective on 0901 UTC, become effective on that date. General Manager July 15, 1999. Issued in Kansas City, MO on April 19, [FR Doc. 99–14685 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1999. BILLING CODE 3670±01±M Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Donovan D. Schardt, Airspace Branch, ACE–520C, Federal Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th Region. Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; [FR Doc. 99–14610 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION telephone: (816) 426–3408. BILLING CODE 4910±13±M SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Aviation Administration The FAA published this direct final rule with a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14 CFR Part 71 request for comments in the Federal Register on March 8, 1999 (64 FR Federal Aviation Administration 10940). The FAA uses the direct final [Airspace Docket No. 99±ACE±11] rulemaking procedure for a non- 14 CFR Part 71 controversial rule where the FAA Amendment to Class E Airspace; believes that there will no adverse [Airspace Docket No. 99±ACE±18] Neosho, MO public comment. This direct final rule Amendment to Class E Airspace; advised the public that no adverse AGENCY: Federal Aviation Washington, IA Administration, DOT. comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a AGENCY: Federal Aviation ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of written notice of intent to submit such Administration, DOT. effective date. an adverse comment, were received ACTION: Direct final rue; confirmation of within the comment period, the effective date. SUMMARY: This document confirms the regulation would become effective on effective date of a direct final rule which July 15, 1999. No adverse comments SUMMARY: This document confirms the revises Class E airspace at Neosho, MO. were received, and thus this notice effective date of a direct final rule which

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:05 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31116 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations revises Class E airspace at Washington, enlarged area will contain the new GPS The Direct Final Rule Procedure IA. RWY 11, GPS RWY 29, and VOR RWY DATES: The direct final rule published at 11 SIAPs in controlled airspace. The FAA anticipates that this 64 FR 14593 is effective on 0901 UTC, The old Thomas County Airport was regulation will not result in adverse or July 15, 1999. closed and a new Thomas County negative comment, or a written notice of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Airport was constructed approximately intent to submit an adverse or negative Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, 2 miles farther west. Therefore, a new comment and, therefore, is issuing it as Airspace Branch, ACE–520C, Federal Airport Reference Point (ARP) was a direct final rule. Previous actions of Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th established and is included in this this nature have not been controversial Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; document. and have not resulted in adverse The intended effect of this rule is to telephone: (816) 426–3408. comments or objections. The provide controlled Class E airspace for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA amendment will enhance safety for all aircraft executing the GPS RWY 11, GPS flight operations by designating an area published this direct final rule with a RWY 29, and VOR RWY 11 SIAPSs, request for comments in the Federal where VFR pilots may anticipate the amend the ARP, and to segregate aircraft presence of IFR aircraft at lower Register on March 26, 1999 (64 FR using instrument approach procedures 14593). The FAA uses the direct final altitudes, especially during inclement in instrument conditions from aircraft weather conditions. A greater degree of rulemaking procedure for a non- operating in visual conditions. controversial rule where the FAA safety is achieved by depicting the area DATES: This direct final rule is effective believes that there will be no adverse on aeronautical charts. Unless a written on 0901 UTC, September 9, 1999. adverse or negative comment, or a public comment. This direct final rule Comments for inclusion in the Rules written notice of intent to submit an advised the public that no adverse Docket must be received on or before comments were anticipated, and that July 16, 1999. adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the unless a written adverse comment, or a ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding regulation will become effective on the written notice of intent to submit such the rule in triplicate to: Manager, an adverse comment, were received Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, date specified above. After the close of within the comment period, the ACE–520, Federal Aviation the comment period, the FAA will regulation would become effective on Administration, Docket Number 99– publish a document in the Federal July 15, 1999. No adverse comments ACE–23, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas Register indicating that no adverse or were received, and thus this notice City, MO 64106. negative comments were received and confirms that this direct final rule will The official docket may be examined confirming the date on which the final become effective on that date. in the Office of the Regional Counsel for rule will become effective. If the FAA Issued in Kansas City, MO on May 14, the Central Region at the same address does receive, within the comment 1999. between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., period, an adverse or negative comment, Donovan D. Schardt, Monday through Friday, except Federal or written notice of intent to submit Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central holidays. such a comment, a document Region. An informal docket may also be withdrawing the direct final rule will be examined during normal business hours [FR Doc. 99–14609 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] published in the Federal Register, and in the Air Traffic Division at the same a notice of proposed rulemaking may be BILLING CODE 4910±13±M address listed above. published with a new comment period. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comments Invited DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE–520C, Federal Although this action is in the form of Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th a final rule and was not preceded by a Street, Kansas City, MO 64106; notice of proposed rulemaking, 14 CFR Part 71 telephone: (816) 426–3408 comments are invited on this rule. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA [Airspace Docket No. 99±ACE±23] Interested persons are invited to has developed GSS RWY 11, GPS RWY comment on this rule by submitting 29, and VOR RWY 11 SIAPs to serve the such written data, views, or arguments Amendment to Class E Airspace; Thomas County Airport, Thedford, NE. Thedford, NE as they may desire. Communications The amendment to Class E airspace at should identify the Rules Docket AGENCY: Federal Aviation Thedford, NE, will provide additional number and be submitted in triplicate to controlled airspace at and above 700 Administration (FAA), DOT. the address specified under the caption feet AGL in order to contain the new ACTION: Direct final rule; request for ADDRESSES. All communications SIAPs within controlled airspace, and comments. received on or before the closing date thereby facilitate separation of aircraft for comments will be considered, and SUMMARY: This action amends the Class operating under Instrument Flight E airspace area at Thomas County Rules. The new ARP is included in this this rule may be amended or withdrawn Airport, Thedford, NE. The FAA has document. The area will be depicted on in light of the comments received. developed Global Positioning System appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E Factual information that supports the (GPS) Runway (RWY) 11, GPS RWY 29, airspace areas extending upward from commenter’s ideas and suggestions is and VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) 700 feet or more above the surface of the extremely helpful in evaluating the RWY 11, Standard Instrument Approach earth are published in paragraph 6005 of effectiveness of this action and Procedures (SIAPs) to serve Thomas FAA Order 7400.9F, dated September determining whether additional County Airport, NE. Additional 10, 1998, and effective September 16, rulemaking action would be needed. controlled airspace extending upward 1998, which is incorporated by Comments are specifically invited on from 700 feet Above Ground Level reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E the overall regulatory, economic, (AGL) is needed to accommodate these airspace designation listed in this environmental, and energy-related SIAPs and for Instrument Flight Rules document will be published aspects of the rule that might suggest a (IFR) operations at this airport. The subsequently in the Order. need to modify the rule. All comments

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:05 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31117 submitted will be available, both before § 71.1 [Amended] written notice ofintent to submit such and after the closing date for comments, 2. The incorporation by reference in an adverse comment, were received in the Rules Docket for examination by 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation within the comment period, the interested persons. A report that Administration Order 7400.9F, Airspace regulation would become effective on summarizes each FAA-public contact Designations and Reporting Points, July 15, 1999. No adverse comments concerned with the substance of this dated September 10, 1998, and effective were received, and thus this notice action will be filed in the Rules Docket. September 16, 1998, is amended as confirms that this direct final rule will Commenters wishing the FAA to follows: become effective on that date. acknowledge receipt of their comments Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas Issued in Kansas City, MO on May 21, submitted in response to this rule must extending upward from 700 feet or more 1999. submit a self-addressed, stamped above the surface of the earth. Donovan D. Schardt, postcard on which the following * * * * * statement is made: ‘‘Comments to Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Docket No. 99–ACE–23.’’ The postcard ACE NE E5 Thedford, NE [Revised] Region. will be date stamped and returned to the Thedford, Thomas County Airport, NE [FR Doc. 99–14607 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] ° ′ ′′ ° ′ ′′ commenter. (Lat. 41 57 44 N., long. 100 34 08 W.) BILLING CODE 4910±13±M That airspace extending upward from 700 Agency Findings feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Thomas County Airport. The regulations adopted herein will DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION not have substantial direct effects on the * * * * * Issued in Kansas City, MO, on May 10, Federal Aviation Administration States, on the relationship between the 1999. national government and the States, or Donovan D. Schardt 14 CFR Part 71 on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region. levels of government. Therefore, in [Airspace Docket No. 99±ACE±13] accordance with Executive Order 12612, [FR Doc. 99–14608 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Amendment to Class E Airspace; it is determined that this final rule does BILLING CODE 4910±13±M Cresco, IA not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGENCY: Federal Aviation of a Federalism Assessment. Administration, DOT. The FAA has determined that this Federal Aviation Administration regulation is noncontroversial and ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of unlikely to result in adverse or negative 14 CFR Part 71 effective date. comments. For the reasons discussed in [Airspace Docket No. 99±ACE±12] the preamble, I certify that this SUMMARY: This document confirms the regulation (1) is not a ‘‘significant Amendment to Class E Airspace; West effective date of a direct final rule which regulatory action’’ under Executive Union, IA revises Class E airspace at Cresco, IA. Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant DATES: The direct final rule published at rule’’ under Department of AGENCY: Federal Aviation 64 FR 19262 is effective on 0901 UTC, Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Administration, DOT. July 15, 1999. Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of February 26, 1979); and (3) if effective date. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: promulgated, will not have a significant SUMMARY: This document confirms the Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, economic impact, positive or negative, effective date of a direct final rule which Airspace Branch, ACE–520C, Federal on a substantial number of small entities revises Class E airspace at West Union, Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th under the criteria of the Regulatory IA. Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; Flexibility Act. telephone: (816) 426–3408. DATES: The direct final rule published at List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 64 FR 19261 is effective on 0901 UTC, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA July 15, 1999. Airspace, Incorporation by reference, published this direct final rule with a Navigation (air). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: request for comments in the Federal Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Register on April 20, 1999 (64 FR Adoption of the Amendment Airspace Branch, ACE–520C, Federal 19262). The FAA uses the direct final Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th rulemaking procedure for a non- Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; controversial rule where the FAA Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 telephone: (816) 426–3408. as follows: believes that there will be no adverse SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA public comment. This direct final rule PART 71ÐDESIGNATION OF CLASS A, published this direct final rule with a advised the public that no adverse CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND request for comments in the Federal comments were anticipated, and that CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; Register on April 20, 1999 (64 FR unless a written adverse comment, or a AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING 19261). The FAA uses the direct final written notice of intent to submit such POINTS rulemaking procedure for a non- an adverse comment, were received controversial rule where the FAA within the comment period, the 1. The authority citation for part 71 believes that there will be no adverse regulation would become effective on continues to read as follows: public comment. This direct final rule July 15, 1999. No adverse comments Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, advised the public that no adverse were received, and thus this notice 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– comments were anticipated, and that confirms that this direct final rule will 1963 Comp., p. 389. unless a written adverse comment, or a become effective on that date.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:05 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31118 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Issued in Kansas City, MO on May 21, Street, Kansas City, MO 64106; withdrawing the direct final rule will be 1999. telephone: (816) 426–3408. published in the Federal Register, and Donovan D. Schardt, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This a notice of proposed rulemaking may be Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central amendment to 14 CFR 71 revises the published with a new comment period. Region. Class E airspace at Rolla/Vichy, MO. A Comments Invited [FR Doc. 99–14606 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] review of the Class E airspace for Rolla/ Although this action is in the form of BILLING CODE 4910±13±M Vichy, Rolla National Airport, MO, a final rule and was not preceded by a indicates it does not meet the criteria for notice of proposed rulemaking, 700 feet AGL airspace required for comments are invited on this rule. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION diverse departures as specified in FAA Interested persons are invited to Order 7400.2D. The criteria in FAA Federal Aviation Administration comment on this rule by submitting Order 7400.2D for an aircraft to reach such written data, views, or arguments 14 CFR Part 71 1200 feet AGL is based on a standard as they may desire. Communications climb gradient of 200 feet per mile plus should identify the Rules Docket [Airspace Docket No. 99±ACE±26] the distance from the Airport Reference number and be submitted in triplicate to Point (ARP) to the end of the outermost the address specified under the caption Amendment to Class E Airspace; runway. Any fractional part of a mile is Rolla/Vichy, MO ADDRESSES. All communications converted to the next higher tenth of a received on or before the closing date mile. The amendment at Rolla/Vichy, AGENCY: Federal Aviation for comments will be considered, and Administration (FAA), DOT. Rolla National Airport, MO, will this rule may be amended or withdrawn provide additional controlled airspace in light of the comments received. ACTION: Direct final rule; request for for aircraft operating under IFR, and comments. Factual information that supports the comply with the criteria of FAA Order commenter’s ideas and suggestions is SUMMARY: This action amends Class E 7400.2D. The area will be depicted on extremely helpful in evaluating the airspace area at Rolla/Vichy, Rolla appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E effectiveness of this action and National Airport, Rolla, MO. A review airspace areas extending upward from determining whether additional of the Class E airspace area for Rolla/ 700 feet or more above the surface of the rulemaking action would be needed. Vichy, Rolla National Airport indicates earth are published in paragraph 6005 of Comments are specifically invited on it does not comply with the criteria for FAA Order 7400.9F, dated September the overall regulatory, economic, 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) 10, 1998, and effective September 16, environmental, and energy-related airspace required for diverse departures 1998, which is incorporated by aspects of the rule that might suggest a as specified in FAA Order 7400.2D. The reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E need to modify the rule. All comments Class E airspace has been enlarged to airspace designation listed in this submitted will be available, both before conform to the criteria of FAA Order document will be published and after the closing date for comments, 7400.2D. subsequently in the Order. in the Rules Docket for examination by The intended effect of this rule is to The Direct Final Rule Procedure interested persons. A report that provide additional controlled Class E summarizes each FAA-public contact airspace for aircraft operating under The FAA anticipates that this concerned with the substance of this Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), and regulation will not result in adverse or action will be filed in the Rules Docket. comply with the criteria of FAA Order negative comment and, therefore, is Commenters wishing the FAA to 7400.2D. issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous acknowledge receipt of their comments actions of this nature have not been DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, submitted in response to this rule must controversial and have not resulted in submit a self-addressed, stamped September 9, 1999. adverse comments or objections. The Comments for inclusion in the Rules postcard on which the following amendment will enhance safety for all statement is made: ‘‘Comments to Docket must be received on or before flight operations by designating an area July 25, 1999. Docket No. 99–ACE–26.’’ The postcard where VFR pilots may anticipate the will be date stamped and returned to the EFFECTIVE DATE: Send comments presence of IFR aircraft at lower commenter. regarding the rule in triplicate to: altitudes, especially during inclement Manager, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic weather conditions. A greater degree of Agency Findings Division, ACE–520, Federal Aviation safety is achieved by depicting the area The regulations adopted herein will Administration, Docket Number 99– on aeronautical charts. Unless a written not have substantial direct effects on the ACE–26, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas adverse or negative comment, or a States, on the relationship between the City, MO 64106. written notice of intent to submit an national government and the States, or The official docket may be examined adverse or negative comment is received on the distribution of power and in the Office of the Regional Counsel for within the comment period, the responsibilities among the various the Central Region at the same address regulation will become effective on the levels of government. Therefore, in between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., date specified above. After the close of accordance with Executive Order 12612, Monday through Friday, except Federal the comment period, the FAA will it is determined that this final rule does holidays. publish a document in the Federal not have sufficient federalism An informal docket may also be Register indicating that no adverse or implications to warrant the preparation examined during normal business hours negative comments were received and of a Federalism Assessment. in the Air Traffic Division at the same confirming the date on which the final The FAA has determined that this address listed above. rule will become effective. If the FAA regulation is noncontroversial and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: does receive, within the comment unlikely to result in adverse or negative Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, period, an adverse or negative comment, comments. For the reasons discussed in Airspace Branch, ACE–520C, Federal or written notice of intent to submit the preamble, I certify that this Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th such a comment, a document regulation (1) is not a ‘‘significant

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31119 regulatory action’’ under Executive DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Airspace Branch, ACE–520C, Federal Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th rule’’ under Department of Federal Aviation Administration Street, Kansas City, MO 64106; Transportation (DOT) Regulatory telephone: (816) 426–3408. 14 CFR Part 71 Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA February 26, 1979); and (3) if [Airspace Docket No. 99±ACE±21] has developed GPS RWY 17 and GPS promulgated, will not have a significant RWY 35 SIAPs to serve the Ottawa economic impact, positive or negative, Amendment to Class E Airspace; Municipal Airport, Ottawa, KS. The on a substantial number of small entities Ottawa, KS amendment to Class E airspace at Ottawa, KS, will provide additional under the criteria of the Regulatory AGENCY: Federal Aviation Flexibility Act. Administration (FAA), DOT. controlled airspace at and above 700 feet AGL in order to contain the new List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 ACTION: Direct final rule; request for SIAPs within controlled airspace, and comments. thereby facilitate separation of aircraft Airspace, Incorporation by reference, operating under Instrument Flight Navigation (air). SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace area at Ottawa Municipal Rules. Any references to the Ottawa Adoption of the Amendment Airport, Ottawa, KS. The FAA has NDB have been removed from the text header and airspace designation. Accordingly, the Federal Aviation developed Global Positioning System (GPS) Runway (RWY) 17 and GPS RWY The amendment at Ottawa Municipal Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 35 Standard Instrument Approach Airport, KS, will provide additional as follows: Procedures (SIAPs) to serve Ottawa controlled airspace for aircraft operating under IFR. The area will be depicted on PART 71ÐDESIGNATION OF CLASS A, Municipal Airport, KS. Additional controlled airspace extending upward appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND airspace areas extending upward from CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to accommodate these 700 feet or more above the surface of the AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING SIAPs and for Instrument Flight Rules earth are published in paragraph 6005 of POINTS (IFR) operations at this airport. The FAA Order 7400.9F, dated September enlarged area will contain the new GPS 10, 1998, and effective September 16, 1. The authority citation for part 71 RWY 17 and GPS RWY 35 SIAPs in 1998, which is incorporated by continues to read as follows: controlled airspace. reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, In addition, the Ottawa airspace designation listed in this 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) has document will be published 1963 Comp., p. 389. been decommissioned. Based on this subsequently in the Order. information, references to the Ottawa § 71.1 [Amended] The Direct Final Rule Procedure NDB in the text header and airspace The FAA anticipates that this 2. The incorporation by reference in designations have been removed. regulation will not result in adverse or 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation The intended effect of this rule is to negative comment and, therefore, is Administration Order 7400.9F, Airspace provide controlled Class E airspace for aircraft executing GPS RWY 17 and GPS issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous Designations and Reporting Points, actions of this nature have not been dated September 10, 1998, and effective RWY 35 SIAPs, remove references to the Ottawa NDB, and to segregate aircraft controversial and have not resulted in September 16, 1998, is amended as adverse comments or objections. The follows: using instrument approach procedures in instrument conditions from aircraft amendment will enhance safety for all Paragraph 600 Class E airspace areas operating in visual conditions. flight operations by designating an area extending upward from 700 feet or more where VFR pilots may anticipate the DATES: This direct final rule is effective above the surface of the earth. presence of IFR aircraft at lower on 0901 UTC, September 9, 1999. * * * * * altitudes, especially during inclement Comments for inclusion in the Rules weather conditions. A greater degree of ACE MO E5 Rolla/Vichy, MO [Revised] Docket must be received on or before safety is achieved by depicting the area June 28, 1999. Rolla/Vichy, Rolla National Airport, MO on aeronautical charts. Unless a written (Lat. 38°07′39′′N., long. 91°46′11′′W.) ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding adverse or negative comment, or a Vichy VORTAC the rule in triplicate to: Manager, written notice of intent to submit an (Lat. 38°09′15′′N., long. 91°42′24′′W.) Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, adverse or negative comment is received That airspace extending upward from 700 ACE–520, Federal Aviation within the comment period, the feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile Administration, Docket Number 99– regulation will become effective on the radius of Rolla/Vichy, Rolla National Airport ACE–21, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas date specified above. After the close of and within 3 miles each side of the 067° City, MO 64106. the comment period, the FAA will radial of the Vichy VORTAC, extending from The official docket may be examined publish a document in the Federal the 6.6-mile to 7.4 miles northeast of the in the Office of the Regional Counsel for Register indicating that no adverse or Vichy VORTAC. the Central Region at the same address negative comments were received and between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Issued in Kansas City, MO, on May 21, confirming the date on which the final Monday through Friday, except Federal 1999. rule will become effective. If the FAA holidays. An informal docket may also does receive, within the comment Donovan D. Schardt, be examined during normal business period, an adverse or negative comment, Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central hours in the Air Traffic Division at the or written notice of intent to submit Region. same address listed above. such a comment, a document [FR Doc. 99–14605 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: withdrawing the direct final rule will be BILLING CODE 4910±13±M Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, published in the Federal Register, and

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:05 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31120 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations a notice of proposed rulemaking may be rule’’ under Department of DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION published with a new comment period. Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Federal Aviation Administration Comments Invited Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if 14 CFR Part 71 Although this action is in the form of promulgated, will not have a significant a final rule and was not preceded by a economic impact, positive or negative, [Airspace Docket No. 99±ACE±16] notice of proposed rulemaking, on a substantial number of small entities comments are invited on this rule. under the criteria of the Regulatory Amendment to Class E Airspace; Interested persons are invited to Shenandoah, IA comment on this rule by submitting Flexibility Act. AGENCY: Federal Aviation such written data, views, or arguments List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 as they may desire. Communications Administration, DOT. should identify the Rules Docket Airspace, Incorporation by reference, ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of number and be submitted in triplicate to Navigation (air). effective date. the address specified under the caption Adoption of the Amendment SUMMARY: This document confirms the ADDRESSES. All communications effective date of a direct final rule which received on or before the closing date Accordingly, the Federal Aviation revises Class E airspace at Shenandoah, for comments will be considered, and Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 IA. this rule may be amended or withdrawn as follows: in light of the comments received. DATES: The direct final rule published at Factual information that supports the 64 FR 19265 is effective on 0901 UTC, PART 71ÐDESIGNATION OF CLASS A, July 15, 1999. commenter’s ideas and suggestions is CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: extremely helpful in evaluating the CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; effectiveness of this action and Kathy Randolph Air Traffic Division, AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING Airspace Branch, ACE–520C, Federal determining whether additional POINTS rulemaking action would be needed. Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; Comments are specifically invited on 1. The authority citation for part 71 the overall regulatory, economic, telephone: (816) 426–3408. continues to read as follows: environmental, and energy-related SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA aspects of the rule that might suggest a Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, published this direct final rule with a need to modify the rule. All comments 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– request for comments in the Federal submitted will be available, both before 1963 Comp., p. 389. Register on April 20, 1999 (64 FR and after the closing date for comments, 19265). The FAA uses the direct final § 71.1 [Amended] in the Rules Docket for examination by rulemaking procedure for a non- interested persons. A report that 2. The incorporation by reference in controversial rule where the FAA summarizes each FAA-public contract 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation believes that there will be no adverse concerned with the substance of this Administration Order 7400.9F, Airspace public comment. This direct final rule action will be filed in the Rules Docket. Designations and Reporting Points, advised the public that no adverse Commenters wishing the FAA to dated September 10, 1998, and effective comments were anticipated, and that acknowledge receipt of their comments September 16, 1998, is amended as unless a written adverse comment, or a submitted in response to this rule must follows: written notice of intent to submit such submit a self-addressed, stamped an adverse comment, were received postcard on which the following Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas within the comment period, the statement is made: ‘‘Comments to extending upward from 700 feet or more regulation would become effective on Docket No. 99–ACE–21.’’ The postcard above the surface of the earth. July 15, 1999. No adverse comments will be date stamped and returned to the * * * * * were received, and thus this notice commenter. ACE KS E5 Ottawa, KS [Revised] confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date. Agency Findings Ottawa Municipal Airport, KS The regulations adopted herein will (Lat. 38°32′19′′N., long. 95°15′11′′W.) Issued in Kansas City, MO, on May 11, 1999. not have substantial direct effects on the That airspace extending upward from 700 Donovan D. Schardt, States, on the relationship between the feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central national government and the States, or radius of Ottawa Municipal Airport. on the distribution of power and Region. * * * * * [FR Doc. 99–14603 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] responsibilities among the various Issued in Kansas City, MO, on May 11, BILLING CODE 4910±13±M levels of government. Therefore, in 1999. accordance with Executive Order 12612, Donovan D. Schardt, it is determined that this final rule does DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION not have sufficient federalism Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region. implications to warrant the preparation Federal Aviation Administration of a Federalism Assessment. [FR Doc. 99–14604 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] The FAA has determined that this BILLING CODE 4910±13±M 14 CFR Part 71 regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative [Airspace Docket No. 99±ACE±10] comments. For the reasons discussed in Amendment to Class E Airspace; the preamble, I certify that this Lebanon, MO regulation (1) is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive AGENCY: Federal Aviation Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant Administration, DOT.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:05 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31121

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of reply mail (BRM) with a controlled Background effective date. number of recipients: The reverse As a consequence of Postal Rate manifesting method and the bulk weight SUMMARY: This document confirms the Commission Docket No. MC97–1, the averaging method. Until the United States Postal Service has effective date of a direct final rule which implementation of a permanent revises Class E airspace at Lebanon, MO. engaged in an experiment since June 8, classification and fees, the Postal 1997, which was designed to test the DATES: The direct final rule published at Service intends to continue the feasibility of two alternative methods of 64 FR 10938 is effective on 0901 UTC, experiment with up to 10 participants to accounting for nonletter-size Business July 15, 1999. resolve some administrative and Reply Mail: the reverse manifesting FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: technical issues related to permanent method and the bulk weight averaging Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, implementation of the bulk weight method. For each method, the Airspace Branch, ACE–520C, Federal averaging accounting method. experiment was designed to involve up Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1999. to 10 recipients of nonletter-size BRM. Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul On an experimental basis, separate telephone: (816) 426–3408. Lettmann, (202) 268–6261, or Michael experimental set-up/qualification, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA T. Tidwell, (202) 268–2998. monthly auditing or sampling, and per published this direct final rule with a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal piece fees were established for each request for comments in the Federal Service will review applications and method. All experimental classifications Register on March 8, 1999 (64 FR select as many as six mailers to join the and fees are scheduled to expire on June 10938). The FAA uses the direct final four current participants in the 7, 1999. rulemaking procedure for a non- experiment. It is hoped that the BRM To date, four BRM recipients have controversial rule where the FAA received by the participants will participated in the experiment, which is believes that there will be no adverse represent a diverse range of products scheduled to expire on June 7, 1999. public comment. This direct final rule returned by BRM. The limitation on the One participant began the experiment advised the public that no adverse number of participants in the extension utilizing the reverse manifest method. comments were anticipated, and that of the weight averaging experiment is Three others elected to participate unless a written adverse comment, or a consistent with the need to conduct an utilizing the weight averaging method. written notice of intent to submit such experiment that can be managed Approximately nine months ago, the an adverse comment, were received effectively, with the narrow scope of the one participant using the reverse within the comment period, the administrative and technical issues the manifest method unilaterally regulation would become effective on extension is expected to resolve, and determined on the basis of internal July 15, 1999. No adverse comments with the relatively short time frame operational considerations that it would were received, and thus this notice during which the extension is likely to switch to the weight averaging method. confirms that this direct final rule will be in effect. The Postal Service has since been become effective on that date. The selection of experiment unable to recruit any participants to Issued in Kansas City, MO on April 19, participants depends on various criteria experiment with the reverse manifest 1999. such as mail volume, product type and method. Although the Postal Service Donovan D. Schardt, packaging, geographic location, ability believes that the method has potential, the limited experience during the Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division. to implement and maintain quality control procedures for accounting and experiment did not provide an adequate [FR Doc 99–14602 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] documentation, and availability of opportunity to fully evaluate the BILLING CODE 4910±13±M postal resources. A prospective method or overcome the shortcomings participant should be able to participate with the method that were identified until February 29, 2000, and, if selected, when the experiment was initiated. As POSTAL SERVICE begin within a short period of time. a consequence, the operational Only the weight averaging method of feasibility of the reverse manifest 39 CFR Part 111 counting the returned nonletter-size method remains unproved. Experimental Nonletter-Size Business BRM pieces will be tested as part of this The experiment has demonstrated the Reply Mail Categories and Fees; experiment. feasibility of the bulk weight averaging Implementation Standards As part of this study, participants will accounting method for nonletter-size be charged lower per piece BRM fees for BRM to the satisfaction of the Postal AGENCY: Postal Service. qualifying pieces as follows: Service. At the same time, the Postal ACTION: Final rule. For participants using the weight Service has determined that it must averaging accounting method, the per resolve some administrative and SUMMARY: This final rule sets forth the piece accounting fee is 1 cent, plus the technical issues related to the operation Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) appropriate First-Class Mail or Priority of bulk weight averaging before standards adopted by the Postal Service Mail postage. implementing the method on a to implement the Decision of the Participants must pay an annual permanent basis. Governors of the United States Postal business reply mail permit fee and an Accordingly, on March 10, 1999, the Service on the Recommended Decision annual business reply mail advance Postal Service filed two requests before of the Postal Rate Commission on the deposit accounting fee, which are the Postal Rate Commission. The first Renewal of Experimental Classifications currently $100.00 and $300.00, request sought an extension of the and Fees for Nonletter-Size Business respectively. In addition, there will be a current bulk weight averaging Reply, Docket No. MC99–1. monthly audit and maintenance fee of experiment beyond its June 7, 1999, During the past two years, the Postal $600.00 assessed per BRM account at expiration date to allow for the Service has studied the effects of two each site where the experimental weight continuation of work to resolve the alternative experimental accounting averaging accounting method is aforementioned administrative and methods for nonletter-size business employed. technical issues that stand in the way of

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31122 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations implementing weight averaging on a • A one-time set-up/qualification fee Mail Manual G092 and published in this permanent basis. That proceeding was of $3,000. final rule. If the manager of Mail designated by the Postal Rate • A $3,000 monthly maintenance fee. Preparation and Standards determines Commission as Docket No. MC99–1. • A $0.03 per piece accounting fee. that the applicant is not suitable, that The second request proposed the These fees expire on June 7, 1999. On manager sends the applicant a written establishment of a permanent May 14, 1999, in Docket No. MC99–1, notice explaining the reasons for the classification and fees for weight the Postal Rate Commission determination and, if appropriate, averaged nonletter-size BRM. That recommended the extension of the requests additional information for proceeding was designated as Docket nonletter-size BRM experiment until further review. No. MC99–2. The Postal Service intends February 29, 2000, or until Decisions of the manager of Mail to let the reverse manifest classification implementation of permanent fees, Preparation and Standards may be and fees expire as scheduled. whichever comes first, which was the appealed to the BRM Experiment term requested by the Postal Service. Review Board, Postal Service Manual BRM Verification Method The Commission also recommended the Headquarters, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW, The manual counting, weighing, classification and fees proposed in a Room 6800, Washington DC 20260– rating, and billing for incoming Joint Stipulation and Agreement by the 2405. Appeals must include sufficient nonletter-size BRM at delivery post parties in Docket No. MC99–1. The information to assist the Review Board offices is a labor-intensive and time- Commission’s recommendations were in reconsideration of initial consuming task usually performed by approved in the May 26, 1999, Decision determinations. Decisions of the Review postage due unit employees. These of the Governors of the United States Board are final. postal employees must weigh and rate Postal Service. Accordingly, on June 8, Implementation each piece individually and calculate 1999, the following fees will apply to the appropriate postage and fees. nonletter-size BRM subject to the terms Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3624, the PRC This manual process frequently takes of the weight averaging experiment: on May 14, 1999, issued to the place during a short period between the • A $600 monthly maintenance fee. Governors of the Postal Service its arrival of the BRM at the postage due • A $0.01 per piece accounting fee. Recommended Decision on the Postal unit and the arrival of the BRM The one-time set-up/qualification fee Service’s Request to extend the weight recipient at the post office to pick up the has been eliminated. These new averaging portion of the nonletter-size mail. Depending on mail volume, the experimental fees expire on February BRM experiment. necessary accounting sometimes delays 29, 2000, or upon implementation of After reviewing the PRC’s the release and delivery of the mail. permanent fees, whichever comes first. Recommended Decision and its Such delays can adversely affect the consequences for the Postal Service and Selection Process for Participants recipient’s ability to meet customer postal customers, the Governors, fulfillments expeditiously. A reply mail recipient who wants to pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3625, acted on the participate in the extension of the PRC’s recommendations on May 26, Weight Averaging Method nonletter-size BRM experiment must 1999. (Decision of the Governors of the Some recipients of large volumes of submit a written request to: Manager, United States Postal Service on the incoming nonmachinable BRM and Mail Preparation and Standards, Postal Recommended Decision of the Postal local postal officials have developed an Service Headquarters, 475 L’Enfant Rate Commission on the Renewal of alternative accounting method, bulk Plaza SW, Room 6800, Washington, DC Experimental Classification and Fees for weight averaging, that allows the 20260–2405. The request must include Nonletter-Size Business Reply Mail recipients to take possession of their sufficient data to assist in making an Categories and Fees, Docket No. MC99– incoming mail sooner than mail initial determination. 1.) manually weighed and rated on a piece- Consideration is given to product The Governors determined to approve by-piece basis by the Postal Service. type, geographic location, variability in the PRC’s recommendations, and the This method also makes it less the weight and daily volume of BRM, Board of Governors set an expensive for the Postal Service to current accounting and quality control implementation date of June 8, 1999, for determine the postage and fees. This procedures, and availability of postal the classification and fee changes to take alternative method reduces postal resources. In selecting participants, the effect. A notice announcing the workhours, provides more expeditious manager of Mail Preparation and Governors’ Decision and the final accounting, allows for earlier delivery of Standards also uses the following Domestic Mail Classification Schedule BRM pieces, and increases recipient criteria: and Fee Schedule changes is published satisfaction with BRM service. • The applicant must receive at one elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Application of the bulk weight site a yearly average volume of Register. averaging accounting method for a BRM approximately 100,000 or more This final rule contains the DMM permit account requires periodic nonletter-size BRM pieces eligible for standards adopted by the Postal Service sampling and monitoring of the permit the current $0.08 per piece fee. to implement the Governors’ Decision. holder’s nonletter-size BRM. As a • The applicant must be prepared to As described below, the Postal consequence, the added administrative participate in the experiment through Service is limiting these experimental overhead generates extraordinary postal February 29, 2000. fee categories to those pieces of costs not covered by the current $100.00 • The applicant must be prepared to nonletter-size business reply mail that annual BRM permit fee and $300.00 begin operation at a mutually agreed are outside the parameters of current annual BRM advance deposit upon time soon after selection. automation-compatible letter-size accounting fee. If the manager of Mail Preparation business reply mail. As a consequence, For purposes of the current and Standards determines that the the final rule excludes letter-size pieces experiment, the Postal Service adopted applicant is suitable for participation, which could qualify for Qualified additional fees for the nonletter-size the applicant is instructed to follow the Business Reply Mail (QBRM) rates and BRM weight averaging accounting appropriate application procedures for fees. (Currently, pieces weighing two method: authorization, as described in Domestic ounces or less can qualify for QBRM.)

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31123

Because of the purpose and limited Qualified Business Reply Mail (QBRM) selecting participants, the manager also scope of this experiment, the Postal because they weigh too much also are uses the following additional criteria: Service finds no need to solicit eligible for the weight averaging a. The applicant must receive or comment on the standards for nonletter- method. expect to receive at one site a yearly size BRM or to delay implementation of c. Meet the basic standards for BRM average volume of approximately this extension. in S922 other than those specific to 100,000 or more nonletter-size BRM letter-size pieces or pieces processed as pieces eligible for the current $0.08 per List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 QBRM. piece fee under S922. Postal Service. d. Meet the addressing standards in b. The applicant must be able to For the reasons discussed above, the A010 and bear a delivery address with participate in the experiment through Postal Service hereby adopts the the correct ZIP+4 code and barcodes February 29, 2000. following amendments to the Domestic assigned to the BRM permit holder by c. The applicant must be prepared to Mail Manual, which is incorporated by the USPS. begin operation at a mutually agreed reference in the Code of Federal e. Be marked as specified in the upon time soon after selection. Regulations (see 39 CFR part 111). service agreement under 2.0 and comply [Remove current 2.0 in its entirety. Re- with any current or future USPS designate current 3.0 through 3.4 as 2.0 PART 111Ð[REVISED] marking standard. through 2.4, respectively, to read as follows:] 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR f. Meet the documentation and part 111 continues to read as follows: postage payment standards in 2.0 and 2.0 WEIGHT AVERAGING the service agreement. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C 101, g. Be received at the post office that * * * * * 401, 403, 404, 3001–3011, 3201–3219, 3403– serves the permit holder. [Amend renumbered 2.2 to change the 3406, 3621, 3626, 5001. manager to whom customers submit [Amend 1.3 by removing 1.3d 2. Revise G092 to the Domestic Mail requests to read as follows:] concerning the set-up/qualification fee Manual as follows: and redesignating current 1.3e as 1.3d to 2.2 Application G GENERAL INFORMATION read as follows:] A business reply mail recipient * * * * * 1.3 Fees applying for participation in the extension of the weight averaging G090 Experimental Classifications Each BRM piece eligible under G092 experiment must complete a standard and Rates is charged the corresponding single application provided by the Postal [Revise G092 to remove references to piece rate for First-Class Mail or Priority Service. The applicant submits this reverse manifesting; remove 2.0, which Mail plus the appropriate fee as shown application to the manager of Mail explains reverse manifesting; and in 4.2. To receive pieces under this fee Preparation and Standards. The renumber 3.0 to 5.0 to leave weight schedule, the participating mailer also applicant includes with the application averaging as the experimental must pay fees for these accounts and documentation that contains sample accounting method as follows:] services: BRM pieces and labels representative of G092 Nonletter-Size Business Reply * * * * * the weight range and types of pieces to Mail d. Applicable monthly maintenance be weight-averaged. fee. [Amend renumbered 2.3 to change the 1.0 BASIC ELIGIBILITY [Amend 1.4 to remove the reference to manager to whom customers submit [Amend 1.1 to remove references to reverse manifesting information and requests and to change the effective reverse manifesting to read as follows:] change the manager to whom BRM dates to read as follows:] customer requests are submitted to read 1.1 Description as follows:] 2.3 Authorization The standards in G092 apply to pieces The manager of Mail Preparation and 1.4 Participation in Test claimed by an authorized mailer at the Standards reviews the application and experimental fees for nonletter-size A business reply mail recipient who proceeds as follows: business reply mail (BRM). Draft wants to participate in the experiment a. If the applicant meets the Publication 405, Guide to Business and receive an account for nonletter-size conditions required for the experimental Reply Mail, contains an explanation of BRM under G092 must submit a written weight averaging accounting method weight averaging sampling procedures, request for consideration to the manager and the application is otherwise calculations, and other information. of Mail Preparation and Standards, consistent with the purposes and goals [Revise 1.2 to read as follows:] USPS Headquarters (see G043 for of the experiment, the manager address). The request must include approves the application and prepares a 1.2 Applicability sufficient data to assist the manager in service agreement with the applicant. BRM pieces eligible under G092 must: making an initial determination. The The agreement details the operating a. Be mailed as First-Class Mail or manager may request additional data procedures for weight averaging and the Priority Mail and meet the specific and an on-site visit to the applicant’s responsibilities of the applicant and the standards in 2.0. plant. If the manager determines that the Postal Service. For the purposes of the b. Meet the applicable physical applicant is suitable for participation, experiment, the Postal Service may standards for nonletter-size mail in the applicant follows the application require additional documentation and C050 (i.e., flat-size mail, machinable procedures in 2.0. Consideration is periodic review and inspection of each parcels, irregular parcels, or outside given to product type, geographic experiment participant’s BRM parcels) and Cl00 for First-Class Mail, location of the mailer’s site of operation, processing and accounting operations. except any BRM piece accounted for variability in the weight and daily No agreement may remain in effect under the weight averaging method in volume of BRM, current accounting and beyond the February 29, 2000, outside 2.0 may not exceed 5 pounds. Reply quality control procedures, and duration date established for the mail letters which cannot qualify for availability of postal resources. In extension of the experiment. The

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31124 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations experimental classification and fees take 4.1 Rate Application hearings must be received by EPA on or effect on June 8, 1999; they will expire Each BRM piece received under G092 before August 9, 1999. ADDRESSES: on February 29, 2000, or when the is charged the applicable per piece fee Written objections and permanent classification and fees for in 4.2 and the appropriate single-piece hearing requests, identified by the weight averaged nonletter-size BRM are First-Class Mail rate or Priority Mail docket control number [OPP–300858], implemented, whichever comes first. rate. In addition to the fees in 4.3 and must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk b. If the application does not appear 4.4, the required BRM permit fee and (1900), Environmental Protection to meet the conditions required for the BRM advance deposit account fee must Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW., weight averaging method, the manager be paid every 12 months. Washington, DC 20460. Fees of Mail Preparation and Standards accompanying objections and hearing [Amend 4.2 by removing 4.2b and denies the application and sends requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance revising 4.2 to read as follows:] written notice to the applicant, with the Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA reasons for denial. The applicant has 10 4.2 Per Piece Fee Headquarters Accounting Operations days after receipt of the notice to file a Per piece, in addition to single-piece Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box written appeal to the BRM Experiment rate First-Class Mail or Priority Mail 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy Review Board, U.S. Postal Service postage for nonletter-size experimental of any objections and hearing requests Headquarters. Decisions of the Review (weight averaging): $0.01. filed with the Hearing Clerk identified Board are final. by the docket control number, [OPP– [Amend 4.3 by removing 4.3b and 300858], must also be submitted to: [Remove renumbered 3.4, Renewal, in revising 4.3 to read as follows:] its entirety.] Public Information and Records [Re-designate current 4.0 as 3.0.] 4.3 Monthly Maintenance Fee Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of 3.0 REVOCATION Monthly fee for nonletter-size experimental (weight averaging): Pesticide Programs, Environmental [Amend renumbered 3.1 to change the $600.00. Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., manager who may revoke a participant’s Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring authorization and remove the reference 5.4 [Removed] a copy of objections and hearing to a manifest to read as follows:] [Remove current 5.4. There is no longer requests to Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, a one-time set-up/qualification fee.] 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, 3.1 Reasons VA. A transmittal letter making these A copy of objections and hearing The manager of Mail Preparation and changes in the pages of the Domestic requests filed with the Hearing Clerk Standards may revoke a BRM Mail Manual will be published and will may also be submitted electronically by participant’s authorization for the be transmitted to subscribers sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: opp- experiment if that participant: automatically. As provided by 39 CFR [email protected]. Copies of electronic a. Provides incorrect data on the 111.3, notice of issuance will be objections and hearing requests must be required documentation and appears published in the Federal Register. unable or unwilling to correct the submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the Stanley F. Mires, problems. use of special characters and any form b. Neglects to perform required Chief Counsel, Legislative. of encryption. Copies of objections and quality control procedures. [FR Doc. 99–14636 Filed 6–8–99; 8:45 am] hearing requests will also be accepted c. No longer meets the criteria in this BILLING CODE 7710±12±P on disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 or standard and the service agreement. ASCII file format. All copies of * * * * * electronic objections and hearing [Revise 3.3 to shorten the appeal period ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION requests must be identified by the to 10 days to read as follows:] AGENCY docket control number [OPP–300858]. No Confidential Business Information 3.3 Appeal 40 CFR Part 180 (CBI) should be submitted through e- Revocation proceeds if the participant [OPP±300858; FRL±6080±4] mail. Copies of electronic objections and is unable or unwilling to correct the hearing requests on this rule may be RIN 2070±AB78 discrepancies found. The participant filed online at many Federal Depository may file a written appeal of revocation Aminoethoxyvinylglycine; Temporary Libraries. within 10 days from the date of receipt Pesticide Tolerance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By of the notice, with evidence explaining mail: Denise Greenway, Biopesticides why the authorization should not be AGENCY: Environmental Protection and Pollution Prevention Division revoked. The appeal must be filed with Agency (EPA). (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, the BRM Experiment Review Board, ACTION: Final rule. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 which issues the final agency decision. M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The participant may continue to accept SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a Office location, telephone number, and BRM under the authorization, pending a temporary tolerance for residues of e-mail address: Rm. 902W43, Crystal decision on appeal. The revocation aminoethoxyvinylglycine in or on food Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., decision takes effect 7 days after receipt commodities of the stone fruit crop Arlington, VA, (703) 308–8263, by the participant. group. Abbott Laboratories requested [email protected]. [Re-designate current 5.0 as 4.0:] this tolerance under the Federal Food, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by Federal Register of March 10, 1999 (64 4.0 RATES AND FEES the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. FR 11872) (FRL–6067–5), EPA issued a [Amend 4.1 to change references from The tolerance will expire on April 1, notice pursuant to section 408 of the ‘‘5.2’’ and ‘‘5.3 and 5.4’’ to ‘‘4.2’’ and 2001. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ‘‘4.3 and 4.4,’’ respectively, to read as DATES: This regulation is effective May (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended follows:] 13, 1999. Objections and requests for by the Food Quality Protection Act of

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31125

1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104–170) information. Thus, further notice and EPA has previously evaluated the announcing the filing of a pesticide public procedure are unnecessary. The available toxicity data and considered petition (PP 9G5048) for a temporary Agency finds that this constitutes good its validity, completeness, and tolerance by Abbott Laboratories, 1401 cause to provide for an immediate reliability as well as the relationship of Sheridan Road, North Chicago, IL effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. the results of the studies to human risk. 60064. The notice included a summary 808(2). EPA has also considered available of the petition prepared by Abbott information concerning the variability I. Background and Statutory Findings Laboratories, the registrant. There were of the sensitivities of major identifiable no comments received in response to Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA subgroups of consumers, including the notice of filing. allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the infants and children. The nature of the The petition requested that 40 CFR legal limit for a pesticide chemical toxic effects caused by 180.502 be amended by establishing a residue in or on a food) only if EPA aminoethoxyvinylglycine are discussed temporary tolerance for residues of the determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ in this unit, and presented in the biochemical plant regulator Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ‘‘safe’’ to Federal Register of May 7, 1997 (62 FR aminoethoxyvinylglycine, in or on food mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable 24835) (FRL–5713–5) and in a commodities of the stone fruit crop certainty that no harm will result from subsequent correction to the Final Rule, group. The proposed temporary aggregate exposure to the pesticide which appeared in the Federal Register tolerance level of 0.170 part per million chemical residue, including all of October 29, 1997 (62 FR 56089) (FRL– (ppm) was inadvertently not stated in anticipated dietary exposures and all 5751–5). the notice of filing. This tolerance will other exposures for which there is expire on April 1, 2001. reliable information.’’ This includes B. Toxicological Endpoints Under section 408(g)(1) of the FFDCA, exposure through drinking water and in 1. Acute toxicity. A battery of acute a regulation issued under subsection residential settings, but does not include toxicity studies placed technical (d)(4) shall take effect upon publication occupational exposure. Section aminoethoxyvinylglycine in Toxicity unless the regulation specifies 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special Categories III and IV. otherwise. In this case, the temporary consideration to exposure of infants and 2. Chronic toxicity. Using an tolerance will be effective on May 13, children to the pesticide chemical uncertainty factor of 1,000, EPA has 1999. residue in establishing a tolerance and established the reference dose (RfD) for Section 801 of the Congressional to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable aminoethoxyvinylglycine at 0.002 Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801, certainty that no harm will result to milligrams/kilogram of body weight/day generally requires that, before a rule infants and children from aggregate (mg/kg bwt/day). This RfD is based on may take effect, the agency exposure to the pesticide chemical a no observed adverse effect level promulgating the rule must submit a residue. . . .’’ (NOAEL) of 2.2 mg/kg bwt/day from a rule report to each House of Congress EPA performs a number of analyses to subchronic toxicity study that and to the Comptroller General of the determine the risks from aggregate demonstrated reduced body weight United States. Section 808 allows the exposure to pesticide residues. For gain, food consumption, and food issuing agency to make a rule effective further discussion of the regulatory efficiency; increased severity and sooner than otherwise provided by the requirements of section 408 and a incidence of reversible kidney and liver CRA if the agency makes a good cause complete description of the risk effects; and discoloration of the liver. finding. EPA has determined that there assessment process, see the final rule on C. Exposures and Risks is good cause for making today’s rule Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR final prior to submission to Congress 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL–5754– 1. From food and feed uses. Time- because the timing is such that 7). limited tolerances, to expire April 1, immediate action was necessary to 2001, were previously established at allow farmers to sell and distribute II. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 0.08 ppm (40 CFR 180.502) for the certain stone fruit produce with Determination of Safety residues of aminoethoxyvinylglycine, in residues of this product this year. This Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), or on the food commodities apples and pesticide is only applied once during EPA has reviewed the available pears. This rule establishes a temporary the growing season, and this must be scientific data and other relevant tolerance at 0.170 ppm, to expire April done 7-14 days prior to the beginning of information in support of this action. 1, 2001, for the residues of the harvest period. The harvest season EPA has sufficient data to assess the aminoethoxyvinylglycine in or on food for certain stone fruits is very early in hazards of aminoethoxyvinylglycine commodities of the stone fruit crop the year. Many of the tests sites for these and to make a determination on group. Risk assessments were conducted stone fruits are located in the Southern aggregate exposure, consistent with by EPA to assess dietary exposures from region of the United States. Thus, in section 408(b)(2), for a temporary the additional stone fruit uses of order to provide for the sale and tolerance for residues of aminoethoxyvinylglycine proposed for distribution of certain stone fruit aminoethoxyvinylglycine on food the Experimental Use Permit 275–EUP- produce with residues of this pesticide commodities of the stone fruit crop 82 via PP 9G5048 as follows: in 1999 and to optimize the benefits of group at 0.170 ppm. EPA’s assessment A worst-case scenario (using tolerance the experimental use of the pesticide, of the dietary exposures and risks level residues for both the existing approval of the use was necessary in associated with establishing the apple/pear use and for the experimental May of this year. Furthermore, the tolerance follows. stone fruit use, and 100% crop treated) Agency has provided notice and aggregate risk assessment was prepared. comment for this rulemaking action and A. Toxicological Profile The reported assessment includes no comments were received. The Because the technical active exposure to aminoethoxyvinylglycine Agency has also provided a 60–day ingredient being evaluated in the through food. objection period in this final rule as associated Experimental Use Permit i. Acute exposure and risk. Acute required by section (g)(2) of the FFDCA. (275–EUP–82) is a conditionally dietary risk assessments are performed See Unit V. of this preamble for further registered section 3 pesticide product, for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31126 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations study has indicated the possibility of an While EPA has not yet pinpointed the current section 3 apple and pear uses effect of concern occurring as a result of appropriate bounding figure for plus the experimental stone fruit use) a 1-day or single exposure. In the case exposure from contaminated water, the will utilize 6.9% of the RfD for the U.S. of aminoethoxyvinylglycine, because ranges the Agency is continuing to population. The major identifiable there were no acute toxic endpoints, no examine are all below the level that subgroup with the highest aggregate acute dietary risk assessments were would cause aminoethoxyvinylglycine exposure is discussed below. EPA required or performed. to exceed the RfD if the temporary generally has no concern for exposures ii. Chronic exposure and risk. The tolerance being considered in this below 100% of the RfD because the RfD endpoint and dose level selected for document were granted. The Agency represents the level at or below which assessment of chronic dietary risks are has therefore concluded that the daily aggregate dietary exposure over a based on a 90-day feeding study with an potential exposures associated with lifetime will not pose appreciable risks uncertainty factor of 1,000 and use a aminoethoxyvinylglycine in water, even to human health. Despite the potential RfD of 0.002 mg/kg bwt/day determined at the higher levels the Agency is for exposure to from a NOAEL of 2.2 mg/kg bwt/day. In considering as a conservative upper aminoethoxyvinylglycine in drinking considering the sensitivity of infants bound, would not prevent the Agency water (there is no non-dietary, non- and children the thousand-fold safety from determining that there is a occupational exposure because neither factor includes an additional reasonable certainty of no harm if the the Experimental Use Permit nor the uncertainty factor of 10 for temporary tolerance is granted. section 3 registrations involve incompleteness of data until a 2- 3. From non-dietary exposure. residential use), EPA does not expect generation reproduction study in rats is Aminoethoxyvinylglycine is currently the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% completed. The study was a condition not registered for use on residential non- of the RfD. EPA concludes that there is of registration of the subject active food sites. a reasonable certainty that no harm will ingredient, and interim data have been 4. Cumulative exposure to substances result from aggregate exposure to submitted to the Agency. The results of with common mechanism of toxicity. aminoethoxyvinylglycine residues. the chronic dietary exposure analysis Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, 3. Determination of safety. Based on indicate a reasonable certainty of no when considering whether to establish, these risk assessments, EPA concludes harm to the U.S. population or modify, or revoke a tolerance, the that there is a reasonable certainty that subpopulations, including infants and Agency consider ‘‘available no harm will result from aggregate children, as the result of the pesticidal information’’ concerning the cumulative exposure to residues of uses of aminoethoxyvinylglycine on effects of a particular pesticide’s aminoethoxyvinylglycine. apples, pears, and stone fruits. residues and ‘‘other substances that 2. From drinking water. Studies of the have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’ E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of potential for aminoethoxyvinylglycine EPA does not have, at this time, Safety for Infants and Children to be present in water have not yet been available data to determine whether 1. Safety factor for infants and conducted. As a worst-case scenario, aminoethoxyvinylglycine has a common children— i. In general. In assessing the residue levels in water were calculated mechanism of toxicity with other potential for additional sensitivity of to be 0.0012 ppm by assuming that 10% substances or how to include this infants and children to residues of of the applied treatment could drift into pesticide in a cumulative risk aminoethoxyvinylglycine, EPA nearby drinking water sources. This assessment. Unlike other pesticides for considered data from developmental conservative approach is consistent which EPA has followed a cumulative toxicity studies in the rat. A 2- with a worst-case exposure scenario. risk approach based on a common generation reproduction study in the rat i. Acute exposure and risk. In the case mechanism of toxicity, is pending and was a condition of the of aminoethoxyvinylglycine, because aminoethoxyvinylglycine does not section 3 registration for the subject there were no acute toxic endpoints, no appear to produce a toxic metabolite active ingredient. Interim data on the acute risk assessments based on produced by other substances. For the first generation have been received by drinking water exposure were required purposes of this tolerance action, the Agency. The developmental toxicity or performed. therefore, EPA has not assumed that studies are designed to evaluate adverse ii. Chronic exposure and risk. Because aminoethoxyvinylglycine has a common effects on the developing organism the Agency lacks sufficient water- mechanism of toxicity with other resulting from maternal pesticide related exposure data to complete a substances. For information regarding exposure during gestation. comprehensive drinking water risk EPA’s efforts to determine which Reproduction studies provide assessment for many pesticides, EPA chemicals have a common mechanism information relating to effects from has commenced and nearly completed a of toxicity and to evaluate the exposure to the pesticide on the process to identify a reasonable yet cumulative effects of such chemicals, reproductive capability of mating conservative bounding figure for the see the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide animals and data on systemic toxicity. potential contribution of water-related Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA exposure to the aggregate risk posed by 1997). shall apply an additional ten-fold a pesticide. In developing the bounding margin of safety for infants and children figure, EPA estimated residue levels in D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of in the case of threshold effects to water for a number of specific pesticides Safety for U.S. Population account for pre-and postnatal toxicity using various data sources. The Agency 1. Acute risk. For risk assessment and the completeness of the data base then applied the estimated residue purposes, there were no acute endpoints unless EPA determines that a different levels, in conjunction with appropriate identified for aminoethoxyvinylglycine. margin of safety will be safe for infants toxicological endpoints (RfD’s or acute 2. Chronic risk. Using the Theoretical and children. Margins of safety are dietary NOAEL’s) and assumptions Maximum Residue Contribution incorporated into EPA risk assessments about body weight and consumption, to (TMRC) exposure assumptions either directly through use of a margin calculate, for each pesticide, the described in this unit, EPA has of exposure (MOE) analysis or through increment of aggregate risk contributed concluded that aggregate exposure to using uncertainty (safety) factors in by consumption of contaminated water. aminoethoxyvinylglycine from food (the calculating a dose level that poses no

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31127 appreciable risk to humans. EPA the Experimental Use Permit nor the IV. Conclusion believes that reliable data support using section 3 registered products are for Therefore, the temporary tolerance, to the standard uncertainty factor (usually residential use), EPA does not expect expire April 1, 2001, is established for 100 for combined inter- and intra- the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% residues of aminoethoxyvinylglycine in species variability) and not the of the RfD. EPA concludes that there is or on food commodities of the stone additional ten-fold MOE/uncertainty a reasonable certainty that no harm will fruit crop group at 0.170 ppm. factor when EPA has a complete data result to infants and children from base under existing guidelines and aggregate exposure to V. Objections and Hearing Requests when the severity of the effect in infants aminoethoxyvinylglycine. The new FFDCA section 408(g) or children or the potency or unusual 4. Determination of safety. Based on provides essentially the same process toxic properties of a compound do not these risk assessments, EPA concludes for persons to ‘‘object’’ to a tolerance raise concerns regarding the adequacy of that there is a reasonable certainty that regulation as was provided in the old the standard MOE/safety factor. In this no harm will result to infants and section 408 and in section 409. case, due to the incompleteness of the children from aggregate exposure to However, the period for filing objections data, the Agency used a thousand-fold aminoethoxyvinylglycine residues. is 60 days, rather than 30 days. EPA uncertainty factor in the RfD currently has procedural regulations III. Other Considerations calculations, and previously imposed a which govern the submission of requirement for a 2-generation A. Metabolism In Plants and Animals objections and hearing requests. These reproduction study in rats. The regulations will require some The metabolism of thousand-fold uncertainty factor modification to reflect the new law. aminoethoxyvinylglycine in plants and includes an additional uncertainty However, until those modifications can animals is adequately understood for factor of 10 to protect infants and be made, EPA will continue to use those children. the purposes of these temporary procedural regulations with appropriate ii. Developmental toxicity studies. In tolerances. adjustments to reflect the new law. a developmental toxicity study in rats Any person may, by August 9, 1999, by oral gavage, a NOAEL of 1.77 mg B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology file written objections to any aspect of active ingredient/kg bwt/day was The submitted analytical method, determined for both developmental and this regulation and may also request a High Performance Liquid hearing on those objections. Objections maternal toxicity. Chromatography (HPLC)/Fluorescence iii. Reproductive toxicity study. Two- and hearing requests must be filed with detector, is acceptable; it is also verified the Hearing Clerk, at the address given generation rat reproduction data are and validated. pending, as a condition of the section 3 under ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ section (40 CFR Adequate enforcement methodology registration. Interim data on the first 178.20). A copy of the objections and/ is available to enforce the tolerance generation have been submitted to the or hearing requests filed with the expression. The method may be Agency. Hearing Clerk should be submitted to iv. Conclusion. Due to the incomplete requested from: Calvin Furlow, PRRIB, the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The data set (2-generation rat reproduction IRSD (7502C), Office of Pesticide objections submitted must specify the data, a condition of registration for the Programs, Environmental Protection provisions of the regulation deemed active ingredient are pending), the Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, objectionable and the grounds for the Agency used a thousand-fold DC 20460. Office location and telephone objections (40 CFR 178.25). Each uncertainty factor in the RfD number: Rm 101FF, Crystal Mall #2, objection must be accompanied by the calculations. The thousand-fold 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i). EPA uncertainty factor includes an VA, (703) 305–5229. is authorized to waive any fee additional uncertainty factor of 10 to C. Magnitude of Residues requirement ‘‘when in the judgement of protect infants and children. The data the Administrator such a waiver or adequately support the conditional 1997 The experimental program (275–EUP– refund is equitable and not contrary to registration of the active ingredient and 82) specifies a single application of 50 the purpose of this subsection.’’ For also adequately support the temporary grams of active ingredient be applied 7– additional information regarding tolerance level of 0.170 ppm proposed 14 days prior to anticipated harvest. For tolerance objection fee waivers, contact for the experimental stone fruit use. the purposes of the temporary tolerance, James Tompkins, Registration Division 2. Acute risk. For risk assessment the magnitude of residues was evaluated (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, purposes, there were no acute endpoints in/on peaches at proposed and Environmental Protection Agency, 401 identified for aminoethoxyvinylglycine. exaggerated label rates. After M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. 3. Chronic risk. Using the application of proposed label rates, Office location, telephone number, and conservative exposure assumptions residue levels were below the level of e-mail address: Rm. 239, Crystal Mall described in this unit, EPA has quantitation, if detectable at all, within #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., concluded that aggregate exposure to 5 days of application. Exaggerated rates Arlington, VA, (703) 305–5697, aminoethoxyvinylglycine from food will (up to 4 times the proposed label rates) [email protected]. Requests for utilize 50.9% of the RfD for infants and demonstrated rapid decline of residues waiver of tolerance objection fees children. EPA generally has no concern to below quantifiable levels by 14 days should be sent to James Hollins, for exposures below 100% of the RfD after application. The limit of Information Resources and Services because the RfD represents the level at quantitation (LOQ) is 0.170 ppm and the Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide or below which daily aggregate dietary limit of detection (LOD) is 0.050 ppm. Programs, Environmental Protection exposure over a lifetime will not pose D. International Residue Limits Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, appreciable risks to human health. DC 20460. Despite the potential for exposure to There are no Codex Alimentarius If a hearing is requested, the aminoethoxyvinylglycine in drinking Commission (Codex) Maximum Residue objections must include a statement of water (there is no non-dietary, non- Levels (MRLs) for residues of the factual issues on which a hearing is occupational exposure because neither aminoethoxyvinylglycine. requested, the requestor’s contentions

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31128 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations on such issues, and a summary of any include all comments submitted directly 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA may not evidence relied upon by the requestor in writing. The official record is the issue a regulation that is not required by (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing paper record maintained at the Virginia statute and that creates a mandate upon will be granted if the Administrator address in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the a State, local or tribal government, determines that the material submitted beginning of this document. unless the Federal government provides shows the following: There is genuine the funds necessary to pay the direct VII. Regulatory Assessment and substantial issue of fact; there is a compliance costs incurred by those Requirements reasonable possibility that available governments. If the mandate is evidence identified by the requestor A. Certain Acts and Executive Orders unfunded, EPA must provide to OMB a description of the extent of EPA’s prior would, if established, resolve one or This final rule establishes a tolerance consultation with representatives of more of such issues in favor of the under section 408(d) of the FFDCA in affected State, local, and tribal requestor, taking into account response to a petition submitted to the governments, the nature of their uncontested claims or facts to the Agency. The Office of Management and concerns, copies of any written contrary; and resolution of the factual Budget (OMB) has exempted these types communications from the governments, issues in the manner sought by the of actions from review under Executive and a statement supporting the need to requestor would be adequate to justify Order 12866, entitled Regulatory issue the regulation. In addition, the action requested (40 CFR 178.32). Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to Information submitted in connection October 4, 1993). This final rule does develop an effective process permitting with an objection or hearing request not contain any information collections may be claimed confidential by marking elected officials and other subject to OMB approval under the representatives of State, local, and tribal any part or all of that information as Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 CBI. Information so marked will not be governments ‘‘to provide meaningful U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any and timely input in the development of disclosed except in accordance with enforceable duty or contain any procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. regulatory proposals containing unfunded mandate as described under significant unfunded mandates.’’ A copy of the information that does not Title II of the Unfunded Mandates contain CBI must be submitted for Today’s rule does not create an Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. unfunded Federal mandate on State, inclusion in the public record. 104–4). Nor does it require any prior Information not marked confidential local, or tribal governments. The rule consultation as specficed by Executive does not impose any enforceable duties may be disclosed publicly by EPA Order 12875, entitled Enhancing the without prior notice. on these entities. Accordingly, the Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR requirements of section 1(a) of VI. Public Record and Electronic 58093, October 28, 1993), or special Executive Order 12875 do not apply to Submissions considerations as required by Executive this rule. Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to EPA has established a record for this Address Environmental Justice in C. Executive Order 13084 regulation under docket control number Minority Populations and Low-Income Under Executive Order 13084, [OPP–300858] (including any comments Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, entitled Consultation and Coordination and data submitted electronically). A 1994), or require OMB review in with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR public version of this record, including accordance with Executive Order 13045, 27655, May 19, 1998), EPA may not printed, paper versions of electronic entitled Protection of Children from issue a regulation that is not required by comments, which does not include any Environmental Health Risks and Safety statute, that significantly or uniquely information claimed as CBI, is available Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). affects the communities of Indian tribal for inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., In addition, since tolerances and governments, and that imposes Monday through Friday, excluding legal exemptions that are established on the substantial direct compliance costs on holidays. The public record is located in basis of a petition under FFDCA section those communities, unless the Federal Room 119 of the Public Information and 408(d), such as the temporary tolerance government provides the funds Records Integrity Branch, Information in this final rule, do not require the necessary to pay the direct compliance Resources and Services Division issuance of a proposed rule, the costs incurred by the tribal (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, requirements of the Regulatory governments. If the mandate is Environmental Protection Agency, Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et unfunded, EPA must provide OMB, in Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis seq.) do not apply. Nevertheless, the a separately identified section of the Hwy., Arlington, VA. Agency previously assessed whether preamble to the rule, a description of Objections and hearing requests may establishing tolerances, exemptions the extent of EPA’s prior consultation be sent by e-mail directly to EPA at: from tolerances, raising tolerance levels with representatives of affected tribal [email protected] or expanding exemptions might governments, a summary of the nature adversely impact small entities and of their concerns, and a statement E-mailed objections and hearing concluded, as a generic matter, that supporting the need to issue the requests must be submitted as an ASCII there is no adverse economic impact. regulation. In addition, Executive Order file avoiding the use of special The factual basis for the Agency’s 13084 requires EPA to develop an characters and any form of encryption. generic certification for tolerance effective process permitting elected The official record for this regulation, actions published on May 4, 1981 (46 officials and other representatives of as well as the public version, as FR 24950), and was provided to the Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide described in this unit will be kept in Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small meaningful and timely input in the paper form. Accordingly, EPA will Business Administration. development of regulatory policies on transfer any copies of objections and matters that significantly or uniquely hearing requests received electronically B. Executive Order 12875 affect their communities.’’ into printed, paper form as they are Under Executive Order 12875, Today’s rule does not significantly or received and will place the paper copies entitled Enhancing the uniquely affect the communities of in the official record which will also Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR Indian tribal governments. This action

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31129 does not involve or impose any Parts Expiration/ A copy of objections and hearing requirements that affect Indian tribes. Commodity per mil- Revocation requests filed with the Hearing Clerk Accordingly, the requirements of lion Date may be submitted electronically by section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: opp- do not apply to this rule. ***** [email protected]. Copies of objections and hearing requests must be submitted VIII. Submission to Congress and the Stone fruit crop group ...... 0.170 04/01/01 as an ASCII file avoiding the use of Comptroller General special characters and any form of The Congressional Review Act, 5 * * * * * encryption. Copies of objections and U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small hearing requests will also be accepted Business Regulatory Enforcement [FR Doc. 99–14760 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] on disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 file Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides BILLING CODE 6560±50±F format or ASCII file format. All copies that before a rule may take effect, the of objections and hearing requests in agency promulgating the rule must electronic form must be identified by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION submit a rule report, which includes a the docket control number [OPP– AGENCY copy of the rule, to each House of the 300873]. No Confidential Business Congress and to the Comptroller General 40 CFR Part 180 Information (CBI) should be submitted of the United States. Section 808 allows through e-mail. Electronic copies of the issuing agency to make a rule [OPP±300873; FRL±6085±4] objections and hearing requests on this effective sooner than otherwise rule may be filed online at many Federal provided by the CRA if the agency RIN 2070±AB78 Depository Libraries. makes a good cause finding that notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By and public procedure is impracticable, Kresoxim-methyl; Pesticide Tolerances mail: Mary L. Waller, Product Manager unnecessary or contrary to the public 21, Registration Division (7505C), Office AGENCY: Environmental Protection of Pesticide Programs, Environmental interest. This determination must be Agency (EPA). supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., ACTION: Final rule. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail address: made such a good cause finding, SUMMARY: This regulation establishes Rm. 249, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson including the reasons therefor, and tolerances for combined residues of Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, (703) 308– established an effective date of May 13, kresoxim-methyl and its metabolites in 1999. EPA will submit a report 9354, [email protected]. or on pome fruit, grapes, pecans, apple SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: containing this rule and other required In the pomace, raisins, and meat byproducts of Federal Register of March 10, 1999 (64 information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. cattle, sheep and goats. BASF FR 11874) (FRL–6063–3), EPA issued a House of Representatives, and the Corporation requested these tolerances notice pursuant to section 408 of the Comptroller General of the United under the Federal Food, Drug, and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act States prior to publication of the rule in Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a as amended by the Federal Register. This action is not Quality Protection Act of 1996. the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. DATES: This regulation is effective June (FQPA) (Public Law 104–170) 804(2). 10, 1999. Objections and requests for announcing the filing of a pesticide List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 hearings must be received by EPA on or petition (PP) 7F4880 for tolerances by before August 9, 1999. BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Environmental protection, ADDRESSES: Written objections and Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC Administrative practice and procedure, hearing requests, identified by the 27709–3528. This notice included a Agricultural commodities, Pesticides docket control number, [OPP–300873], summary of the petition prepared by and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk BASF Corporation, the registrant. There requirements. (1900), Environmental Protection were no comments received in response Dated: May 13, 1999. Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW., to the notice of filing. Washington, DC 20460. Fees Janet L. Andersen, The petition requested that 40 CFR accompanying objections and hearing part 180 be amended by establishing Director, Biopesticides and Pollution requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance tolerances for the combined residues of Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA the fungicide kresoxim-methyl, (BAS Programs. Headquarters Accounting Operations 490F) or (methyl (E)-2-[2-(2- Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box methylphenoxy)-methyl]phenyl-2- amended as follows: 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy (methoxyimido)acetate) and its of any objections and hearing requests metabolites as follows: (BF 490–1) or PART 180±[AMENDED] filed with the Hearing Clerk identified (E)-2-[2-(2-methylphenoxy)methyl]- 1. The authority citation for part 180 by the docket control number, [OPP– phenyl-2-(methoxyimido)acetic acid; continues to read as follows: 300873], must also be submitted to: (BF 490–2) or (E)-2-[2-(2- Public Information and Records hydroxymethylphenoxy)methyl]- Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a, and 371. Integrity Branch, Information Resources phenyl-2-(methoxyimido)acetic acid and Services Division (7502C), Office of (free and glucose conjugated); and (BF 2. In § 180.502, in paragraph (a), by Pesticide Programs, Environmental 490–9) or (E)-2-[2-(4-hydroxy-2- alphabetically adding the following Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., methylphenoxy)-methyl]phenyl-2- commodity to the table: Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring (methoxyimido)acetic acid (free and § 180.502 Aminoethoxyvinylglycine; a copy of objections and hearing glucose conjugated) in or on pome fruit tolerances for residues. requests to Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, at 0.5 parts per million (ppm), grapes at 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, 1.0 ppm, pecans, at 0.15 ppm, apple (a) * * * VA. pomace at 1.0 ppm, and raisins at 1.5

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31130 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations ppm. The petition also requested that 40 A. Toxicological Profile treatment-related gross abnormalities CFR part 180 be amended by EPA has evaluated the available were observed at maternal necropsy. establishing tolerances in or on meat toxicity data and considered its validity, The maternal NOAEL was ´ 1,000 mg/ byproducts of cattle, sheep and goats at completeness, and reliability as well as kg/day and the maternal LOAEL was not 0.01 ppm for the residues of the the relationship of the results of the determined. There were no treatment- metabolite (BF 490–1) or ((E)-2-[2-(2- studies to human risk. EPA has also related external, visceral, or skeletal methylphenoxy)methyl]-phenyl-2- considered available information malformations/variations observed in (methoxyimido)acetic acid) resulting concerning the variability of the any of the fetuses. The developmental ´ from the use of the fungicide kresoxim- sensitivities of major identifiable NOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day and the methyl. subgroups of consumers, including developmental LOAEL was not determined. infants and children. The nature of the I. Background and Statutory Findings ii. In a developmental toxicity study, toxic effects caused by kresoxim-methyl rabbits were gavaged with kresoxim- Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA are discussed in this unit. methyl at dose levels of 0, 100, 400 or 1. Acute toxicity. A battery of acute allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the 1,000 mg/kg/day on gestation days 7–19. toxicity studies using technical legal limit for a pesticide chemical No clinical signs of toxicity were kresoxim-methyl resulted in the residue in or on a food) only if EPA observed in any treated animals during determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ following: an acute rat oral LD50 > 5,000 the study and no treatment-related gross Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ‘‘safe’’ to milligrams/kilogram(mg/kg) (toxicity abnormalities were observed at maternal mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable category IV); an acute rat dermal LD50 > necropsy. The maternal NOAEL was ´ certainty that no harm will result from 2,000 mg/kg (toxicity category III); an 1,000 mg/kg/day and the maternal aggregate exposure to the pesticide acute rat inhalation LC50 > 5.6 LOAEL was not determined. There were milligrams/liter(mg/L) (toxicity category chemical residue, including all no differences between treated and IV); mild eye irritation in a primary eye anticipated dietary exposures and all control groups for number of corpora irritation study using rabbits (toxicity other exposures for which there is lutea/doe, implantation sites/doe, pre- category III); no irritation in a primary reliable information.’’ This includes and post-implantation loss, resorptions/ skin irritation study using rabbits exposure through drinking water and in doe, fetuses/litter, fetal sex ratios, gravid (category IV); and no sensitization uterine or fetal body weights, or number residential settings, but does not include demonstrated in a dermal sensitization occupational exposure. Section of dead fetuses. The overall incidence study using guinea pigs. rates for litters containing fetuses with 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special 2. Subchronic toxicity. i. In a 90–day consideration to exposure of infants and major malformations in the 0, 100, 400, oral toxicity study, rats were fed and 1,000 mg/kg/day groups were 7/13, children to the pesticide chemical kresoxim-methyl at dose levels of 0, residue in establishing a tolerance and 7/14, 11/15, and 10/14, respectively. 500, 2,000, 8,000, and 16,000 parts per There was no statistically significant to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable million (ppm) (0, 36, 146, 577, and certainty that no harm will result to difference between control and treated 1,170 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 43, groups of fetuses regarding the number infants and children from aggregate 172, 672, and 1,374 mg/kg/day for of external, soft-tissue, or skeletal exposure to the pesticide chemical females). The Lowest Observed Adverse malformations/variations with the residue....’’ Effect Level (LOAEL) for male rats was exception of fetal incidence of fused EPA performs a number of analyses to 8,000 ppm based on elevated serum sternebrae in the low dose group determine the risks from aggregate GGT. A LOAEL was not established for compared to the controls (p < 0.05). exposure to pesticide residues. For females. The No Observed Adverse Since a dose-response relationship was further discussion of the regulatory Effect Level (NOAEL) for males was not apparent, toxicological significance requirements of section 408 and a 2,000 ppm and for females was 16,000 could not be established. The complete description of the risk ppm. developmental NOAEL was ´ 1,000 mg/ assessment process, see the final rule on ii. In a 90–day oral toxicity study, kg/day and the developmental toxicity Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR mice were fed kresoxim-methyl at levels LOAEL was not identified. 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL–5754– of 0, 250, 1,000, 4,000, and 8,000 ppm 4. Reproductive Toxicity. In a 2– 7). (0, 57, 230, 909, and 1,937 mg/kg/day generation reproduction study, 25 rats/ for males and 0, 80, 326, 1,326 and sex/dose were fed kresoxim-methyl at II. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 2,583 mg/kg/day for females). A LOAEL dose levels of 0, 50, 1,000, 4,000, or Determination of Safety was not determined for either sex. The 16,000 ppm for two generations. Two NOAEL for males and females was 8,000 litters were produced in the first Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), ppm. generation (F1a and F1b) and one litter in EPA has reviewed the available iii. In a 21–day dermal toxicity study, the second generation (F2). Premating scientific data and other relevant 5 male and 5 female rats were treated doses for the F0 males were 5.1, 102.6, information in support of this action. with kresoxim-methyl by dermal 411.0, and 1,623.1 mg/kg, respectively EPA has sufficient data to assess the occlusion at doses of 0 and 1,000 mg/ and for F0 females were 5.6, 108.7, 437.2 hazards of kresoxim-methyl and to make kg/day, 6 hours/day for 21 days. The and 1,741.1 mg/kg, respectively. a determination on aggregate exposure, NOAEL for males and females was 1,000 Premating doses for the F1 males were consistent with section 408(b)(2), for mg/kg/day. A LOAEL was not 4.4, 88.3, 362.7, and 1,481.6 mg/kg and tolerances for combined residues of determined. for the F1 females were 5.0, 100.8, 416.6, kresoxim-methyl and its metabolites in 3. Developmental toxicity. i. In a and 1,652.6 mg/kg, respectively. or on pome fruit, grapes, pecans, apple developmental toxicity study, rats were Animals were given test or control diet pomace, raisins, and meat byproducts of gavaged with kresoxim-methyl at dose for at least 10 weeks then mated within cattle, sheep and goats. EPA’s levels of 0, 100, 400, or 1,000 mg/kg/day the same dose group. F1 animals were assessment of the dietary exposures and on gestation days 6–15. No clinical signs chosen from the F1a litters and weaned risks associated with establishing the of toxicity were observed in any treated on the same diet as their parents. At tolerances follows. animals during the study and no least 22 litters/group were produced in

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31131 each generation. All animals were ppm (0, 9, 36, 375, and 770 mg/kg/day considered adequate and the high dose exposed to test material either in the for males and 0, 12, 47, 497, and 1,046 rate was above the limit dose of 1,000 diet or during lactation until sacrifice. mg/kg/day for females). Clinical mg/kg/day for both sexes. There were no dose- or treatment- observations and mortality were not 8. Metabolism. In a metabolism study, related clinical signs of toxicity in the affected by treatment in either sex of rats were gavaged with kresoxim-methyl parental animals of either sex or rats. Body weights and body weight at dose levels of 50 or 500 mg/kg or 15– generation. No dose- or treatment- gains of males and females were day repeated doses of 50 mg/kg, or as a related gross or histological decreased relative to controls in the single intravenous dose of 5 mg/kg/day. abnormalities were observed at respective 8,000 and 16,000 ppm groups Radiolabeled test compound was necropsy in either parent or first throughout most or all of the study. The included in one 500 mg/kg dose group generation animals of either sex. The incidence of gross liver masses to facilitate metabolite identification. LOAEL for systemic/postnatal increased in both sexes (p ≤ 0.05 in Biliary metabolites were assessed in rats developmental toxicity was 4,000 ppm 8,000 ppm males; p ≤ 0.01 in 8,000 and with cannulated bile ducts given an oral based on reduced body weights and 16,000 ppm females). This was dose of 50 or 500 mg/kg/day. body weight gains of the parent and first correlated in males with dose-related Orally administered test compound generation parental animals and delayed increases in the incidence of was widely distributed and quickly growth and maturation of the first and microscopic lesions including eliminated. Results indicated there was second generation pups. The NOAEL for eosinophilic cell foci, mixed cell foci, no bioaccumulation. In both sexes, the systemic toxicity was 1,000 ppm. No cellular hypertrophy (dose related; p ≤ major routes of excretion were feces and treatment-related effects were observed 0.05 or 0.01 at 16,000 ppm), and biliary the urine. No radioactivity was detected in the reproductive performances of cysts (p ≤ 0.05 at 8,000 ppm) and in in exhaled air. A total of 32 different either generation. There were no dose- females with altered cell foci, mixed cell metabolites were identified in the urine, or treatment-related clinical signs of foci, bile duct proliferation, and feces, bile, plasma, liver, and kidneys of toxicity in the offspring of either cholangiofibrosis (p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, or rats. There were some sex, dose, route, generation. The NOAEL for 0.001 at 16,000 ppm). The liver (with and label-dependent differences in the reproductive toxicity was ´ 16,000 ppm bile ducts) is therefore implicated as a metabolite profiles. 9. Neurotoxicity. i. In an acute oral and the LOAEL for reproductive toxicity target organ in both sexes of rats. The neurotoxicity, 10 rats/sex/dose were was not identified. increased incidence in females of gross gavaged with kresoxim-methyl at dose 5. Mutagenicity. No mutagenicity was ovarian masses (p ≤ 0.05 at 16,000 ppm), levels of 0, 500, 1,00, or 2,000 mg/kg. No noted in the following assays: reverse microscopic ovarian cysts (p ≤ 0.001 at signs of neurotoxicity were observed at gene mutation, S. typhimurium, E. coli; 800 and 16,000 ppm), uterine/cervical any dose level and no systemic toxicity forward gene mutation - HGPRT locus; dilation (p ≤ 0.01 at 800 and 16,000 chromosome aberrations, human was observed at any dose level. A ppm) and brain hemorrhage (p ≤ 0.05 at lymphocyte cultures; mouse bone LOAEL was not established. The 16,000 ppm) and in males of enlarged marrow micronucleus; unscheduled NOAEL for acute neurotoxicity is 2,000 testes (p ≤ 0.05 at 800 and 8,000 ppm) DNA synthesis, rat hepatocyte cultures; mg/kg. did not appear to be treatment-related. and unscheduled DNA synthesis, rat ii. In a subchronic oral neurotoxicity The LOAEL for both male and female hepatocytes (in vivo/in vitro procedure). study, 10 rats/sex/dose were fed 6. Chronic Toxicity. i. In a 2–year rats was 8,000 ppm. The LOAEL for kresoxim-methyl at dose levels of 0, chronic feeding study, 20 rats/sex/dose males was based on the minor decrease 1,000, 4,000 or 16,000 ppm (0, 78, 317, were fed kresoxim-methyl at dose levels in body weight and body weight gain 1,267 mg/kg/day) for 3 months. All of 0, 200, 800, 8,000, or 16,000 ppm (0, and the increase in gross and animals survived to scheduled 9, 36, 370 or 746 mg/kg/day for males microscopic liver (and biliary) lesions. termination. There were statistically and 0, 12, 48, 503, or 985 mg/kg/day for The LOAEL in females was based on the significant decreases in body weight, females). The LOAEL for male and lowered body weights and weight gains body weight gain, and food female rats was 8,000 ppm based in and on the increased incidence of liver consumption on some days only at the males on the increase in SGGT levels, masses. The NOAEL for both sexes was high-dose level for males and females. liver weight and histopathological 800 ppm. Liver carcinoma was the No effects were observed at the other changes, and in females on roughly 10% primary neoplastic finding in both sexes dose levels. There were no observable lowered body weights and weight gains of rats, consistent with the signs of a neurotoxic effect at any dose throughout most of the study. The histopathological findings. level. Functional observation battery NOAEL for both sexes was 800 ppm. ii. In an 18–month feeding study, and motor activity remained comparable ii. In a 1–year chronic feeding study, mice were fed kresoxim-methyl at dose to controls throughout the study an no 5 dogs/sex/dose were fed kresoxim- levels of 0, 400, 2,000, and 8,000 ppm neuropathological endpoints were methyl at levels of 0, 1,000, 5,000 or (0, 60, 304, and 1,305 mg/kg/day for observed during the histological 25,000 ppm (0, 27, 138, or 714 mg/kg/ males and 0, 81, 400, and 1,662 mg/kg/ examinations. The LOAEL for systemic day for males and 0, 30, 146, or 761 mg/ day) for 18 months. An additional 10 toxicity is 16,000 ppm for males and kg/day for females). The LOAEL for animals were treated for 12 months in females based on decreases in body males was 25,000 ppm based on a satellite study. The LOAEL was 2,000 weight, body weight gain, and food decreased mean body weight and body ppm (400 mg/kg/day) for females, based consumption. The NOAEL for systemic weight gain and decreased food on decreased weight gain and 8,000 toxicity is 4,000 ppm for male and efficiency. A LOAEL was not identified ppm (1,350 mg/kg/day for males, based female rats, and is ´ 16,000 ppm for for females. The NOAEL for males was on decreased weight gain and liver neurotoxicity. 5,000 ppm, and for females was 25,000 amyloidosis. The NOAEL was 400 ppm ppm. (81 mg/kg/day) for females and 2,000 B. Toxicological Endpoints 7. Carcinogenicity. i. In a 2–year ppm (304 mg/kg/day) for males. At the 1. Acute toxicity. An acute endpoint oncogenicity feeding study, 50 rats/sex/ doses tested, there was not a treatment was not selected because no adverse dose were fed kresoxim-methyl at dose related increase in tumor incidence effects resulting from a single exposure levels of 0, 200, 800, 8,000, or 16,000 when compared to controls. Dosing was were identified in an acute

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31132 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations neurotoxicity study in rats, and anticipated. Following the initial data i. Acute exposure and risk. No acute developmental toxicity studies in the rat submission, EPA is authorized to risk is expected from exposure to and rabbit. require similar data on a time frame it kresoxim-methyl. 2. Short- and intermediate-term deems appropriate. As required by ii. Chronic exposure and risk. The toxicity. A short- and intermediate -term section 408(b)(2)(E), EPA will issue a Agency used the Screening endpoint was not selected because no data call-in for information relating to Concentration in Ground Water (SCI- dermal or systemic toxicity was seen in anticipated residues to be submitted no GROW) screening model to determine a 21–day dermal toxicity study in rats. later than 5 years from the date of the estimated environmental 3. Chronic toxicity. EPA has issuance of this tolerance. concentration (EEC) in ground water established the Reference Dose (RfD) for and the Pesticide Root Zone model- i. Acute exposure and risk. Acute kresoxim-methyl at 0.36 mg/kg/day. Exposure Analysis Modeling (PRZM- dietary risk assessments are performed This RfD is based on a 2–year EXAMS) to determine the EEC in for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological oncogenicity feeding study in rats. The surface water. Drinking water levels of study has indicated the possibility of an FQPA safety factor was reduced to 1X comparison (DWLOC) which represent effect of concern occurring as a result of for chronic dietary exposure because the upper limit of a chemical’s a 1–day or single exposure. No there was no increase in susceptibility concentration in drinking water that toxicological endpoint attributable to a identified in developmental or will result in an acceptable aggregate single (acute) dietary exposure was reproductive toxicity studies. Therefore, exposure were calculated for identified. the chronic PAD (chronic population comparison to the EEC’s from the SCI- adjusted dose or cPAD) and the chronic ii. Chronic exposure and risk. The GROW and PRZM-EXAMS model RfD are identical. chronic dietary exposure analysis used values. The combined ground water EEC 4. Chronic dermal toxicity. EPA the cPAD of 0.36 mg/kg/day which for kresoxim-methyl and BF 490–1 is 4.1 selected the RfD of 0.36 mg/kg/day to applies to all population subgroups. parts per billion (ppb) (groundwater assess long-term dermal exposure. This Anticipated residue values were used screening for kresoxim-methyl is RfD (identified above) is from an oral and EPA assumed that 100% of all crops negligible and groundwater screening study and, based on available data, having kresoxim-methyl tolerances were concentration for BF 490–1 is 4.1 ppb). dermal absorption is expected to be treated. EPA generally has no concern The combined surface water EEC for equivalent to oral absorption for exposures below 100% of the cPAD kresoxim-methyl and BF 490–1 is 5.0 (approximately 63–70%). Therefore a because the cPAD represents the level at ppb. The combined groundwater EEC of dermal absorption factor was not or below which daily aggregate dietary 4.1 ppb and the combined surface water required for risk calculations. This exposure over a lifetime will not pose EEC of 5.0 ppb are substantially lower endpoint was selected for occupational appreciable risks to human health. The than the Agency’s chronic (non-cancer) exposure only as there are no residential Agency estimated that chronic dietary DWLOC of 12,593 ppb for the U.S. uses of kresoxim-methyl. exposure to kresoxim-methyl will population and the chronic (non-cancer) 5. Carcinogenicity. Kresoxim-methyl utilize 0.1% of the cPAD for the U.S. DWLOC of 3,591 ppb for the most has been classified as a ‘‘likely human population and 0.2% of the cPAD for highly exposed population subgroup, carcinogen’’. The Q1* for kresoxim- the most highly exposed population non-nursing infants. Therefore, the -3 methyl is 2.90 × 10 . The Q1* is based subgroup, non-nursing infants. The Agency concludes with reasonable on the female rat combined (adenomas chronic dietary risk does not exceed the certainty that residues of kresoxim- and/or carcinomas) liver tumor rates Agency’s level of concern. methyl and BF 490–1 do not contribute from a 2–year oncogenicity feeding iii. Dietary cancer risk. Kresoxim- significantly to the aggregate chronic study. methyl is classified as a ‘‘likely human (non-cancer) human health risk. The Agency calculated a chronic C. Exposures and Risks carcinogen’’ with a Q* of 2.90 x 10-3. (cancer) DWLOC of 4.9 ppb for the U.S. The upper bound lifetime cancer risk 1. From food and feed uses. There are population. The combined groundwater estimated for U.S. population is 5.7 × no food or feed uses currently registered EEC of 4.1 ppb is lower than the chronic 10-7 and is below the Agency’s level of for kresoxim-methyl. In today’s action, (cancer) DWLOC of 4.9 ppb. The PRZM- concern (cancer risks greater than 1 × tolerances are being established at 40 EXAMS surface water EEC of 5.0 ppb 10-6). Therefore, the dietary food cancer CFR 180.554 for combined residues of produces a cancer risk estimate in the risk to kresoxim-methyl is below the the fungicide kresoxim and its range of 10E6. However, EPA believes Agency’s level of concern. metabolites in or on pome fruit at 0.5 this overstates the cancer risk because ppm, grapes at 1.0 ppm, pecans at 0.15 2. From drinking water. Kresoxim- the chronic dietary exposure estimates ppm, apple pomace at 1.0 ppm, raisins methyl is relatively short lived and for kresoxim-methyl assumed 100% at 1.5 ppm, and meat byproducts of therefore, unlikely to leach to ground crop treated. The Agency calculated the cattle, sheep and goats at 0.01 ppm. Risk water or move offsite to surface water in expected market share for kresoxim- assessments were conducted by EPA to significant concentrations. However, the methyl and assumed that kresoxim- assess dietary exposures from kresoxim major acid degradate/metabolite (BF methyl would capture 100% of the methyl as follows: 490–1) has physical/chemical market share from the alternative Section 408(b)(2)(E) authorizes EPA to characteristics in common with product with the highest use. The use available data and information on pesticides that are known to leach to maximum kresoxim-methyl percent the anticipated residue levels of groundwater or to move offsite to crop treatment estimates for apples, pesticide residues in food and the actual surface water. Possible contamination of pears, pecans, and grapes are 70%, 55%, levels of pesticide chemicals that have groundwater and surface water by BF 55%, and 30%, respectively. The been measured in food. If EPA relies on 490–1 may occur when applied to fields Agency considers these estimates to be such information, EPA must require that with one or more of the following conservative with actual use rates of data be provided 5 years after the characteristics: alkaline soils, low kresoxim-methyl likely to be tolerance is established, modified, or organic matter, high sand, shallow considerably lower. The Agency left in effect, demonstrating that the groundwater table, and nearby bodies of believes that actual dietary exposure to levels in food are not above the levels water. kresoxim-methyl and BF 490–1 will

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31133 decrease at least by a factor of > 2% when considering whether to establish, exposure to kresoxim-methyl and its resulting in a combined surface water modify, or revoke a tolerance, the metabolites. DWLOC for kresoxim-methyl and BF Agency consider ‘‘available 4. Determination of safety. Based on 490–1 of ≥ 5.0 ppb. information’’ concerning the cumulative these risk assessments, EPA concludes Section 408(b)(2)(F) states that the effects of a particular pesticide’s that there is a reasonable certainty that Agency may use data on the actual residues and ‘‘other substances that no harm will result from aggregate percent of food treated (PCT) for have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’ exposure to residues of kresoxim-methyl assessing chronic dietary risk only if the EPA does not have, at this time, and its metabolites. Agency can make the following available data to determine whether E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of findings: That the data used are reliable kresoxim-methyl has a common Safety for Infants and Children and provide a valid basis to show what mechanism of toxicity with other percentage of the food derived from substances or how to include this 1. Safety factor for infants and such crop is likely to contain such pesticide in a cumulative risk children—i. In general. In assessing the pesticide residue; that the exposure assessment. Unlike other pesticides for potential for additional sensitivity of estimate does not underestimate which EPA has followed a cumulative infants and children to residues of exposure for any significant risk approach based on a common kresoxim-methyl and its metabolites, subpopulation group; and if data are mechanism of toxicity, kresoxim-methyl EPA considered data from available on pesticide use and food does not appear to produce a toxic developmental toxicity studies in the rat consumption in a particular area, the metabolite produced by other and rabbit and a 2–generation exposure estimate does not understate substances. For the purposes of this reproduction study in the rat. The exposure for the population in such tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not developmental toxicity studies are area. In addition, the Agency must assumed that kresoxim-methy has a designed to evaluate adverse effects on provide for periodic evaluation of any common mechanism of toxicity with the developing organism resulting from estimates used. To provide for the other substances. For information maternal pesticide exposure gestation. periodic evaluation of the estimate of regarding EPA’s efforts to determine Reproduction studies provide percent of crop treated as required by which chemicals have a common information relating to effects from the section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate exposure to the pesticide on the require registrants to submit data on the cumulative effects of such reproductive capability of mating PCT. chemicals, see the final rule for animals and data on systemic toxicity. The Agency believes that the three Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA conditions, discussed in section 62961, November 26, 1997)(FRL–5754– shall apply an additional tenfold margin 408(b)(2)(F) in this unit concerning the 7). of safety for infants and children in the Agency’s responsibilities in assessing case of threshold effects to account for chronic dietary risk findings, have been D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of pre- and post-natal toxicity and the met. The PCT estimates are derived Safety for U.S. Population completeness of the database unless from Federal and private market survey 1. Acute risk. No acute risk are EPA determines that a different margin data, which are reliable and have a valid expected because no acute dietary of safety will be safe for infants and basis. Typically, a range of estimates are endpoint was determined. children. Margins of safety are supplied and the upper end of this 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure incorporated into EPA risk assessments range is assumed for the exposure assumptions described in this unit, EPA either directly through use of a margin assessment. By using this upper end has concluded that aggregate exposure of exposure (MOE) analysis or through estimate of the PCT, the Agency is to kresoxim-methyl from food will using uncertainty (safety) factors in reasonably certain that the percentage of utilize 0.1% of the cPAD for the U.S. calculating a dose level that poses no the food treated is not likely to be population. The major identifiable appreciable risk to humans. EPA underestimated. The regional subgroup with the highest aggregate believes that reliable data support using consumption information and exposure is discussed below. EPA the standard uncertainty factor (usually consumption information for significant generally has no concern for exposures 100 for combined inter- and intra- subpopulations is taken into account below 100% of the cPAD because the species variability) and not the through EPA’s computer-based model cPAD represents the level at or below additional tenfold MOE/uncertainty for evaluating the exposure of which daily aggregate dietary exposure factor when EPA has a complete data significant subpopulations including over a lifetime will not pose appreciable base under existing guidelines and several regional groups. Use of this risks to human health. Despite the when the severity of the effect in infants consumption information in EPA’s risk potential for exposure to kresoxim- or children or the potency or unusual assessment process ensures that EPA’s methyl in drinking water, EPA does not toxic properties of a compound do not exposure estimate does not understate expect the aggregate exposure to exceed raise concerns regarding the adequacy of exposure for any significant 100% of the cPAD. the standard MOE/safety factor. subpopulation group and allows the 3. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. ii. Pre- and post-natal sensitivity. In Agency to be reasonably certain that no population. The upper bound lifetime the prenatal developmental toxicity regional population is exposed to cancer risk estimated for U.S. studies in rat and rabbit fetuses, no residue levels higher than those population is in the range of 10E6. The evidence of developmental toxicity in estimated by the Agency. Agency’s general level of concern for fetuses was seen at the limit dose. In the 3. From non-dietary exposure. cancer risks is for risks greater than risks 2–generation reproduction study in rats, Kresoxim-methyl has no proposed or in the range of 1 × 10-6. Use of percent offspring effects occurred only at registered residential uses. Therefore, no crop treated estimates will significantly parentally toxic dose levels. non-occupational, non-dietary exposure lower the combined surface water iii. Conclusion. There is a complete and risk are expected. estimates and thus significantly lower toxicity database for kresoxim-methyl 4. Cumulative exposure to substances the risk estimate. Therefore, the Agency and exposure data is complete or is with common mechanism of toxicity. concludes with reasonable certainty that estimated based on data that reasonably Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, no harm will result from aggregate accounts for potential exposures. Taking

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:05 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31134 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations into account the lack of any special pre- Pesticide Programs, Environmental be made, EPA will continue to use those or post-natal susceptibility and the Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., procedural regulations with appropriate completeness of the toxicity and Washington, DC 20460. Office location adjustments to reflect the new law. exposure data base, EPA concluded that and telephone number: Rm 101FF, Any person may, by August 9, 1999, an additional tenfold safety factor was Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis file written objections to any aspect of not needed to protect the safety of Hwy., Arlington, VA, (703) 305–5229. this regulation and may also request a infants and children. hearing on those objections. Objections C. Magnitude of Residues 2. Acute risk. No acute risk is and hearing requests must be filed with expected because no acute dietary The Agency has concluded that the Hearing Clerk, at the address given endpoint was identified. residue data submitted in support of the under the ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ section (40 3. Chronic risk. Using the exposure tolerances for kresoxim-methyl as CFR 178.20). A copy of the objections assumptions described in this unit, EPA follows: 0.5 ppm for pome fruit, 1.0 and/or hearing requests filed with the has concluded that aggregate exposure ppm for grapes, 0.15 ppm for pecans, Hearing Clerk should be submitted to to kresoxim-methyl from food will 1.0 for apple pomace, 1.5 ppm for the OPP docket for this regulation. The utilize 0.2% of the cPAD for the most raisins, and 0.01 ppm for meat objections submitted must specify the highly exposed population subgroup, byproducts of cattle, sheep and goats are provisions of the regulation deemed non-nursing infants. EPA generally has adequate. objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). Each no concern for exposures below 100% D. International Residue Limits of the cPAD because the cPAD objection must be accompanied by the represents the level at or below which There are no CODEX, Canadian, or fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i). EPA daily aggregate dietary exposure over a Mexican maximum residue limits for is authorized to waive any fee lifetime will not pose appreciable risks kresoxim-methyl. requirement ‘‘when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or to human health. Despite the potential E. Rotational Crop Restrictions for dietary exposure to kresoxim-methyl refund is equitable and not contrary to in drinking water and from non-dietary, Rotational crop restrictions are not the purpose of this subsection.’’ For non-occupational exposure, EPA does required as rotation to other crops is not additional information regarding not expect the aggregate exposure to anticipated. tolerance objection fee waivers, contact exceed 100% of the cPAD. IV. Conclusion James Tompkins, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 4. Determination of safety. Based on Therefore, tolerances are established these risk assessments, EPA concludes Environmental Protection Agency, 401 for combined residues of kresoxim- M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. that there is a reasonable certainty that methyl (methyl (E)-2-[2-(2- no harm will result to infants and Office location, telephone number, and methylphenoxy)-methyl]phenyl-2- e-mail address: Rm. 239, Crystal Mall children from aggregate exposure to (methoxyimido)acetate) and its kresoxim-methyl residues. #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., metabolites as follows: (E)-2-[2-(2- Arlington, VA, (703) 305–5697, III. Other Considerations methylphenoxy)methyl]-phenyl-2- [email protected]. Requests for (methoxyimido)acetic acid; (E)-2-[2-(2- A. Metabolism In Plants and Animals waiver of tolerance objection fees hydroxymethylphenoxy)methyl]- should be sent to James Hollins, The nature of the residues in plants phenyl-2-(methoxyimido)acetic acid Information Resources and Services and animals is adequately understood. (free and glucose conjugated); and (E)-2- Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide The residues of concern in plants are [2-(4-hydroxy-2-methylphenoxy)- Programs, Environmental Protection kresoxim-methyl, (BAS 490F or methyl methyl]phenyl-2-(methoxyimido)acetic Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, (E)-2-[2-(2-methylphenoxy)- acid (free and glucose conjugated) in or DC 20460. methyl]phenyl-2- on the following commodities: pome If a hearing is requested, the (methoxyimido)acetate) and its fruit at 0.5 ppm, grapes at 1.0 ppm, objections must include a statement of metabolites as follows: BF 490-1 or (E)- pecans, at 0.15 ppm, apple pomace at the factual issues on which a hearing is 2-[2-(2-methylphenoxy)methyl]-phenyl- 1.0 ppm, and raisins at 1.5 ppm. requested, the requestor’s contentions 2-(methoxyimido)acetic acid; BF 490-2 Tolerances are established in or on meat on such issues, and a summary of any or (E)-2-[2-(2- byproducts of cattle, sheep and goats at evidence relied upon by the requestor hydroxymethylphenoxy)methyl]- 0.01 ppm for the metabolite [(E)-2-[2-(2- (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing phenyl-2-(methoxyimido)acetic acid methylphenoxy)methyl]-phenyl-2- will be granted if the Administrator (free and glucose conjugated); and BF (methoxyimido)acetic acid] resulting determines that the material submitted 490-9 or (E)-2-[2-(4-hydroxy-2- from the use of the fungicide kresoxim- shows the following: There is genuine methylphenoxy)-methyl]phenyl-2- methyl. and substantial issue of fact; there is a (methoxyimido)acetic acid (free and reasonable possibility that available V. Objections and Hearing Requests glucose conjugated). The residue of evidence identified by the requestor concern in animals is the metabolite BF The new FFDCA section 408(g) would, if established, resolve one or 490-1 or (E)-2-[2-(2- provides essentially the same process more of such issues in favor of the methylphenoxy)methyl]-phenyl-2- for persons to ‘‘object’’ to a tolerance requestor, taking into account (methoxyimido)acetic acid. regulation as was provided in the old uncontested claims or facts to the section 408 and in section 409. contrary; and resolution of the factual B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology However, the period for filing objections issues in the manner sought by the Adequate enforcement methodology is 60 days, rather than 30 days. EPA requestor would be adequate to justify high performance liquid currently has procedural regulations the action requested (40 CFR 178.32). chromatography/using ultra violet which govern the submission of Information submitted in connection detection (HPLC/ULV) is available to objections and hearing requests. These with an objection or hearing request enforce the tolerance expression. The regulations will require some may be claimed confidential by marking method may be requested from: Calvin modification to reflect the new law. any part or all of that information as Furlow, PRRIB, IRSD (7502C), Office of However, until those modifications can CBI. Information so marked will not be

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31135 disclosed except in accordance with enforceable duty or contain any regulatory proposals containing procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. unfunded mandate as described under significant unfunded mandates.’’ A copy of the information that does not Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Today’s rule does not create an contain CBI must be submitted for Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public unfunded Federal mandate on State, inclusion in the public record. Law 104–4). Nor does it require any local, or tribal governments. The rule Information not marked confidential prior consultation as specified by does not impose any enforceable duties may be disclosed publicly by EPA Executive Order 12875, entitled on these entities. Accordingly, the without prior notice. Enhancing the Intergovernmental requirements of section 1(a) of Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, Executive Order 12875 do not apply to VI. Public Record and Electronic 1993), or special considerations as this rule. Submissions required by Executive Order 12898, C. Executive Order 13084 EPA has established a record for this entitled Federal Actions to Address regulation under docket control number Environmental Justice in Minority Under Executive Order 13084, [OPP–300873] (including any comments Populations and Low-Income entitled Consultation and Coordination and data submitted electronically). A Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR public version of this record, including 1994), or require OMB review in 27655, May 19, 1998), EPA may not printed, paper versions of electronic accordance with Executive Order 13045, issue a regulation that is not required by comments, which does not include any entitled Protection of Children from statute, that significantly or uniquely information claimed as CBI, is available Environmental Health Risks and Safety affects the communities of Indian tribal for inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). governments, and that imposes Monday through Friday, excluding legal In addition, since tolerances and substantial direct compliance costs on holidays. The public record is located in exemptions that are established on the those communities, unless the Federal Room 119 of the Public Information and basis of a petition under FFDCA section government provides the funds Records Integrity Branch, Information 408(d), such as the tolerance in this necessary to pay the direct compliance Resources and Services Division final rule, do not require the issuance of costs incurred by the tribal (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, a proposed rule, the requirements of the governments. If the mandate is Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 unfunded, EPA must provide OMB, in Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. a separately identified section of the Hwy., Arlington, VA. Nevertheless, the Agency previously preamble to the rule, a description of Objections and hearing requests may assessed whether establishing the extent of EPA’s prior consultation be sent by e-mail directly to EPA at: tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, with representatives of affected tribal [email protected]. raising tolerance levels or expanding governments, a summary of the nature exemptions might adversely impact of their concerns, and a statement E-mailed objections and hearing small entities and concluded, as a supporting the need to issue the requests must be submitted as an ASCII generic matter, that there is no adverse regulation. In addition, Executive Order file avoiding the use of special economic impact. The factual basis for 13084 requires EPA to develop an characters and any form of encryption. the Agency’s generic certification for effective process permitting elected The official record for this regulation, tolerance actions published on May 4, officials and other representatives of as well as the public version, as 1981 (46 FR 24950), and was provided Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide described in this unit will be kept in to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the meaningful and timely input in the paper form. Accordingly, EPA will Small Business Administration. development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely transfer any copies of objections and B. Executive Order 12875 hearing requests received electronically affect their communities.’’ Under Executive Order 12875, into printed, paper form as they are Today’s rule does not significantly or entitled Enhancing the received and will place the paper copies uniquely affect the communities of Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR in the official record which will also Indian tribal governments. This action 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA may not does not involve or impose any include all comments submitted directly issue a regulation that is not required by in writing. The official record is the requirements that affect Indian tribes. statute and that creates a mandate upon Accordingly, the requirements of paper record maintained at the Virginia a State, local or tribal government, address in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 unless the Federal government provides do not apply to this rule. beginning of this document. the funds necessary to pay the direct VIII. Submission to Congress and the VII. Regulatory Assessment compliance costs incurred by those Comptroller General Requirements governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to OMB a The Congressional Review Act, 5 A. Certain Acts and Executive Orders description of the extent of EPA’s prior U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small This final rule establishes tolerances consultation with representatives of Business Regulatory Enforcement under section 408(d) of the FFDCA in affected State, local, and tribal Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides response to a petition submitted to the governments, the nature of their that before a rule may take effect, the Agency. The Office of Management and concerns, copies of any written Agency promulgating the rule must Budget (OMB) has exempted these types communications from the governments, submit a rule report, which includes a of actions from review under Executive and a statement supporting the need to copy of the rule, to each House of the Order 12866, entitled Regulatory issue the regulation. In addition, Congress and the Comptroller General of Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to the United States. EPA will submit a October 4, 1993). This final rule does develop an effective process permitting report containing this rule and other not contain any information collections elected officials and other required information to the U.S. Senate, subject to OMB approval under the representatives of State, local, and tribal the U.S. House of Representatives and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 governments ‘‘to provide meaningful the Comptroller General of the United U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any and timely input in the development of States prior to publication of the rule in

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31136 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations the Federal Register. This rule is not a Parts 1. We changed the heading of part 15 ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. Commodity per from ‘‘Conduct at the FEMA Special 804(2). mil- Facility’’ to ‘‘Conduct at the Mt. lion Weather Emergency Assistance Center List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Sheep, meat byproducts ...... 0.01 and at the National Emergency Training Environmental protection, Center.’’ Administrative practice and procedure, (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 2. Part 15 previously contained two Agricultural commodities, Pesticides [Reserved] subparts, the one relating to the and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping (c) Tolerances with regional ‘‘Special Facility’’, now Mt. Weather, requirements. registrations. [Reserved] and the other to the NETC. In this final Dated: May 28, 1999. (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. rule we eliminated the subparts and [Reserved] consolidated the rules, while separately Joseph J. Merenda, Jr. treating rules that differ at the two [FR Doc. 99–14761 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. facilities. BILLING CODE 6560±50±F Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 3. We changed all references from amended as follows: ‘‘the Special Facility’’ to the ‘‘Mt. Weather Emergency Assistance Center’’ PART 180Ð[AMENDED] FEDERAL EMERGENCY or to ‘‘Mt. Weather’’. MANAGEMENT AGENCY 3. We changed the format of certain 1. The authority citation for part 180 sections for purposes of clarity. Conduct at the Mt. Weather Emergency continues to read as follows: 4. We changed a reference to the Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), (346a), and Assistance Center and at the National ‘‘Manual on Fund Raising within the 371. Emergency Training Center Federal Service’’ to the current 2. Section 180.554 is added to read as 44 CFR Part 15 requirements under 5 CFR 950, follows: Solicitation of Federal Civilian and § 180.554 Kresoxim-methyl; tolerances for RIN 3067±AC83 Uniformed Service Personnel for residues. AGENCY: Federal Emergency Contribution to Private Voluntary (a) General. (1) Tolerances are Management Agency (FEMA). Organizations. 5. We changed certain Public Law and established for the combined residues of ACTION: Final rule. the fungicide kresoxim-methyl (methyl Statutes at Large citations to United (E)-2-[2-(2-methylphenoxy)- SUMMARY: This final rule makes certain States Code citations for consistency methyl]phenyl-2- technical amendments to 44 CFR part 15 within 44 CFR and to assure those using (methoxyimido)acetate) and its to reflect the name change of a FEMA the latest version of the United States metabolites as follows: (E)-2-[2-(2- facility, to effect other minor changes Code that they have the latest version of methylphenoxy)methyl]-phenyl-2- governing conduct at the Mt. Weather law involved. (methoxyimido)acetic acid; (E)-2-[2-(2- Emergency Assistance Center (Mt. Administrative Procedure Act hydroxymethylphenoxy)methyl]- Weather) and at the National Emergency Determination phenyl-2-(methoxyimido)acetic acid Training Center (NETC), and to (free and glucose conjugated); and (E)-2- consolidate the rules applicable to both FEMA is publishing this final rule [2-(4-hydroxy-2-methylphenoxy)- facilities. without opportunity for prior public comment under the Administrative methyl]phenyl-2-(methoxyimido)acetic EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. This final acid (free and glucose conjugated) in or July 12, 1999. on the following commodities: rule is a rule of agency organization, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For procedure, or practice that is excepted information on Mt. Weather, contact Parts from the prior public comment John L. Matticks, Senior Resident Commodity per requirements of the § 553(b). The rule mil- Manager, Mt. Weather Emergency makes nonsubstantive, nonsignificant lion Assistance Center, Federal Emergency changes in 44 CFR 15 to change the Management Agency, Washington, DC heading of part 15, to change references Apple, pomace ...... 1.0 20472, (telephone) (540) 542–2001, Grapes ...... 1.0 from ‘‘the Special Facility’’ to the ‘‘Mt. Pecans ...... 0.15 (facsimile) (540) 542–2005, or (email) Weather Emergency Assistance Center’’ Pome fruit ...... 0.5 [email protected]; for or to ‘‘Mt. Weather’’, to change the Raisins ...... 1.5 information on the National Emergency format of certain sections, to change Training Center, Ronald P. Face, Jr., certain references and citations to more (2) Tolerances are established in or on Assistant Administrator, United States current ones, and to consolidate rules the following commodities for the Fire Administration, Federal Emergency for Mt. Weather and the NETC. residues of the metabolite (E)-2-[2-(2- Management Agency, Emmitsburg, MD Executive Order 12866, Regulatory methylphenoxy)methyl]-phenyl-2- 21727, (telephone) (301) 447–1223, Planning and Review (methoxyimido)acetic acid resulting (facsimile) (301) 447–1052, or (email) from the use of the fungicide kresoxim- [email protected]. This final rule is not a significant methyl: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. regulatory action within the meaning of Throughout this preamble and rule the § 2(f) of E.O. 12866 of September 30, Parts term ‘‘we’’ means the Federal 1993, 58 FR 51735, but attempts to per Emergency Management Agency or adhere to the regulatory principles set Commodity million FEMA. forth in E.O. 12866. The Office of This final rule makes certain technical Management and Budget has not Cattle, meat byproducts ...... 0.01 amendments to 44 CFR part 15, as reviewed the final rule under E.O. Goat, meat byproducts ...... 0.01 follows: 12866.

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31137

Regulatory Flexibility Act PART 15ÐCONDUCT AT THE MT. § 15.3 Access to Mt. Weather. WEATHER EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE I certify that this rule is not a major Mt. Weather contains classified CENTER AND AT THE NATIONAL material and areas that we must protect rule under Executive Order 12291. It EMERGENCY TRAINING CENTER will not have significant impact on a in the interest of national security. The substantial number of small entities Sec. facility is a restricted area. We deny within the meaning of the Regulatory 15.1 Applicability. access to Mt. Weather to the general Flexibility Act, and we do not expect it 15.2 Definitions. public and limit access to those persons (1) to affect adversely the availability of 15.3 Access to Mt. Weather. having official business related to the 15.4 Inspection. missions and operations of Mt. Weather. disaster assistance funding to small 15.5 Preservation of property. entities, (2) to have significant The Director or the Senior Resident 15.6 Compliance with signs and directions. Manager must approve all persons and secondary or incidental effects on a 15.7 Disturbances. substantial number of small entities, or 15.8 Gambling. vehicles entering Mt. Weather. All (3) to create any additional burden on 15.9 Alcoholic beverages and narcotics. persons must register with the Mt. small entities. We have not prepared a 15.10 Soliciting, vending, and debt Weather Police/Security Force and must regulatory flexibility analysis of this collection. receive a Mt. Weather identification 15.11 Distribution of handbills. proposed rule. badge and vehicle parking decal or 15.12 Photographs and other depictions. permit to enter or remain on the Paperwork Reduction Act 15.13 Dogs and other animals. premises. No person will enter or 15.14 Vehicular and pedestrian traffic. remain on Mt. Weather premises unless 15.15 Weapons and explosives. This final rule does not contain a he or she has received permission from collection of information and therefore 15.16 Penalties. 15.17. Other laws. the Director or the Senior Resident is not subject to the provisions of the Manager and has complied with these Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Authority: Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. procedures. 329; E.O. 12127 of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR Congressional Review of Agency § 15.4 Inspection. Rulemaking 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 13239, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. (a) In general. All vehicles, packages, We have submitted this final rule to 412; Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act handbags, briefcases, and other the Congress and to the General of 1974, 15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.; delegation of authority from the Administrator of General containers being brought into, while on Accounting Office under the Services, dated July 18, 1979; Pub.L. 80–566, or being removed from Mt. Weather or Congressional Review of Agency approved June 1, 1948, 40 U.S.C. 318–318d; the NETC are subject to inspection by Rulemaking Act, Pub. L. 104–121. The and the Federal Property and Administrative the Police/Security Force and other rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ within the Services Act of 1949, 40 U.S.C. 271 et seq. authorized officials. A full search of a meaning of that Act. It is an vehicle or person may accompany an administrative action in support of § 15.1 Applicability. arrest. The rules and regulations in this part normal day-to-day activities. It does not (b) Inspection at Mt. Weather. We apply to all persons entering, while on, result in nor is it likely to result in an authorize inspection at Mt. Weather to or leaving all the property known as the annual effect on the economy of prevent the possession and use of items Mt. Weather Emergency Assistance $100,000,000 or more; it will not result prohibited by these rules and Center (Mt. Weather) located at 19844 in a major increase in costs or prices for regulations or by other applicable laws, Blue Ridge Mountain Road, Bluemont, consumers, individual industries, to prevent theft of property and to Virginia 20135, and all the property Federal, State, or local government prevent the wrongful obtaining of known as the National Emergency agencies, or geographic regions; and it defense information under 18 U.S.C. Training Center (NETC), located on will not have ‘‘significant adverse 793. If individuals object to such 16825 South Seton Avenue in effects’’ on competition, employment, inspections they must tell the officer on Emmitsburg, Maryland, which the investment, productivity, innovation, or duty at the entrance gate before entering Federal Emergency Management Agency on the ability of United States-based Mt. Weather. The Police/Security Force (FEMA) owns, operates and controls. enterprises to compete with foreign- and other authorized officials must not based enterprises. § 15.2 Definitions. authorize or allow individuals who This final rule is exempt (1) from the Terms used in part 15 have these refuse to permit an inspection of their requirements of the Regulatory meanings: vehicle or possessions to enter the Flexibility Act, and (2) from the Administrator means the premises of Mt. Weather. Paperwork Reduction Act. The rule is Administrator, United States Fire § 15.5 Preservation of property. not an unfunded Federal mandate Administration, FEMA. within the meaning of the Unfunded Director means the Director of the At both Mt. Weather and NETC we Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. Federal Emergency Management prohibit: 104–4. It does not meet the Agency. (a) The improper disposal of rubbish; $100,000,000 threshold of that Act, and FEMA means the Federal Emergency (b) Willful destruction of or damage to any enforceable duties are imposed as a Management Agency. property; condition of Federal assistance or a duty Mt. Weather means the Mt. Weather arising from participation in a voluntary Emergency Assistance Center, (c) Theft of property; Federal program. Bluemont, VA. (d) Creation of any hazard on the NETC means the National Emergency property to persons or things; List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 15 Training Center, Emmitsburg, MD. (e) Throwing articles of any kind from Senior Resident Manager means the or at a building; Federal buildings and facilities, Senior Resident Manager, Mt. Weather Penalties. Emergency Assistance Center. (f) Climbing upon a fence; or Accordingly, we revise 44 CFR Part 15 We means the Federal Emergency (g) Climbing upon the roof or any part to read as follows: Management Agency or FEMA. of a building.

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31138 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

§ 15.6 Compliance with signs and designee for the NETC authorizes it in (b) Photographs and other depictions directions. writing; and at the NETC. (1) Photographs may be Persons at Mt. Weather and the NETC (e) Use of alcoholic beverages on the taken inside classroom or office areas of must comply at all times with official property except: the NETC only with the consent of the signs that prohibit, regulate, or direct, (1) In the Balloon Shed Lounge at Mt. occupants. Except where security and with the directions of the Police/ Weather and in other locations that the regulations apply or a Federal court Security Force and other authorized Director or the Senior Resident Manager order or rule prohibits it, photographs officials. authorizes in writing; and may be taken in entrances, lobbies, (2) In the Student Center at the NETC foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when § 15.7 Disturbances. and other locations that the Director or used for public meetings. At both Mt. Weather and NETC we the Administrator, or designee, (2) Subject to the foregoing prohibit any unwarranted loitering, authorizes in writing. prohibitions, photographs for disorderly conduct, or other conduct at § 15.10 Soliciting, vending, and debt advertising and commercial purposes Mt. Weather and NETC that: collection. may be taken only with written (a) Creates loud or unusual noise or a (a) We prohibit soliciting alms and permission of the Assistant nuisance; contributions, commercial or political Administrator, Management Operations (b) Unreasonably obstructs the usual soliciting and vending of all kinds, and Student Support, United States Fire use of classrooms, dormitory rooms, displaying or distributing commercial Administration, Federal Emergency entrances, foyers, lobbies, corridors, advertising, or collecting private debts Management Agency, Emmitsburg, MD offices, elevators, stairways, roadways unless the Director for either facility or 21727, (telephone) (301) 447–1223, or parking lots; the Senior Resident Manager approve (facsimile) (301) 447–1052, or other (c) Otherwise impedes or disrupts the the activities in writing and in advance. authorized official where photographs performance of official duties by (b) The prohibitions of this section do are to be taken. government employees or government not apply to: contractors; (1) National or local drives for funds § 15.13 Dogs and other animals. (d) Interferes with the delivery of for welfare, health, or other purposes as Dogs and other animals, except educational or other programs; or authorized by 5 CFR part 950, seeing-eye dogs, must not be brought (e) Prevents persons from obtaining in Solicitation of Federal Civilian and onto Mt. Weather grounds or into the a timely manner the administrative Uniformed Service Personnel for buildings at NETC for other than official services provided at both facilities. Contributions to Private Voluntary purposes. Organizations. The Director, or the § 15.8 Gambling. § 15.14 Vehicular and pedestrian traffic. We prohibit participating in games for Senior Resident Manager, or the Administrator for the NETC or designee, (a) Drivers of all vehicles entering or money or other personal property, while at Mt. Weather or the NETC must including the operation of gambling must approve all such national or local drives before they are conducted on drive carefully and safely at all times devices, the conduct of a lottery or pool, and must obey the signals and or the sale or purchase of numbers either premises; (2) Authorized concessions; directions of the Police/Security Force tickets at both facilities. (3) Personal notices posted by or other authorized officials and all § 15.9 Alcoholic beverages and narcotics. employees on authorized bulletin posted traffic signs; At both Mt. Weather and the NETC boards; and (b) Drivers must comply with NETC we prohibit: (4) Solicitation of labor organization parking requirements and vehicle (a) Operating a motor vehicle by any membership or dues authorized by registration requirements; person under the influence of alcoholic occupant agencies under the Civil (c) At both Mt. Weather and the NETC beverages, narcotic drugs, Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. we prohibit: hallucinogens, marijuana, barbiturates 7101 et seq. (1) Blocking entrances, driveways, or amphetamines as defined in Title 21 § 15.11 Distribution of handbills. walks, loading platforms, or fire hydrants on the property; and of the Annotated Code of Maryland, We prohibit the distribution of Transportation, sec. 21–902 or in Title materials such as pamphlets, handbills (2) Parking without authority, parking 18.2, ch. 7, Art. 2 of the Code of or flyers, and the displaying of placards in unauthorized locations or in Virginia, secs. 18.2–266 and 18.2–266.1, or posting of materials on bulletin locations reserved for other persons, or as applicable; boards or elsewhere at Mt. Weather and parking contrary to the direction of (b) Entering upon or while on either the NETC unless the Director, the Senior posted signs. property being under the influence of or Resident Manager, or the Administrator (3) Where warning signs are posted using or possessing any narcotic drug, for the NETC or designee, approves such vehicles parked in violation may be marijuana, hallucinogen, barbiturate or distribution or display, or when such removed at the owners’ risk and amphetamine. This prohibition does not distribution or display is conducted as expense. apply in cases where a licensed part of authorized government activities. (d) The Director or the Senior physician has prescribed the drug for Resident Manager or the Administrator the person; § 15.12 Photographs and other depictions. for the NETC or designee may issue and (c) Entering upon either property or (a) Photographs and other depictions post specific supplemental traffic being on either property under the at Mt. Weather. We prohibit taking directives if needed. When issued and influence of alcoholic beverages; photographs and making notes, posted supplemental traffic directives (d) Bringing alcoholic beverages, sketches, or diagrams of buildings, will have the same force and effect as if narcotic drugs, hallucinogens, grounds or other features of Mt. they were in these rules. Proof that a marijuana, barbiturates or Weather, or the possession of a camera parked motor vehicle violated these amphetamines onto the premises unless while at Mt. Weather except when the rules or directives may be taken as the Director, the Senior Resident Director or the Senior Resident Manager prima facie evidence that the registered Manager, or the Administrator or approves in advance. owner was responsible for the violation.

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31139

§ 15.15 Weapons and explosives. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS on the economy of $100 million or No person entering or while at Mt. COMMISSION more. In addition, it has been determined Weather or the NETC will carry or 47 CFR Part 0 possess firearms, other dangerous or that this rule will not have a significant deadly weapons, explosives or items [DA 99±823] economic impact on a substantial intended to be used or that could number of small entities. Freedom of Information Act reasonably be used to fabricate an List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 0 explosive or incendiary device, either AGENCY: Federal Communications openly or concealed, except: Commission. Freedom of information. (a) For official purposes if the Director ACTION: Final rule. Federal Communications Commission. or the Senior Resident Manager or the Magalie Roman Salas, SUMMARY: This document amends the Administrator for the NETC or designee Secretary. approves; and Commission’s rules that implement the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fee Rule Changes (b) In accordance with FEMA policy schedule. This amendment pertains to governing the possession of firearms. the charge for recovery of the full, For the reasons discussed in the allowable direct costs of searching for preamble, the Federal Communications § 15.16 Penalties. and reviewing records requested under Commission amends 47 CFR Part 0 as (a) Misconduct. (1) Whoever is found the FOIA and the Commission’s rules, follows: guilty of violating any of these rules and unless such fees are restricted or waived regulations is subject to a fine of not in accordance with the rules. The fees PART 0ÐCOMMISSION more than $50 or imprisonment for not are being revised to correspond to ORGANIZATION more than 30 days, or both. (See 40 modifications in the rate of pay U.S.C. 318c.) approved by Congress. 1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: (2) We will process any misconduct at EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 1999. NETC according to FEMA/NETC policy FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Authority: § 5, 48, Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155. or instructions. Boley, Freedom of Information Act Officer, Office of Performance (b) Parking violations. We may tow at 2. Section 0.467 is amended by Evaluation and Records Management, revising the table in paragraph (a)(1), its the owner’s expense any vehicles Room 1–C–804, Federal parked in violation of State law, FEMA, note, and paragraph (a)(2) to read as Communications Commission, 445 12th follows: Mt. Weather, or NETC instructions. Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, § 15.17. Other laws. (202) 418–0440 or via Internet at § 0.467 Search and review fees. [email protected]. (a)(1) * * * Nothing in the rules and regulations SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FCC in this part will be construed to abolish is amending § 0.467(a) of the Grade Hourly fee any other Federal laws or any State and Commission’s Rules. This rule pertains local laws and regulations applicable to to the charges for searching and GS±1 ...... 9.40 Mt. Weather or NETC premises. The reviewing records requested under the GS±2 ...... 10.22 rules and regulations in this part FOIA. The FOIA requires federal GS±3 ...... 11.52 supplement penal provisions of Title 18, agencies to establish a schedule of fees GS±4 ...... 12.94 United States Code, relating to Crimes for the processing of requests for agency GS±5 ...... 14.47 and Criminal Procedure, which apply records in accordance with fee GS±6 ...... 16.13 without regard to the place of the guidelines issued by the Office of GS±7 ...... 17.93 offense and to those penal provisions Management and Budget (OMB). In GS±8 ...... 19.85 that apply in areas under the special 1987, OMB issued its Uniform Freedom GS±9 ...... 21.92 maritime and territorial jurisdiction of of Information Act Fee Schedule and GS±10 ...... 24.14 the United States, as defined in 18 Guidelines. However, because the FOIA GS±11 ...... 26.53 U.S.C. 7. They supersede provisions of requires that each agency’s fees be based GS±12 ...... 29.80 State law, however, that Federal law upon its direct costs of providing FOIA GS±13 ...... 37.81 GS±14 ...... 44.69 makes criminal offenses under the services, OMB did not provide a GS±15 ...... 52.56 Assimilated Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 13) to unitary, government-wide schedule of the extent that State laws conflict with fees. The Commission based its FOIA fee schedule on the grade level of the Note: These fees will be modified these regulations. State and local periodically to correspond with criminal laws apply as such only to the employee who processes the request. Thus, the fee schedule was computed at modifications in the rate of pay approved by extent that the State reserved such a Step 5 of each grade level based on the Congress. authority to itself by the State consent General Schedule effected January 1987. (2) The fees in paragraph (a) (1) of this or cession statute or that a Federal The instant revisions correspond to statute vests such authority in the State. section were computed at step 5 of each modifications in the rate of pay recently grade level based on the General Dated: May 26, 1999. approved by Congress. Schedule effective January 1999 and James L. Witt, Regulatory Procedures include 20 percent for personnel Director. benefits. This rule has been reviewed under [FR Doc. 99–14326 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Executive Order No. 12866 and has been * * * * * BILLING CODE 6718±06±P determined not to be a ‘‘significant rule’’ [FR Doc. 99–14495 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] since it will not have an annual effect BILLING CODE 6712±01±P

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31140 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Federal Communications Commission. PART 73Ð[AMENDED] COMMISSION John A. Karousos, 1. The authority citation for Part 73 Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules 47 CFR Part 73 Division, Mass Media Bureau. continues to read as follows: [FR Doc. 99–14722 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. [MM Docket No. 98±191; RM±9351] BILLING CODE 6712±01±P § 73.202 [Amended] Radio Broadcasting Services; 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Leesville, LA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Allotments under North Dakota, is AGENCY: Federal Communications COMMISSION amended by adding Velva, Channel Commission. 235C1. ACTION: Final rule. 47 CFR Part 73 Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, SUMMARY: This document substitutes [MM Docket No. 99±5; RM±9430] Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Channel 228C3 for Channel 224A at Division, Mass Media Bureau. Leesville, Louisiana, and modifies the Radio Broadcasting Services; Velva, [FR Doc. 99–14723 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] license for Station KJAE(FM) to specify ND BILLING CODE 6712±01±P operation on the nonadjacent higher AGENCY: powered channel, consistent with the Federal Communications Commission. provisions of Section 1.420(g) of the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACTION: Final rule. Commission’s Rules. Although an COMMISSION additional equivalent channel was SUMMARY: The Commission, at the identified as available to Leesville in the 47 CFR Part 73 request of High Plains Broadcasting, event another party expressed an Inc., allots Channel 235C1 to Velva, ND, [MM Docket No. 99±4; RM±9429] interest in a Class C3 channel at that as the community’s first local aural community, no other interest was service. See 64 FR 5624, February 4, Radio Broadcasting Services; Cannon received. See 63 FR 59262, November 3, 1999. Channel 235C1 can be allotted to Ball, ND 1998. Coordinates used for Channel Velva in compliance with the 228C3 at Leesville are 31–11–29 NL and AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission’s minimum distance 93–14–35 WL. With this action, the Commission. separation requirements without a site proceeding is terminated. ACTION: restriction, at coordinates 48–03–18 NL; Final rule. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 19, 1999. 100–55–54 WL. Canadian concurrence SUMMARY: The Commission, at the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: in the allotment has been received since request of High Plains Broadcasting, Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) Velva is located within 320 kilometers Inc., allots Channel 298C to Cannon 418–2180. (200 miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border. Ball, ND, as the community’s first local SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a With this action, this proceeding is aural service. See 64 FR 5624, February synopsis of the Commission’s Report terminated. 4, 1999. Channel 298C can be allotted to and Order, MM Docket No. 98–191, DATE: Effective July 12, 1999. A filing Cannon Ball in compliance with the adopted May 26, 1999, and released window for Channel 235C1 at Velva Commission’s minimum distance June 4, 1999. The full text of this will not be opened at this time. Instead, separation requirements without a site Commission decision is available for the issue of opening a filing window for restriction, at coordinates 46–24–48 NL; inspection and copying during normal this channel will be addressed by the 100–38–12 WL. Canadian concurrence business hours in the FCC’s Reference Commission in a subsequent order. in the allotment has been received since Information Center (Room CY A–257), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cannon Ball is located within 320 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.- DC. The complete text of this decision (202) 418–2180. Canadian border. With this action, this may also be purchased from the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proceeding is terminated. Commission’s copy contractor, synopsis of the Commission’s Report DATES: Effective July 12, 1999. A filing International Transcription Service, and Order, MM Docket No. 99–5, window for Channel 298C at Cannon Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., adopted May 19, 1999, and released Ball, ND, will not be opened at this Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. May 28, 1999. The full text of this time. Instead, the issue of opening a List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Commission decision is available for filing window for this channel will be addressed by the Commission in a Radio broadcasting. inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference subsequent order. Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal Regulations is amended as Washington, DC. The complete text of Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, follows: this decision may also be purchased (202) 418–2180. from the Commission’s copy contractor, PART 73Ð[AMENDED] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a International Transcription Services, synopsis of the Commission’s Report 1. The authority citation for part 73 Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, and Order, MM Docket No. 99–4, reads as follows: NW, Washington, DC 20036. adopted May 19, 1999, and released Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 May 28, 1999. The full text of this Commission decision is available for § 73.202 [Amended] Radio broadcasting. inspection and copying during normal 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of business hours in the FCC Reference Allotments under Louisiana is amended Federal Regulations is amended as Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW, by adding Channel 228C3 at Leesville. follows: Washington, DC. The complete text of

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31141 this decision may also be purchased FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Flasher is located within 320 kilometers from the Commission’s copy contractor, Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, (200 miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border. International Transcription Services, (202) 418–2180. With this action, this proceeding is Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a terminated. NW, Washington, DC 20036. synopsis of the Commission’s Report DATES: Effective July 12, 1999. A filing List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 and Order, MM Docket No. 99–7, window for Channel 290C at Flasher, adopted May 19, 1999, and released ND, will not be opened at this time. Radio broadcasting. May 28, 1999. The full text of this Instead, the issue of opening a filing Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Commission decision is available for window for this channel will be Federal Regulations is amended as inspection and copying during normal addressed by the Commission in a follows: business hours in the FCC Reference subsequent order. Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PART 73Ð[AMENDED] Washington, DC. The complete text of Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 1. The authority citation for Part 73 this decision may also be purchased (202) 418–2180. from the Commission’s copy contractor, continues to read as follows: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a International Transcription Services, synopsis of the Commission’s Report Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, and Order, MM Docket No. 99–37, NW, Washington, DC 20036. § 73.202 [Amended] adopted May 19, 1999, and released 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 May 28, 1999. The full text of this Allotments under North Dakota, is Radio broadcasting. Commission decision is available for amended by adding Cannon Ball, inspection and copying during normal Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Channel 298C. business hours in the FCC Reference Federal Regulations is amended as Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW, Federal Communications Commission. follows: John A. Karousos, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules PART 73Ð[AMENDED] Division, Mass Media Bureau. from the Commission’s copy contractor, 1. The authority citation for Part 73 International Transcription Services, [FR Doc. 99–14724 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] continues to read as follows: Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, BILLING CODE 6712±01±P Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. NW, Washington, DC 20036. § 73.202 [Amended] List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Radio broadcasting. COMMISSION 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under New York, is Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of 47 CFR Part 73 amended by adding Channel 248A at Federal Regulations is amended as Delhi. follows: [MM Docket No. 99±7; RM±9432] Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, PART 73Ð[AMENDED] Radio Broadcasting Services; Delhi, Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules NY 1. The authority citation for Part 73 Division, Mass Media Bureau. continues to read as follows: [FR Doc. 99–14725 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] AGENCY: Federal Communications Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. Commission. BILLING CODE 6712±01±P ACTION: Final rule. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS SUMMARY: The Commission, at the Allotments under North Dakota, is COMMISSION request of Dana Puopolo, allots Channel amended by adding Flasher, Channel 248A to Delhi, NY, as the community’s 47 CFR Part 73 290C. second local aural transmission service. Federal Communications Commission. See 64 FR 5625, February 4, 1999. [MM Docket No. 99±37; RM±9450] Channel 248A can be allotted to Delhi John A. Karousos, in compliance with the Commission’s Radio Broadcasting Services; Flasher, Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules minimum distance separation ND Division, Mass Media Bureau. [FR Doc. 99–14726 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] requirements with a site restriction of AGENCY: Federal Communications BILLING CODE 6712±01±P 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles) southwest, at Commission. coordinates 42–15–23 NL; 74–58–35 ACTION: Final rule. WL, to avoid a short-spacing to Station WMYY, Channel 247A, Schoharie, NY. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS SUMMARY: The Commission, at the COMMISSION Canadian concurrence in the allotment request of High Plains Broadcasting, has been received since Delhi is located Inc., allots Channel 290C to Flasher, ND, 47 CFR Part 73 within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the as the community’s first local aural U.S.-Canadian border. With this action, service. See 64 FR 7848, February 17, [MM Docket No. 99±38; RM±9451] this proceeding is terminated. 1999. Channel 290C can be allotted to DATES: Effective July 12, 1999. A filing Flasher in compliance with the Radio Broadcasting Services; window for Channel 248A at Delhi, NY, Commission’s minimum distance Berthold, ND will not be opened at this time. Instead, separation requirements without a site AGENCY: Federal Communications the issue of opening a filing window for restriction, at coordinates 46–27–12 NL; Commission. this channel will be addressed by the 101–14–06 WL. Canadian concurrence ACTION: Final rule. Commission in a subsequent order. in the allotment has been received since

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31142 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334. 336. request of High Plains Broadcasting, COMMISSION Inc., allots Channel 264C to Berthold, § 73.202 [Amended] ND, as the community’s first local aural 47 CFR Part 73 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM service. See 64 FR 7847, February 17, [MM Docket No. 99±39; RM±9464] Allotments under Oregon, is amended 1999. Channel 264C can be allotted to by adding Ranier, Channel 252A. Berthold in compliance with the Radio Broadcasting Services; Ranier, Federal Communications Commission. Commission’s minimum distance OR John A. Karousos, separation requirements without a site AGENCY: Federal Communications Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules restriction, at coordinates 48–18–54 NL; Division, Mass Media Bureau. 101–44–12 WL. Canadian concurrence Commission. [FR Doc. 99–14728 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] in the allotment has been received since ACTION: Final rule. BILLING CODE 6712±01±P Berthold is located within 320 SUMMARY: The Commission, at the kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.- request of Washington Interstate Canadian border. With this action, this Broadcasting Company, Inc., allots FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS proceeding is terminated. Channel 252A to Ranier, OR, as the COMMISSION DATES: Effective July 12, 1999. A filing community’s first local aural service. window for Channel 264C at Berthold See 64 FR 7847, February 17, 1999. 47 CFR Part 73 will not be opened at this time. Instead, Channel 252A can be allotted to Ranier the issue of opening a filing window for in compliance with the Commission’s [MM Docket No. 99±40; RM±9465] minimum distance separation this channel will be addressed by the Radio Broadcasting Services; Commission in a subsequent order. requirements with a site restriction of 9.4 kilometers (5.8 miles) north, at Richardton, ND FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: coordinates 46–10–18 NL; 122–57–42 AGENCY: Federal Communications Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, WL, to avoid a short-spacing to vacant Commission. (202) 418–2180. and unapplied-for Channel 252C3 at ACTION: Final rule. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Dallas, OR. Canadian concurrence in the synopsis of the Commission’s Report allotment has been received since SUMMARY: The Commission, at the and Order, MM Docket No. 99–38, Ranier is located within 320 kilometers request of High Plains Broadcasting, adopted May 19, 1999, and released (200 miles) of the U.S.–Canadian border. Inc., allots Channel 270C to Richardton, May 28, 1999. The full text of this With this action, this proceeding is ND, as the community’s first local aural Commission decision is available for terminated. service. See 64 FR 7847, February 17, inspection and copying during normal DATES: Effective July 12, 1999. A filing 1999. Channel 270C can be allotted to business hours in the FCC Reference window for Channel 252A at Ranier, Richardton with a site restriction of 6.2 Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW, OR, will not be opened at this time. kilometers (3.8 miles) southwest, at Washington, DC. The complete text of Instead, the issue of opening a filing coordinates 46–50–25 NL; 102–21–35 this decision may also be purchased window for this channel will be WL, to avoid a short-spacing to Station from the Commission’s copy contractor, addressed by the Commission in a KBTO, Channel 270C1, Bottineau, ND. International Transcription Services, subsequent order. Canadian concurrence in the allotment Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: has been received since Richardton is NW, Washington, DC 20036. Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, located within 320 kilometers (200 (202) 418–2180. miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a With this action, this proceeding is terminated. Radio broadcasting. synopsis of the Commission’s Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99–39, DATES: Effective July 12, 1999. A filing Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of adopted May 19, 1999, and released window for Channel 270C at Federal Regulations is amended as May 28, 1999. The full text of this Richardton, ND, will not be opened at follows: Commission decision is available for this time. Instead, the issue of opening inspection and copying during normal a filing window for this channel will be PART 73Ð[AMENDED] business hours in the FCC Reference addressed by the Commission in a Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW, subsequent order. 1. The authority citation for Part 73 Washington, DC. The complete text of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: continues to read as follows: this decision may also be purchased Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. from the Commission’s copy contractor, (202) 418–2180. International Transcription Services, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a § 73.202 [Amended] Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, synopsis of the Commission’s Report 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM NW, Washington, DC 20036. and Order, MM Docket No. 99–40, Allotments under North Dakota, is List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 adopted May 19, 1999, and released amended by adding Berthold, Channel May 28, 1999. The full text of this Radio broadcasting. 264C. Commission decision is available for Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of inspection and copying during normal Federal Communications Commission. Federal Regulations is amended as business hours in the FCC Reference John A. Karousos, follows: Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW, Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules PART 73Ð[AMENDED] Washington, DC. The complete text of Division, Mass Media Bureau. this decision may also be purchased [FR Doc. 99–14727 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] 1. The authority citation for Part 73 from the Commission’s copy contractor, BILLING CODE 6712±01±P continues to read as follows: International Transcription Services,

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31143

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, and Order, MM Docket No. 99–41, EFFECTIVE DATE: July 14, 1999. A filing NW, Washington, DC 20036. adopted May 19, 1999, and released window for Channel 282A at Tumon, May 28, 1999. The full text of this List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Guam, will not be opened at this time. Commission decision is available for Instead, the issue of opening a filing Radio broadcasting. inspection and copying during normal window for this channel will be Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of business hours in the FCC Reference addressed by the Commission in a Federal Regulations is amended as Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW, subsequent order. follows: Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PART 73Ð[AMENDED] from the Commission’s copy contractor, Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media International Transcription Services, Bureau, (202) 418–2180. 1. The authority citation for Part 73 Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, continues to read as follows: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a NW, Washington, DC 20036. Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. synopsis of the Commission’s Report List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 and Order, MM Docket No. 98–113, § 73.202 [Amended] Radio broadcasting. adopted May 19, 1999, and released 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM May 28, 1999. The full text of this Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Allotments under North Dakota, is Commission decision is available for Federal Regulations is amended as amended by adding Richardton, inspection and copying during normal follows: Channel 270C. business hours in the FCC Reference Federal Communications Commission. PART 73Ð[AMENDED] Information Center (Room CY–A257), John A. Karousos, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. 1. The authority citation for Part 73 The complete text of this decision may Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules continues to read as follows: Division, Mass Media Bureau. also be purchased from the [FR Doc. 99–14729 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334. 336. Commission’s copy contractors, International Transcription Service, BILLING CODE 6712±01±P § 73.202 [Amended] Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM NW., Washington, DC 20036. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Allotments under North Dakota, is COMMISSION amended by adding Wimbledon, List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Channel 276C1. Radio broadcasting. 47 CFR Part 73 Federal Communications Commission. Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of [MM Docket No. 99±41; RM±9466] John A. Karousos, Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Federal Regulations is amended as Radio Broadcasting Services; Division, Mass Media Bureau. follows: Wimbledon, ND [FR Doc. 99–14730 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] PART 73 [AMENDED] BILLING CODE 6712±01±P AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. 1. The authority citation for Part 73 ACTION: Final rule. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS continues to read as follows: COMMISSION Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of High Plains Broadcasting, 47 CFR Part 73 § 73.202 [Amended] Inc., allots Channel 276C1 to Wimbledon, ND, as the community’s [MM Docket No. 98±113; RM±9296] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM first local aural service. See 64 FR 7846, Allotments under Guam, is amended by February 17, 1999. Channel 276C1 can Radio Broadcasting Services; Tumon, adding Tumon, Channel 282A. be allotted to Wimbledon without the GU imposition of a site restriction, at Federal Communications Commission. coordinates 47–10–18 NL; 98–27–30 AGENCY: Federal Communications John A. Karousos, WL. Canadian concurrence in the Commission. Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules allotment has been received since ACTION: Final rule. Division, Mass Media Bureau. Wimbledon is located within 320 [FR Doc. 99–14731 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: The Commission, at the kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.- BILLING CODE 6712±01±P Canadian border. With this action, this request of Guam Broadcast Services, proceeding is terminated. Inc., allots Channel 282A at Tumon, Guam, as the community’s first local DATES: Effective July 12, 1999. A filing aural transmission service. See 63 FR window for Channel 276C1 at 38785, July 20, 1998. Channel 282A can Wimbledon, ND, will not be opened at be allotted to Tumon in compliance this time. Instead, the issue of opening with the Commission’s minimum a filing window for this channel will be distance separation requirements addressed by the Commission in a without the imposition of a site subsequent order. restriction at petitioner’s requested site. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The coordinates for Channel 282A at Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, Tumon are 13–30–25 North Latitude (202) 418–2180. and 144–48–05 East Longitude. With SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a this action, this proceeding is synopsis of the Commission’s Report terminated.

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31144 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Multispecies FMPs, its Environmental industry, using commercial sea scallop Assessment (EA), and regulatory impact vessels. National Oceanic and Atmospheric review are available on request from At its April 14–15, 1999, meeting, the Administration Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New Council voted to limit sea scallop access England Fishery Management Council, 5 to Closed Area II for one fishing year 50 CFR Part 648 Broadway, Saugus, MA, 01906–1097. and selected a sea scallop target TAC [Docket No. 990527146±9146±01; I.D. Comments regarding the collection-of- based on an intermediate harvestable 052099B] information requirements contained in biomass estimate (4,300 mt) for this this final rule should be sent to Jon C. area. The Council also voted to RIN 0648±AM24 Rittgers, Acting Regional Administrator, recommend opening only certain Fisheries of the Northeastern United Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, portions of Closed Area II to minimize States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery, Gloucester, MA 01930–2298, and to the the possible impact on finfish bycatch Framework Adjustment 11; Northeast Office of Information and Regulatory and habitat. Detailed information on Multispecies Fishery, Framework Affairs, Office of Management and finfish bycatch levels caught by scallop Adjustment 29 Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 dredge vessels during the 1998 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer). cooperative experimental research AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: fishery showed that during the months Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Susan A. Murphy, Fishery Policy August through October, the time period Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Analyst, 978–281–9252. when this experiment was conducted, Commerce. virtually no cod or haddock—two of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On ACTION: Final rule. three primary groundfish species of December 12, 1994, NMFS implemented particular concern—were caught. an emergency action that closed three SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to However, results from the experiment large areas with historically high implement measures contained in demonstrated significant bycatch levels concentrations of several multispecies: Framework Adjustment 11 to the of yellowtail flounder, the third primary Two Georges Bank closures (Closed Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery groundfish species. Although recent Area I and Closed Area II), and one Management Plan (FMP) and information indicates that some closure in southern New England Framework Adjustment 29 to the rebuilding of Georges Bank cod, (Nantucket Lightship Closed Area). Northeast Multispecies FMP. This final haddock, and yellowtail flounder stocks These areas were closed to all vessels rule creates a 1999 seasonal Georges has occurred, recruitment remains poor capable of catching groundfish, Bank Sea Scallop Exemption Area and the most recent scientific advice is including scallop vessels, because of (Exemption Area) in and adjacent to to keep fishing mortality at or below the their ability to catch significant amounts Closed Area II and includes the multispecies Amendment 7 objective for of juvenile flatfish, and because of following primary measures for vessels these stocks. concern that scallop dredge gear fishing in the Exemption Area: A After deliberating three different area disrupts groundfish spawning activity. possession limit of up to 10,000 lb options developed to address habitat The emergency action was subsequently (4,536.0 kg) of scallop meats per trip; a and bycatch concerns, the Council implemented on a continuous basis maximum of three trips for full and recommended to open that portion of through measures included in ° part-time vessels and a maximum of one Closed Area II south of 41 30’ N. lat., an Framework 9 to the Northeast trip for occasional vessels; an automatic option recommended by the Habitat Multispecies FMP (60 FR 19364, April minimum deduction of 10 days-at-sea Committee, where scallop dredge 18, 1995). (DAS) for each trip; a minimum mesh vessels are considered to have the least In March 1997, results from the 23rd impact on the bottom. Although data twine-top of 10 inches (25.40 cm); a Stock Assessment Workshop total allowable catch (TAC) of yellowtail from the cooperative experimental determined that the Atlantic sea scallop fishery demonstrated that this flounder of 387 metric tons (mt); and an resource was at a low level of biomass increase in the regulated species alternative had a slightly higher bycatch and that catches were driven primarily of yellowtail flounder when compared possession limit from 300 lb (136.1 kg) by variations in the number of recruits to 500 lb (226.8 kg), among other to the other area options, bycatch of all entering the fishery. However, the report species combined was lowest for this measures. In addition, this rule also noted that for Georges Bank, implements a minimum mesh twine top area. abundance and fishing mortality were at This action adopts a sea scallop target of 8 inches (20.32 cm) for vessels under moderate levels due to half the primary TAC of 4,300 mt of meat weight for a scallop DAS when fishing outside the scallop area on Georges Bank and in the vessels fishing under the Georges Bank Exemption Area. The primary intent of Great South Channel being closed since Sea Scallop Exemption Program this action is to provide scallop vessels December 1994. In fact, at the time of (Exemption Program). Of this target with a short-term strategy to access the assessment, i.e., after 20 months of TAC, a total of 4,257 mt will be Closed Area II without compromising protection, biomass increases in the designated for use as a directed sea multispecies rebuilding or habitat closed areas were approximately three- scallop allocation. Forty-three mt of the protection, while the New England fold and increasing. 4,300 mt (1 percent) will be set aside for Fishery Management Council (Council) In 1998, the Center for Marine Science funding research of this fishery, if develops an amendment that would and Technology of the University of research programs are adopted, and an implement a sea scallop area rotational Massachusetts, Dartmouth (CMAST) additional 43 mt, over and above the management plan. requested an experimental fishery to 4,300 mt allocated, will be set aside to DATES: Effective June 15, 1999, except determine the abundance and help fund the cost of observers. for § 648.51(b)(2)(ii), which is effective distribution of sea scallops in Closed To minimize groundfish bycatch and December 16, 1999. Area II. A cooperative experimental habitat impacts, this action opens the ADDRESSES: Copies of Framework research fishery was conducted by portion of Closed Area II that lies south Adjustment 11/Framework Adjustment NMFS’ Northeast Fisheries Science of 41°30’N. lat. from June 15, 1999, 29 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop/Northeast Center, CMAST, and the fishing through December 31, 1999. In addition,

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31145 this framework sets a TAC of 387 mt for this action is to ensure that the 1999 observer coverage must provide 5 yellowtail flounder that may be fishing year target fishing mortality of working days notice prior to departure harvested from this area, 15 percent of 0.83, established by Amendment 7 to of any trip declared under the the 1999 yellowtail flounder target TAC. the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, will not Exemption Program. Vessels will be This provision requires that when the be exceeded. Analysis indicates that by provided with additional information by yellowtail flounder TAC for the assessing each exemption trip a mail regarding all notification Exemption Program is projected to be minimum of 10 DAS, conservation requirements. reached, access by scallop dredge neutrality will be maintained, i.e., Each vessel participating in this vessels into this exempted area must be fishing mortality should not increase program is required to report discontinued. beyond status quo. information on a daily basis through the This action implements a buffer zone On or after October 1, 1999, after VMS. On all trips to the Exemption adjacent to that portion of Closed Area taking into account data on the number Area, vessels must report their daily ° II south of 41 30’N. lat., comprising a of eligible vessels participating and the pounds (kilograms) of scallop meats larger zone referred to as the Georges total number of trips taken, the Regional kept. In addition, vessels on observed Bank Sea Scallop Exemption Area. This Administrator may adjust the scallop trips must provide a separate report of ° buffer zone is established at 67 40’W. possession limit, if necessary, and/or the daily pounds (kilograms) of scallop long. and has a northern boundary line allocate one or more additional trips, if meats kept and the pounds (kilograms) ° of 42 12’ N. lat., intersecting with enough of the sea scallop target TAC of yellowtail flounder caught on tows Closed Area II, and a southern boundary remains to warrant such an adjustment ° that were observed. line of 40 24’ N. lat., intersecting the or allocation, for full- and part-time Vessels that have declared a trip outer boundary of the exclusive permitted vessels that declared a trip under the Exemption Program are economic zone, respectively. Vessels under the Exemption Program prior to prohibited from possessing more than fishing under the Exemption Program September 1. Occasional vessels would 50 U.S. bushels (400 lb (181.4 kg) of may not fish for or harvest sea scallops not be allocated an additional trip, meats) of shell stock when outside of outside of the Exemption Area during regardless of whether they declared a the designated Exemption Area that trip, nor may they enter the trip under the Exemption Program specified in this framework. This 400– Exemption Area more than once per before September 1. lb (181.4 kg) scallop meat limit for shell trip. Scallop vessels fishing under a At the discretion of the Regional stock is considered part of the 10,000– scallop DAS, but that are not fishing Administrator, scallop vessels may be lb (4,536.0–kg) meat weight possession under this Exemption Program, will be allocated an additional amount of sea limit. A limit on the amount of sea prohibited from entering the Exemption scallops (not to exceed a cumulative scallops landed in the shell is a Area, unless transiting for safety reasons total of 43 mt) for each trip on which an necessary enforcement tool for purposes in accordance with the provisions of observer is taken in order to help defray of monitoring the 10,000– lb (4,536.0– § 648.81(e). costs. The vessel owner will be All limited access scallop vessels, responsible for paying for the cost of the kg) meat weight possession limit including vessels that hold a scallop observer. requirement. Allowing vessels to retain Confirmation of Permit History, will be This action increases the regulated a relatively minor amount of shell stock eligible to fish for the sea scallop target multispecies incidental catch allowance will help satisfy a market for large, live TAC in the Exemption Area. Full-time from 300 lb (136.1 kg) to 500 lb (226.8 scallops, yet not compromise the and part-time scallop vessels will each kg) per trip for scallop vessels when enforceability of the possession limit. be allowed up to three trips into the fishing under the Exemption Program All scallop vessels, including those Exemption Area of up to 10,000 lb and authorizes the Regional currently fishing with nets, that are (4,536.0 kg) of meats per trip, and Administrator to make mid-season fishing under the Exemption Program occasional vessels will be allowed one adjustments, if necessary, to reduce must use scallop dredge gear that trip of up to 10,000 lb (4,356.0 kg) of regulatory discards. Because vessels are conforms to the current sea scallop meats. Note that the 10,000 lb (4,356.0 expected to catch more groundfish dredge vessel gear restrictions specified kg) of meats per trip is a possession (specifically yellowtail flounder) in the in § 648.51, with the exception of the limit rather than a landing limit to help Exemption Area, increasing the twine top mesh size restrictions. For ensure the enforceability of this allowance of regulated species will help vessels fishing in the Exempted Area, measure. reduce discards. In addition, vessels twine tops must have a minimum mesh All scallop vessels fishing in the that have an observer on board would be size of 10–inch (25.40–cm) square or Exemption Program must have installed allowed to retain all regulated species diamond mesh. Vessels not fishing in on board an operational Vessel caught, provided the fish caught in the Exempted Area and fishing under a Monitoring System (VMS) unit that excess of the possession limit is donated scallop DAS are required to have a meets the minimum performance to charity. minimum mesh twine top of 8–inch criteria as specified in the regulations Each vessel operator is required to (20.32–cm) square or diamond mesh. (occasional permitted vessels are the inform NMFS of his/her intention to This 8–inch (20.32–cm) minimum mesh only limited access scallop vessels not fish in the Exemption Area on a twine top requirement does not expire currently required to have a VMS). monthly basis through the VMS e-mail at the end of the fishing year, but Scallop vessels planning to fish on an system to facilitate placement of continues indefinitely. It has a delayed Exemption Area trip must so declare by observers. This and the following effective date of December 16, 1999, to notifying the Administrator, Northeast information must be reported prior to allow industry time to order and Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), the 15th of the month preceding the purchase this gear. The purpose of through the VMS. Vessels will be month in question: Vessel name and increasing the twine top measurement is provided with instructions on permit number, owner and operator’s to reduce bycatch of groundfish and procedures for this notification name, owner and operator’s phone other finfish. Recent research requirement. For each trip declared, a numbers, and number of trips demonstrates that this increase may minimum of 10 DAS will automatically anticipated for the month in question. In significantly reduce bycatch of certain be deducted. A fundamental objective of addition, any vessel selected for species, especially flatfish species.

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31146 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Vessels fishing under the Exemption codified at 50 CFR part 648, subpart F. were available for public review 1 week Program are prohibited from off-loading This procedure requires the Council, prior to the final Council meeting, as is their scallop catch at more than one when making specifically allowed required under the framework location. This measure will help in adjustments to the FMP, to develop and adjustment process. Written comments monitoring the TAC as well as aid analyze the actions over the span of at were accepted up to, and during that enforcement in tracking landings and in least two Council meetings. The Council meeting. enforcing the trip limit. must provide the public with advance Comments and Responses Disapproved Measure notice of both the proposals and the analysis, and an opportunity to Comment 1: Several commenters The framework action proposed to comment on them prior to and at a stated that this action should remain restrict vessels to a maximum of 10 DAS second Council meeting. Upon review conservation neutral, i.e., there should when fishing east of a buffer zone of the analysis and public comment, the be no net increase in fishing mortality ° established at 67 40’ W. long. This Council may recommend to the for sea scallops. restriction would require additional Regional Administrator that the Response: The framework analyses compliance monitoring to ensure measures be published as a final rule if demonstrate that total fishing mortality vessels remain within the 10 DAS limit. certain conditions are met. NMFS may will not increase, except in the unlikely With certain exceptions, current publish the measures as a final rule, or event that a large portion of inactive regulations at § 648.51(c) limit crew size as a proposed rule if additional public vessels, including vessels that hold a to a maximum of seven persons, comment is needed. Confirmation of Permit History, begin including the operator. However, some The public was provided the fishing. vessel operators are considering taking opportunity to express comments on Comment 2: Many industry fewer crew as a cost saving measure. allowing access by scallop vessels into participants requested that this Fewer crew may require longer trips the multispecies closed areas at framework serve as a cornerstone for a that could possibly exceed 10 DAS if it numerous meetings. The following list more permanent rotational scallop were allowed. Therefore, because this includes all meetings, including plan fishing strategy. Response: The framework action’s measure would disrupt alternative development team meetings, at which intent is to allow temporary access to approaches by some vessel owners or this action was on the agenda, Closed Area II to scallop fishing while operators to reduce costs and increase discussed, and public comment was the Council develops an amendment efficiency, while having no discernable heard: conservation benefit, it violates national that may, as a portion of the standard 5 and national standard 7 of Date Meeting management plan, include a formal area the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery rotation strategy. The scallop fishery for Conservation and Management Act. 1997: Closed Area II will provide an National standard 5 requires October 17 Scallop and Multispecies opportunity to collect needed conservation and management measures PDT information to make this strategy consider efficiency in the harvesting of 1998: possible. fishery resources. National standard 7 June 17 Scallop Advisory Panel Comment 3: Some industry members requires conservation and management July 28±29 Scallop Oversight Com- commented that the sea scallop mittee management measures proposed for measures minimize costs where 1999: practicable. Therefore, this measure is January 8 Scallop PDT Closed Area II are too restrictive and disapproved. January 25±26 Scallop PDT that fishing effort, consequently, would In addition to disapproving this January 27±28 Council remain in the open areas. measure, NMFS is unable to guarantee February 4 Habitat Committee and Response: The Council has accounted observer coverage to the degree that the Habitat Advisory Panel for the benefits, costs, and risks Council recommends in the framework February 8 Scallop Advisory Panel associated with the closed area fishery document. At its April 1999 meeting, February 9 Scallop Oversight Com- when choosing this action. The EA the Council voted to include a statement mittee shows that, currently, it would be more in the document that observer coverage February 11 Multispecies Oversight economical for scallopers to fish in the Committee should occur on at least 25 percent of February 11 Scallop PDT Exemption Program than in the existing the scallop trips in the Exemption Area. February 12 Gear Conflict Committee open areas. By this statement, the Council clearly is February 23 Science and Statistical Comment 4: Several comments were sending a strong message about its Committee received regarding the shortsightedness serious concerns regarding the need to February 24±25 Council of reopening Closed Area II regarding monitor this fishery for compliance March 9 Habitat Committee and several important fishery resources. purposes, including accurate finfish Habitat Advisory Panel Response: As noted earlier, the EA bycatch reports. NMFS shares this March 16 Multispecies PDT concludes that there will be no net concern but cannot, at this time, fund a March 17±18 Scallop PDT increase in fishing mortality for March 22±23 Joint Multispecies Over- domestic observer program to the level scallops. One of the more critical sight Committee/Multi- groundfish stocks, Georges Bank recommended by the Council. NMFS is species Advisory Panel currently exploring several options that March 29 Enforcement Oversight yellowtail, has recovered considerably would fund observer coverage, Committee from its once highly depleted condition. including the 43–mt set aside April 8±9 Scallop Oversight Com- While continued rebuilding is recommended by the Council for this mittee necessary, this action takes the purpose. April 14±15 Council necessary steps to protect this valuable resource through implementation of a Abbreviated Rulemaking Documents summarizing the TAC, which, when reached, will result NMFS is making these revisions to the Council’s proposed action, and the in eliminating access to Closed Area II regulations under the framework analysis of biological and economic by scallop vessels. The action also abbreviated rulemaking procedure impacts of this and alternative actions, promotes fishing effort reduction in

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31147 areas where scallops are depleted and Response: This action sets a into the closed areas if it does not increases yield, while at the same time yellowtail flounder TAC, which, when jeopardize the rebuilding schedule for minimizing habitat impacts by keeping reached, results in termination of the groundfish or scallops and minimizes some important areas closed. This Exemption Program. The yellowtail impacts on habitat as much as possible. action will thus promote rebuilding of TAC will ensure that the proposed Since these issues have been adequately the scallop resource by reducing effort closed area fishery will not cause a addressed for Closed Area II, this action on small, fast-growing scallops and setback to the species’ rebuilding allows access to a portion of this area minimize impacts on other rebuilding schedule. Cod and haddock do not under certain conditions. stocks. This action, therefore, takes a appear to be vulnerable to scallop Comment 11: Industry commented meaningful step toward achieving fishing with dredges within Closed Area that gear research for the purposes of optimum yield, considering both the II during the proposed fishing season. reducing bycatch should be encouraged Sea Scallop and the Multispecies FMPs. Furthermore, increasing the twine top and suggested that a portion of the TAC Comment 5: Some commenters mesh and the expected effort transfers used to fund this. expressed concern regarding the from areas now open to scallop fishing Response: This action sets aside 1 destruction to the ocean floor that could will limit the impacts on other species. percent of the scallop target TAC (43 mt) be caused by scallop dredge vessels in By suspending the fishery when certain as a means to fund research projects Closed Area II. thresholds are exceeded and by such as new gears or gear modifications Response: This action re-opens only requiring different fishing gear, this that would reduce bycatch by scallop those areas in Closed Area II that are action will mitigate the negative impacts dredge vessels. believed to have the lowest habitat on species even though a net increase in Comment 12: Several industry value within this area. The bottom of mortality is expected. members requested that the northeast the re-opened portion primarily consists Comment 8: Several industry corner of the Nantucket Lightship of a high-energy sand and shell bottom. members commented that the yellowtail Closed Area be open for scallop fishing. While not devoid of other species, the flounder TAC will likely force an early Response: This action does not reopen habitat in this area is not as complex closure of the Georges Bank Sea Scallop the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area or and diverse as the habitats to the north Exemption Program. portions of this area due to uncertainty within Closed Area II, which will Response: This action includes a 10– about the scallop and habitat resources remain closed to scallop fishing. inch (25.40–cm) twine top mesh for in this area and, more particularly, Although the proposed action will scallop dredge vessels that declare into because of concern regarding the poor increase impacts in the area to be the Exemption Program. This larger condition of the Southern New England opened for scallop fishing, the mesh is expected to reduce yellowtail yellowtail flounder stock. compensating effect will be to reduce flounder bycatch substantially. If Comment 13: Due to the potential of scallop fishing effort in areas that are coupled with voluntary industry efforts gear conflicts, lobster industry members now open. Some of these presently open to change fishing methods to avoid requested that the closed area(s) to be areas have significantly more complex bycatch, these actions could delay reopened be modified in such a way as and diverse habitat than that found in suspension of the fishery due to excess to avoid areas with concentrations of the southern portion of Closed Area II. bycatch. lobster pot gear. The biological impacts of this trade- off Comment 9: Questions were raised Response: Smaller area options within are discussed in the EA. On balance, about barndoor skate and how this Closed Area II were rejected to give the therefore, this action was determined to exemption program may further impact scallop industry maximum flexibility to be consistent with Essential Fish Habitat this species. avoid stationary gear and research objectives. Response: NMFS is currently experiments, as well as avoid finfish A portion of the scallop target TAC considering a petition to list the bycatch. Fortunately, the experimental has been set aside as a source of funding barndoor skate as an endangered fishery showed that there are relatively for experiments that may help to species. Although bycatch information fewer scallops in most areas with dense identify more selective fishing gears or on this species was derived from the concentrations of lobster pot gear. The gears that have less habitat impacts. 1998 experimental fishery, until the Council believes, and NMFS concurs, Comment 6: Several commenters barndoor skate population is assessed that it is better to let the industry noted that the Georges Bank closed and more information becomes develop working arrangements in small, areas were closed to scallop dredge gear available, the Council and NMFS are specific areas where lobster gear might partly because this gear disrupts unable to determine the impacts on the temporarily coincide with areas of spawning activity of groundfish. population. higher scallop abundance. Response: This action restricts access Comment 10: Industry commented Comment 14: One commenter asked by scallop dredge vessels into Closed that the groundfish closure areas why the intermediate harvestable sea Area II to a time frame when groundfish compromise approximately half of the scallop biomass estimate (4,300 mt) was spawning activity is considered to be Georges Bank scallop grounds by area selected over the high biomass estimate minimal; i.e., June 15, 1999, to and that scallop vessels should be able (6,300 mt). December 31, 1999. Scallop vessel to regain access to these areas. Response: The Council chose, and access to Closed Area I and the Response: Under current conditions, NMFS is implementing by this action, a Nantucket Lightship Closed Area are not the biomass within the closed areas on target scallop TAC that represents an allowed under this action at this time Georges Bank includes much more than intermediate harvestable biomass because of concern regarding issues half of the scallop biomass of the estimate provided by scientists. These such as groundfish spawning activity. Georges Bank stock. This imbalance has biomass figures were based on different Comment 7: Some commenters stated arisen mainly due to the excessively dredge efficiency estimates. Because of that any economic gain derived from high fishing mortality on scallops uncertainty surrounding the correct scallop fishing in Closed Area II will be within areas now open to scallop dredge efficiency to use, combined with offset or lost by the setback to cod, fishing. a Scallop Plan Development Team yellowtail flounder, and other The Council and NMFS agree that recommendation against choosing the recovering species. access by scallopers could be allowed high biomass figure because of risk

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31148 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations factors associated with historically high able to obtain 10-inch (25.40–cm) mesh Because a general notice of proposed catch levels, this action adopts the twine tops will be able to take their rulemaking as specified in 5 U.S.C. 533 intermediate estimate of 4,300 mt. three closed area trips later in the is not being published as explained Comment 15: Safety issues were season, provided that the fishery is not above, the analytical requirements of the raised regarding the concentration of suspended for exceeding the yellowtail Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 scallop vessels into small reopened flounder target TAC. et seq., are inapplicable. While a portions of Closed Area II. Comment 19: Industry commented regulatory flexibility analysis is not Response: This action allows access to that early access to the closed area is required and none has been prepared, the largest area that was under necessary to avoid adverse fall weather the socioeconomic impacts on affected consideration during the development and corresponding safety issues, as well fishers and alternatives to mitigate such of Framework Adjustment 11/29. This as to improve scallop yield. impacts were considered by the Council larger area gives the fleet the most Response: This action will allow and NMFS. The primary intent of this flexibility to avoid bycatch and reduces access for scallop fishing in Closed Area action is to allow scallop vessels an the potential for problems caused by II starting June 15, 1999. Although full- opportunity to remain economically crowding. time scallop vessels generally fish year- viable, while ensuring that the fishing Comment 16: Concern was expressed round, part-time and occasional vessels, mortality for the entire sea scallop stock that this exemption program would which tend to be smaller, less seaworthy does not exceed the F target of F=0.83 encourage a ‘‘derby-style’’ fishery. vessels, would benefit from this early in the FMP for 1999. Response: Although a derby-style opening since it will allow them to take This final rule has been determined to fishery could ensue, the scallop all of their trips during the summer be significant for the purposes of E.O. possession limit to some extent months when weather is often favorable 12866. addresses this concern. and scallop yield is high. Comment 17: Many people have Notwithstanding any other provision commented that the high biomass of Classification of law, no person is required to respond scallops in Closed Area II represents an Notice and opportunity for public to, nor shall a person be subject to a important opportunity to learn how to comment were provided to discuss the penalty for failure to comply with a manage an essentially rebuilt stock for management measures implemented by collection of information subject to the optimum yield, as national standard 1 this rule. Comments were received from requirements of the Paperwork requires. members of the fishing industry and are Reduction Act unless that collection of Response: Additional data collected responded to in the preamble of this information displays a currently valid during the closed area scallop fishery rule. Therefore, the Assistant OMB control number. could be an important source of Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA This rule contains three new information for developing an area (AA), under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), finds for collection-of-information requirements rotation management strategy, good cause that additional prior notice and revises three current collection-of- contemplated for Amendment 10 to the and additional opportunity for public information requirements. The Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP. comment is unnecessary and for the collection of this information has been Comment 18: Industry commented reasons set forth below it would be approved through emergency clearance that they cannot accommodate the contrary to the public interest to delay by OMB under OMB control number required gear modification in time for this rule in order to provide further 0648–0385. The estimated response the planned implementation of the notice and further opportunity for times are as follows: framework adjustment. The proposed public comment. action will cause substantial amounts of Recently, Amendment 7 to the New Collection-of-Information inventory to become obsolete and the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP became Requirements effective (64 FR 14835, March 29, 1999). gear cannot be used for other purposes. 1. Monthly reporting of intention to This amendment, which addresses the Response: A primary reason for fish in the Georges Bank Sea Scallop new Sustainable Fisheries Act requiring 8-inch (20.32–cm) mesh twine Exemption Program through the VMS e- requirements, substantially reduces the tops in all areas outside of the mail messaging system level of fishing for scallops through the Exemption Area is to compensate for the (§ 648.58(c)(3)(i))(10 minutes/response). increased bycatch expected in the year 2008 by revising the current fishing closed area scallop fishery. Although effort reduction schedule. Although a 2. Daily reporting of sea scallops kept only limited studies of its effectiveness less severe reduction is proposed for and, for observed trips, sea scallops kept are available, preliminary indications fishing year 1999, failure to allow and yellowtail flounder caught on are that substantial bycatch reductions scallop vessels access to Closed Area II observed tows through the VMS e-mail can be expected (especially for as soon as finfish bycatch concerns messaging system for vessels fishing in flounders), without losing many would be mitigated to the largest extent the Georges Bank Sea Scallop scallops in areas now open to fishing. possible, i.e., June 15, will increase Exemption Program (§ 648.58(c)(10))(10 This gear is expected to have additional, costs to scallop vessels fishing in minutes/response). but unquantified long-term benefits that currently open areas where scallop 3. Notice requirements for observer will be realized through reducing biomass is low and where the stock is deployment (§ 648.58(c)(3)(iii))(2 unwanted bycatch or bycatch that dominated by small scallops. minutes/response). cannot be legally landed. Furthermore, an earlier opening date Revised Collection-of-Information Implementation of the 8-inch (20.32– will allow more time for smaller vessels Requirements 1. Documentation of cm) twine top requirement will be to fish their allotted trips during good installation of a VMS unit (§ 648.10(b)) delayed until December 16, 1999, to weather. Accordingly, the AA also finds (2 minutes/response). allow time to obtain adequate supplies. that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the need to The cost of purchasing new twine have this regulation in place by June 15, 2. Declaration into the Georges Bank tops is minimal when compared to the 1999, is good cause to waive part of the Sea Scallop Exemption Program through benefits and increased profits expected 30-day delay in effectiveness of this the VMS prior to leaving the dock from this measure. Vessels that are not regulation. (§ 648.58(c)(3)(ii))(2 minutes/response)

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31149

3. Installation of a VMS unit on board have installed on board an operational possession of more than 40 lb (18.14 kg) the vessel (§ 648.10(b))(1 hour/ VMS unit that meets the minimum of shucked, or 5 bu (176.1 L) of in-shell response). performance criteria specified in scallops, all trawl vessels fishing for The estimated response time includes § 648.9(b) or as modified in § 648.9(a). scallops, and all dredge vessels issued a the time needed for reviewing Owners of such vessels must provide limited access scallop permit and instructions, searching existing data documentation to the Regional fishing under the DAS program with the sources, gathering and maintaining the Administrator at the time of application exception of hydraulic clam dredges data needed, and completing and for a limited access permit that the and mahogany quahog dredges in reviewing the collection of information. vessel has an operational VMS installed possession of 400 lb (181.44 kg), or less, Public comment is sought regarding: on board that meets those criteria. If a of scallops, must comply with the Whether this collection of information vessel has already been issued a limited following restrictions, unless otherwise is necessary for the proper performance access permit without the owner specified: of the functions of the agency, including providing such documentation, the * * * * * whether the information has practical Regional Administrator shall allow at (2) Minimum mesh size. (i) From June utility; the accuracy of the burden least 30 days for the an operational VMS 15, 1999, through December 15, 1999, estimate; ways to enhance the quality, unit that meets the criteria to be for vessels fishing under a scallop DAS, utility, and clarity of the information to installed on board the vessel and for the unless otherwise restricted under be collected; and ways to minimize the owner to provide documentation of § 648.58, and from June 15, 1999, and burden of the collection of information, such installation to the Regional beyond, for all vessels not fishing under including through the use of automated Administrator. Vessels that are required the scallop DAS program, the mesh size collection techniques or other forms of to or have elected to use a VMS unit of a net, net material, or any other information technology. Send comments shall be subject to the following material on the top of a scallop dredge regarding any of these burden estimates requirements and presumptions: in use by or in possession of such or any other aspect of the collection-of- * * * * * vessels shall not be smaller than 5.5 information to NMFS and OMB (see 3. In § 648.14, paragraphs (a)(39) and inches (13.97 cm) square or diamond ADDRESSES). (h)(13) are revised and paragraphs mesh. (h)(27) and (h)(28) are added to read as (ii) Starting December 16, 1999, List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648 follows: unless otherwise restricted under Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and § 648.14 Prohibitions. § 648.58, the mesh size of a net, net recordkeeping requirements. material, or any other material on the (a) * * * top of a scallop dredge possessed or Dated: June 7, 1999. (39) Enter or be in the area described Penelope D. Dalton, in § 648.81(b)(1) on a fishing vessel, used by vessels fishing under a scallop Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, except as provided by § 648.58, during DAS shall not be smaller than 8–inch NationalMarine Fisheries Service. the time and in the portion of Closed (20.32–cm) square or diamond mesh. (iii) Mesh size is measured as For the reasons set out in the Area II specified in § 648.58 or provided in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended 648.81(b)(2). section. as follows: * * * * * (h) * * * * * * * * PART 648ÐFISHERIES OF THE (13) Possess more than 40 lb (18.14 5. In § 648.52, paragraph (c) is added NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES kg) of shucked, or 5 bu (176.1 L) of in- to read as follows: 1. The authority citation for part 648 shell scallops, or fish under the DAS § 648.52 Possession limits. continues to read as follows: allocation program, while in possession * * * * * of dredge gear that uses net or net Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (c) Owners or operators of vessels material, or any other material, on the with a limited access scallop permit that 2. In § 648.10, paragraph (b) top half of the dredge with a mesh size have declared into the Georges Bank Sea introductory text is revised to read as smaller than that specified in Scallop Exemption Program as follows: § 648.51(b)(2), unless otherwise described in § 648.58 are prohibited prohibited under paragraph (h)(27) of § 648.10 DAS notification requirements. from possessing or landing per trip more this section. than the sea scallop possession limit * * * * * * * * * * specified in § 648.58(c)(6). (b) VMS Notification. Multispecies (27) Enter or be in the area described 6. Section 648.58 is added to read as vessels issued an Individual DAS or in § 648.58(b) when fishing under a follows: Combination Vessel permit, scallop scallop DAS, with a net, net material, or vessels issued a full-time or part-time any other material on the top half of the § 648.58 Georges Bank Sea Scallop limited access scallop permit, and dredge with mesh size smaller than that Exemption Program. scallop vessels issued an occasional specified in § 648.58(c)(7). (a) Eligibility. (1) During the period limited access permit when fishing (28) Fail to comply with any of the June 15, 1999, through December 31, under the Georges Bank Sea Scallop provisions and specifications of 1999, all scallop vessels issued a limited Exemption Program specified in § 648.58. access scallop permit may fish in the § 648.58, or scallop vessels fishing * * * * * Georges Bank Sea Scallop Exemption under the small dredge program 4. In § 648.51, paragraph (b) Area, defined in paragraph (b) of this specified in § 648.51(e), or vessels introductory text, and paragraph (b)(2) section, when fishing under a scallop issued a limited access multispecies or are revised to read as follows: DAS, provided the vessel complies with scallop permit and whose owners elect the requirements of paragraph (c) of this to fish under the VMS notification of § 648.51 Gear and crew restrictions. section. this paragraph (b), unless otherwise * * * * * (2) Except for scallop vessels fishing authorized or required by the Regional (b) Dredge vessel gear restrictions. All under a scallop DAS that have not Administrator under § 648.10(d), must dredge vessels fishing for or in declared a fishing trip into the Georges

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31150 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Bank Sea Scallop Exemption Program, in § 648.81(b), provided the vessel map depicting the area are available as specified under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of complies with all applicable from the Regional Administrator upon this section, vessels may fish in that regulations. request) is defined by straight lines portion of the exemption area described (b) Georges Bank Sea Scallop connecting the following points in the in paragraph (b) of this section that lies Exemption Area. The Georges Bank Sea order stated: outside of Closed Area II, as described Scallop Exemption Area (copies of a GEORGES BANK SEA SCALLOP EXEMPTION AREA

Point N. Lat. W. Long.

DA1 40°24.000' 67°40.000' DA2 40°24.000' 65°43.121'(on U.S./Canada Maritime Boundary) G6 41°30.000' 66°34.728'(on U.S./Canada Maritime Boundary) G7 41°30.000' 67°20.000' DA4 42°12.000' 67°20.000' DA5 42°12.000' 67°40.000' DA1 40°24.000' 67°40.000'

(c) Requirements. To fish in the Georges Bank Sea Scallop Exemption vessel restrictions specified under Georges Bank Sea Scallop Exemption Area during the season described in § 648.51(b), except that the mesh size of Area under the Georges Bank Sea paragraph (c)(1) of this section, unless a net, net material, or any other material Scallop Exemption Program an eligible otherwise specified by notification in on the top of a scallop dredge in use by vessel must comply with the following the Federal Register. If the vessel is an or in possession of the vessel shall not requirements: occasional scallop vessel, it must not be smaller than 10.0 inches (25.40 cm) (1) Season. The vessel may only fish fish more than one trip in the Georges square or diamond mesh. in the Georges Bank Sea Scallop Bank Sea Scallop Exemption Area (8) Transiting. When transiting to and Exemption Area under the Georges Bank during the season described in from the Georges Bank Sea Scallop Sea Scallop Exemption Program only paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Exemption Area, all gear on board must from June 15 through December 31, (5) Area fished. A vessel that has be properly stowed and not available for 1999, unless otherwise specified by declared a trip into the Georges Bank immediate use in accordance with the notification in the Federal Register. Sea Scallop Exemption Program must provisions of § 648.81(e). (2) VMS. The vessel must have not fish for, catch, or harvest scallops (9) Off-loading restrictions. The vessel installed on board an operational VMS from outside of the Georges Bank Sea may not off-load its sea scallop catch at unit that meets the minimum Scallop Exemption Area and must not more than one location. performance criteria specified in enter or exit the Exemption Area more (10) Reporting. The owner or operator § 648.9(b) or as modified in § 648.9(a). than once per trip. must submit reports through the VMS, (3) Declaration. (i) The vessel must (6) Possession limits. (i) Unless in accordance with instructions to be provided by the Regional Administrator, submit a monthly report through the otherwise authorized by the Regional for each day fished when declared in VMS e-mail messaging system, prior to Administrator as specified in paragraph the Georges Bank Sea Scallop the 15th of the month preceding the (e) of this section, a vessel declared into Exemption Program. The reports must month in question, of its intention to the Georges Bank Sea Scallop be submitted in 24–hour intervals, fish in the exemption area, along with Exemption Program may possess and beginning at 0000 hours and ending at the following information: Vessel name land up to 10,000 lb (4,536.0 kg) of 2400 hours each day, and include the and permit number, owner and scallop meats per trip, with a maximum following information: operator’s name, owner and operator’s of 400 lb (181.4 kg) of the possession (i) Total pounds/kilograms of scallop phone numbers, and number of trips limit originating from 50 bu (176.1 L) of meats kept; and anticipated for the month in question. in-shell scallops. (ii) For each trip that the vessel has a (ii) In addition, on the day the vessel (ii) The vessel may possess and land NMFS approved observer on board, the leaves port to fish under the Georges up to 500 lb (226.8 kg) of regulated total pounds/kilograms of scallop meats Bank Sea Scallop Exemption Program, multispecies, unless otherwise kept and total pounds/kilograms of the vessel owner or operator must restricted under § 648.86(a)(2)(i) or (b), yellowtail flounder caught on tows that declare into the Program through the or the vessel is carrying a NMFS were observed by a NMFS approved VMS, in accordance with instructions to approved sea sampler or observer on observer. be provided by the Regional board the vessel. A vessel carrying an (d) Accrual of DAS. A scallop vessel Administrator prior to leaving port. approved sea sampler or observer may that has declared a fishing trip into the (iii) A vessel selected for observer possess all regulated multispecies Georges Bank Sea Scallop Exemption coverage must provide notice to NMFS, caught, provided the regulated Program of this section shall have a in accordance with the notification multispecies in excess of 500 lb (226.8– minimum of 10 DAS deducted from its requirements specified under kg) are donated to charity. A vessel DAS allocation, regardless of whether § 648.11(b), as to the time and port of subject to the 500–lb (226.8–kg) the actual number of DAS used during departure at least 5 working days prior possession limit must separate all the trip is less than 10. Trips that exceed to the beginning of any trip on which it regulated multispecies onboard from 10 DAS will be counted as actual time. declares into the Georges Bank Sea other species of fish so as to be readily (e) Possession limit increase. The Scallop Exemption Program. available for inspection. Regional Administrator may increase (4) Number of trips. If the vessel is a (7) Gear restrictions. The vessel must the sea scallop possession limit full or part-time scallop vessel, it must fish with or possess scallop dredge gear specified under paragraph (c)(6) of this not fish more than three trips in the only in accordance with the dredge section for a vessel that has declared a

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31151 fishing trip into the Georges Bank Sea (h) * * * (1) Except as provided in (c) Other possession restrictions. Scallop Exemption Program and on paragraph (h)(2) of this section and in Vessels are subject to all other which a NMFS approved sea sampler or § 648.58(c)(6)(ii), a scallop vessel that applicable possession limit restrictions observer is on board the vessel, or on possesses a limited access scallop as specified under § 648.58(c)(6), which a NMFS approved research permit and either a multispecies § 648.82(b)(3), § 648.83(b)(1), § 648.88(a) project is being conducted. Notification combination vessel permit or a scallop and (c), and § 648.89(c). of this increase of the possession limit multispecies possession limit permit, 10. In § 648.88, paragraph (c) is will be provided to the vessel with the and that is fishing under a scallop DAS revised to read as follows: observer selection notification. The allocated under § 648.53, may possess amount of the possession limit increase and land up to 300 lb (136.1 kg) of § 648.88 Open access permit restrictions. will be determined by the Regional regulated species per trip, provided that * * * * * Administrator and the vessel owner will the amount of cod on board does not (c) Scallop multispecies possession be responsible for paying the cost of the exceed the daily cod limit specified in limit permit. Unless otherwise observer and/or defraying the cost of the § 648.86(b), up to a maximum of 300 lb prohibited in § 648.86(b), and except as research project, whichever is (136.1 kg) of cod for the entire trip, and provided in § 648.58(c)(6)(ii) for vessels applicable, regardless of whether the provided the vessel has at least one fishing under the Georges Bank Sea vessel lands or sells sea scallops on that standard tote on board, unless otherwise Scallop Exemption Program, a vessel trip. restricted by § 648.86(a)(2). that has been issued a valid open access (f) In-season adjustments. (1) * * * * * scallop multispecies possession limit Adjustment process for sea scallop 8. In § 648.81, paragraph (b)(1) permit may possess and land up to 300 possession limit and number of trips introductory text is revised to read as lb (136.1 kg) of regulated species when under the Georges Bank Sea Scallop follows: fishing under a scallop DAS allocated Exemption Program. On or after October under § 648.53, provided that the 1, 1999, the Regional Administrator may § 648.81 Closed areas. amount of cod on board does not exceed adjust the sea scallop possession limit, * * * * * the daily cod limit specified in and/or allocate one or more additional (b) * * * (1) No fishing vessel or § 648.86(b), up to a maximum of 300 lb trips for full and part-time limited person on a fishing vessel may enter, (136.1 kg) of cod for the entire trip, and access sea scallop vessels that declared fish, or be in the area known as Closed that the vessel does not fish for, possess, into and began a trip under the Georges Area II (copies of a map depicting this or land haddock from January 1 through Bank Sea Scallop Exemption Program area are available from the Regional June 30 as specified under prior to September 1, 1999. Occasional Administrator upon request), as defined § 648.86(a)(2)(i), and provided the vessel permitted vessels would not be by straight lines connecting the has at least one standard tote on board. allocated an additional trip regardless of following points in the order stated, * * * * * whether or not they declared or began except as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of [FR Doc. 99–14745 Filed 6–7–99; 2:35 pm] an exempted trip before September 1, this section, or unless exempt under the BILLING CODE 3510±22±F 1999. Georges Bank Sea Scallop Exemption (2) Termination of Georges Bank Sea Program specified under § 648.58 during Scallop Exemption Program because of the time and in the portion of Closed DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE yellowtail flounder bycatch/incidental Area II described in § 648.58(b): catch. NMFS shall publish notification * * * * * National Oceanic and Atmospheric in the Federal Register that the Georges 9. In § 648.86, the section heading and Administration Bank Sea Scallop Exemption Program is paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (c) are revised 50 CFR Part 679 terminated as of the date the Regional to read as follows: Administrator projects that the 387 mt of yellowtail flounder will be caught by § 648.86 Possession restrictions. [Docket No. 990304062±9062±01; I.D. vessels fishing in the Georges Bank Sea * * * * * 060499C] Scallop Exemption Program described (a) * * * (2) * * * Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic in this section. Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod in the (g) Transiting. Limited access sea (iii) Except for vessels fishing under the Georges Bank Sea Scallop Western Regulatory Area in the Gulf of scallop vessels intending to fish for Alaska scallops under a scallop DAS that have Exemption Program from July 1 through not declared a trip into the Georges December 31, 1999, as provided in AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Bank Sea Scallop Exemption Program § 648.58(c)(6)(ii), scallop dredge vessels Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and may not enter, fish, or be in the area or persons owning or operating a scallop Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), known as the Georges Bank Sea Scallop dredge vessel that is fishing under a Commerce. scallop DAS allocated under § 648.53 Exemption Area described in paragraph ACTION: Closure. (b) of this section, unless: may land or possess on board up to 300 (1) The operator has determined that lb (136.1 kg) of haddock, provided that SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed there is a compelling safety reason; and the vessel has at least one standard tote fishing for Pacific cod by vessels (2) The vessel’s fishing gear is stowed on board. This restriction does not catching Pacific cod for processing by in accordance with the requirements of apply to vessels issued NE multispecies the offshore component in the Western § 648.81(e). Combination Vessel permits that are Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska fishing under a multispecies DAS. 7. In § 648.80, paragraph (h)(1) is (GOA). This action is necessary to Haddock on board a vessel subject to revised to read as follows: prevent exceeding the amount of the this possession limit must be separated 1999 Pacific cod total allowable catch § 648.80 Regulated mesh areas and from other species of fish and stored so (TAC) allocated to vessels catching restrictions on gear and methods of fishing. as to be readily available for inspection. Pacific cod for processing by the * * * * * * * * * * offshore component in this area.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:05 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31152 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

DATES: Effective 1200 hours, Alaska In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), for the fishery. It must be implemented local time (A.l.t.), June 7, 1999, through the Administrator, Alaska Region, immediately to prevent overharvesting 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 1999. NMFS (Regional Administrator), has the amount of the 1999 Pacific cod TAC FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: determined that the amount of the allocated to vessels catching Pacific cod Thomas Pearson, 907–481–1780 or Pacific cod TAC allocated to vessels for processing by the offshore [email protected]. catching Pacific cod for processing by component in the Western Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS the offshore component in the Western Area of the GOA. A delay in the manages the groundfish fishery in the Regulatory Area of the GOA has been effective date is impracticable and GOA exclusive economic zone reached. Therefore, the Regional contrary to the public interest, and according to the Fishery Management Administrator is establishing a directed further delay would only result in Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of fishing allowance of 2,163 mt, and is overharvest. NMFS finds for good cause Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North setting aside the remaining 200 mt as that the implementation of this action bycatch to support other anticipated Pacific Fishery Management Council should not be delayed for 30 days. groundfish fisheries. In accordance with under authority of the Magnuson- Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Stevens Fishery Conservation and delay in the effective date is hereby Management Act. Regulations governing Administrator finds that this directed waived. fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance fishing allowance has been reached. with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting This action is required by § 679.20 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. directed fishing for Pacific cod by and is exempt from review under E.O. The Final 1999 Harvest Specifications vessels catching Pacific cod for 12866. of Groundfish for the GOA (64 FR processing by the offshore component in Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 12904, March 11, 1999) and subsequent the Western Regulatory Area of the reserve apportionment (64 FR 16362, GOA. Dated: June 7, 1999. April 5, 1999) established the amount of Maximum retainable bycatch amounts Bruce C. Morehead, the Pacific cod TAC allocated to vessels may be found in the regulations at Acting Director, Office of Sustainable catching Pacific cod for processing by § 679.20(e) and (f). Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. the offshore component in the Western [FR Doc. 99–14746 Filed 6–7–99; 2:35 pm] Regulatory Area as 2,363 metric tons Classification BILLING CODE 3510±22±F (mt), determined in accordance with This action responds to the best § 679.20(c)(4)(ii). available information recently obtained

VerDate 26-APR-99 11:45 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNR1 31153

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 111

Thursday, June 10, 1999

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER will be made available for public any obligation imposed in connection contains notices to the public of the proposed inspection in the Office of the Docket with the order is not in accordance with issuance of rules and regulations. The Clerk during regular business hours. law and request a modification of the purpose of these notices is to give interested FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: order or to be exempted therefrom. A persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final Martin Engeler, Assistant Regional handler is afforded the opportunity for rules. Manager, California Marketing Field a hearing on the petition. After the Office, Marketing Order Administration hearing the Secretary would rule on the Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA, 2202 petition. The Act provides that the DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno, district court of the United States in any California 93721; telephone: (559) 487– district in which the handler is an Agricultural Marketing Service 5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906; or George inhabitant, or has his or her principal Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing place of business, has jurisdiction to 7 CFR Part 981 Order Administration Branch, Fruit and review the Secretary’s ruling on the [Docket No. FV99±981±2 PR] Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room petition, provided an action is filed not 2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, later than 20 days after the date of the Almonds Grown in California; DC 20090–6456; telephone: (202) 720– entry of the ruling. Revisions to Requirements Regarding 2491, Fax: (202) 720–5698. Small This proposal invites comments on Credit for Promotion and Advertising businesses may request information on revising the requirements regarding Activities complying with this regulation, or credit for promotion and advertising obtain a guide on complying with fruit, AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, activities prescribed under the vegetable, and specialty crop marketing administrative rules and regulations of USDA. agreements and orders by contacting Jay ACTION: Proposed rule. the order. The order is funded through Guerber, Marketing Order the collection of assessments from Administration Branch, Fruit and SUMMARY: This rule invites comments almond handlers. Under the terms of the Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. on revising the requirements regarding regulations, handlers may receive credit Box 96456, room 2525–S, Washington, credit for promotion and advertising towards their assessment obligation for DC 20090–6456; telephone (202) 720– activities prescribed under the certain expenditures for marketing 2491, Fax: (202) 720–5698, or E-mail: administrative rules and regulations of promotion activities, including paid [email protected]. You may view the California almond marketing order advertising. This rule would revise the the marketing agreement and order (order). The order regulates the handling requirements regarding the activities for small business compliance guide at the of almonds grown in California and is which handlers may receive such credit. following web site: http:// administered locally by the Almond It would provide for more effective www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. Board of California (Board). The order is promotion programs and improved funded through the collection of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This clarity to the regulations, resulting in assessments from almond handlers. proposal is issued under Marketing improved program administration and Under the terms of the regulations, Order No. 981, as amended (7 CFR part more efficient and effective use of handlers may receive credit towards 981), regulating the handling of almonds industry promotion funds. This their assessment obligation for certain grown in California, hereinafter referred proposal was unanimously expenditures for marketing promotion to as the ‘‘order.’’ The marketing order recommended by the Board at meetings activities, including paid advertising. is effective under the Agricultural on December 2, 1998, and March 5, This rule would revise the requirements Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as 1999. amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter regarding the activities for which The order provides authority for the handlers may receive such credit. The referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ The Department of Agriculture Board to incur expenses for changes would make the promotion administering the order and to collect program more effective and efficient, (Department) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order assessments from handlers to cover clarify the regulations, and improve these expenses. Section 981.41(a) program administration. 12866. This rule has been reviewed under provides authority for the Board to DATES: Comments must be received by Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice conduct marketing promotion projects, July 12, 1999. Reform. This rule is not intended to including projects involving paid ADDRESSES: Interested persons are have retroactive effect. This rule will advertising. Section 989.41(c) allows the invited to submit written comments not preempt any State or local laws, Board to credit a handler’s assessment concerning this proposal. Comments regulations, or policies, unless they obligation with all or a portion of his or must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Fruit present an irreconcilable conflict with her direct expenditures for marketing and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, this rule. promotion, including paid advertising, room 2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, The Act provides that administrative that promotes the sale of almonds, Washington, DC 20090–6456; Fax: (202) proceedings must be exhausted before almond products, or their uses. Section 720–5698; or E-mail: parties may file suit in court. Under 981.41(e) allows the Board to prescribe [email protected]. All section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any rules and regulations regarding such comments should reference the docket handler subject to an order may file credit for market promotion including number and the date and page number with the Secretary a petition stating that paid advertising activities. Those of this issue of the Federal Register and the order, any provision of the order, or regulations are prescribed in § 981.441.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.084 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 31154 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

The Board has proposed the following Board’s year-end accounting practices The Board believes a more flexible changes to those regulations. and annual financial audit. Thus, the approach would be to revise the Board recommended that this deadline regulations to specify that no credit be Revising Time Frames for Submitting be reduced from 105 to 76 days after the given for outdoor advertising activities Documentation close of the end of the crop year. This conducted in any California county with Section 981.441(a) provides that, in would eliminate confusion and program more than 1,000 bearing acres of order for handlers to receive credit administration problems associated almonds. This approach would against their assessment obligation for with the overlap period for filing claims, adequately define the major growing their own promotional expenditures, the and would allow the Board’s end-of- regions, and accommodate production Board must determine that such year financial audit to be completed by shifts in the future. This would, in expenditures meet applicable December or earlier of the following effect, remove Sacramento County as a requirements. Currently, credit may be crop year, as opposed to January or major growing area and would thus granted in the form of a payment from later. Section 981.441(e)(6)(iv) is allow outdoor advertising in that the Board, or as an offset to the Board’s proposed to be modified accordingly. county. Sacramento County contains a assessment if activities are conducted When handlers have not filed a major metropolitan area, which lends and documented to the satisfaction of statement of credit-back commitments itself to the use of outdoor advertising, the Board at least 2 weeks prior to outstanding at the close of a crop year, and is a minor almond growing area, assessment billings. This 2-week period the deadline for filing final promotional with only 110 acres compared to an is also currently specified in claims with the Board is two weeks industry total of over 400,000 acres. The § 981.441(e)(6)(ii). Assessments are prior to the final assessment notice other 10 counties listed above would typically billed in four installments for (mid-August). However, this deadline continue to be regions ineligible for this a crop year near the end of the following date is not clearly specified in the type of credit. Other counties with months—November, January, April, and current regulations and has caused some significant almond acreage such as August. confusion in the past. Therefore, the Kings, San Luis Obispo, Solano, Sutter, Based on past experience with the Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba would also be program, the majority of handlers file Board recommended establishing August 15 as the deadline for filing final classified as major almond growing claims for credit for their promotional areas under the proposal, and outdoor activities during the later months of a claims in this situation. This would provide more clarity and reduce advertising in those counties, would, crop year. The vast majority of claims thus, be considered ineligible for credit- are thus received at the Board offices confusion regarding the deadline for filing final claims. Section back. near the third and fourth filing The Board further believes that 981.441(e)(6)(iv) is proposed to be deadlines. Because of this, the Board’s modifying the regulations in this modified accordingly. staff has found that it needs more time manner would better reflect the original to review and process handler Redefining Growing Region intent of the regulation, and would documentation for promotional claims allow more flexibility for shifts in Section 981.441(e)(3) currently does submitted during this time to grant production within the growing area. not generally allow handlers to receive credit against handlers’ assessment Section 981.441(e)(3) is proposed to be credit against their assessment obligations at the time assessment modified accordingly. The Board also notices are issued. Thus, the Board obligation for outdoor advertising or recommended that sponsorship be recommended that, in order for handlers sponsorships that are conducted in the completely eliminated as a credit-back to receive credit for their promotional major growing regions of California. The activity; this recommendation is activities on their third and fourth major growing regions currently listed discussed below. assessment billings (April and August), in the regulation are the following 11 the documentation for such activities almond-growing counties: Butte, Colusa, Revisions to List of Credit-Back must be submitted to the Board three Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Madera, Merced, Activities weeks, rather than two weeks, prior to Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Section 981.441(e)(4)(ii) lists 13 other those billings. Appropriate changes are and Tulare counties. The rationale for market promotion activities for which proposed to paragraphs (a) and (e)(6)(ii) this exclusion is that historically, much credit may be granted. These activities of § 981.441. of the outdoor advertising and currently include marketing research Section 981.441(e)(6)(iv) currently sponsorship activities in the major (except pre-testing and test-marketing of provides that final claims for credit-back growing areas have been to encourage paid advertising); trade and consumer advertising be submitted to the Board growers to do business with specific product publicity; printing costs for within 105 days after the close of the handlers rather than encouraging promotional material; direct mail crop year, in situations when handlers consumption of almonds. This is printing and distribution; retail in-store have filed a statement of credit-back contrary to the intent of this program, demonstrations; point-of-sale materials commitments outstanding as of the which is to promote the sale, (not including packaging); sales and close of the crop year. The Board consumption, or use of almonds. marketing presentation kits; trade fairs recommended changing this 105-day The Board recommended removing and exhibits; trade seminars; 50/50 time frame for several reasons. First, the this list of counties from the regulations advertising with retailers; couponing deadline can cause confusion among and adding substitute language. (printing, distribution, and handling handlers because it overlaps with the Production and new acreage planted in costs only); purchase of Board-produced time frame for filing the first claims of the almond industry have increased promotional materials; and the new crop year. In addition, the significantly in recent years, and sponsorships. overlap creates program administration production areas have been shifting The Board recommended revising the problems for Board staff with regard to within the State. The current regulations requirements regarding trade and reviewing claims and applying credit for do not take this into account, and the consumer product publicity. Trade and two separate years during the same time aforementioned list of counties no consumer product publicity includes period. Finally, the current deadline longer accurately reflects the major disseminating information through causes a delay in completion of the growing areas. various communications media to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.085 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31155 attract public attention. Handlers often Board staff to plan more effectively and of the program, which is to promote the hire an outside agency to conduct such to purchase materials more cost sale, use, and consumption of almonds. activities. Usually, such an agency effectively, while maintaining a Appropriate changes are proposed to charges a fee for its work. In the past, promotional tool for handlers. Since this be made to the list of credit-back this agency fee has been included as new system was developed, the Board activities specified in § 981.441(e)(4)(ii) part of the credit-back activity, as determined that continuing to allow to incorporate all of these changes. agency fees for paid advertising are. credit for purchase of Board-produced Recommendation Regarding Credit- However, in the case of trade and promotional material would result in Back for Almond Products consumer product publicity, the Board overlap of two similar programs. has encountered difficulties in Therefore, the Board recommended that Section 981.441(a) specifies that associating agency fees to particular purchase of such material be removed handlers may be granted credit against credit-back activities, and determining from the list of credit-back activities. their assessment obligation for an whether this fee is appropriate, because In addition, the Board recommended amount not to exceed 662⁄3 percent of a there is no standard fee or guidelines for that sponsorship be removed from the handler’s proven expenditures for such fees. For paid advertising, this list of credit-back activities. qualified activities. Section does not pose a problem because there Sponsorship includes the financial 981.441(e)(iv) provides that when is a standard agency fee that can easily support of an event or person carried products containing almonds are be associated directly to a particular out by another group or person. promoted, the amount allowed for activity. Thus, the Board recommended Sponsorship can be targeted towards Credit-Back shall reflect that portion of that agency fees for publicity no longer consumers, the trade, or may be the product weight represented by be included as a credit-back activity. All undertaken for general goodwill. A almonds, or the handler’s actual of the other allowable activities review of sponsorship claims submitted payment, whichever is less. For associated with publicity (such as in the past indicates several claims example, if a handler paid $1,000 in materials) which can be directly tied to appear to fall into the category of advertising costs to promote a product a specific publicity campaign would general goodwill rather than to promote which contained 60 percent almonds by still be eligible for credit. the sale and consumption of almonds as weight, such handler would be able to The Board also recommended that the primary purpose. Further, Board file a claim for credit against his or her trade seminars be removed from this list staff has had difficulty in determining a assessment obligation of 60 percent of of credit-back activities. Trade seminars reasonable rate for crediting some of the $1,000, or $600. The amount of credit include special events designed to activities due to a lack of an industry would be 662⁄3 percent of $600, or $400. educate the trade about the almond standard. Finally, Board staff has found If the product contained 70 percent industry and its products. Although that many of the most effective activities almonds by weight, the handler would Board records indicate there has been typically claimed as sponsorship can be be eligible to receive a credit against his no use of this area as a credit-back applicable under other credit-back areas or her assessment of 662⁄3 percent of the activity by handlers, the Board believes in the regulations. Thus, the Board 70 percent, or $467. that there is a high possibility of misuse recommended that sponsorship be The Board recommended adding an in this area. Trade seminars are not well removed from the list of credit-back exception to this portion of the defined and standardized activities; activities. regulations. Specifically, handlers who thus, lavish entertainment or elaborate The Board also recommended that a own almond-containing ‘‘unique’’ or sales meetings could be characterized as new credit-back activity be added to the ‘‘non-traditional’’ products would be trade seminars. Trade shows will regulations concerning use of the allowed to request that the Board grant remain as a credit-back activity, Internet. Several handlers have or are them a one-year exemption from this however. These events are widely used developing web-sites to promote their ‘‘percentage rule.’’ Thus, in the above and the activities are well-defined and almonds. This is a rapidly developing example, a handler could request from standardized, such as setting up booths communication medium becoming the Board an exemption and receive to exhibit merchandise to customers. widely recognized as a valuable credit for 662⁄3 percent of his or her Thus, the Board recommended that promotional tool. Thus, the Board advertising costs for the product, or trade seminars be removed from the list believes handlers should be allowed $667, regardless of the weight of the of credit-back activities. credit for development and use of the almonds in the product. The Board The Board also recommended that Internet for promotional purposes. believes that this special exception handlers’ purchases of Board-produced Because of the vast array of uses of the would provide handlers incentive to promotional materials be removed from Internet, however, the Board believes produce and advertise unique almond the list of credit-back activities. Board guidelines should be implemented products, resulting in increased almond funds are used to develop various regarding crediting handlers’ sales for the industry. The Board promotional materials that are made expenditures in this area. Thus, the members would be responsible for available to handlers. In the past, Board recommended that handlers be reviewing such requests from handlers handlers could purchase such materials allowed up to $5,000 credit against their and determining whether an exception from the Board and receive promotion assessment obligation for the would be granted on a case-by-case credit. However, the Board has recently development and use of a web-site on basis. developed an allocation system whereby the Internet for advertising and public The Department has concerns with handlers may receive a certain relations purposes. No credit would be this recommendation. Although there percentage of promotional material given for costs regarding E-commerce was support for this concept at the produced by the Board free of charge. (which is equivalent to opening a store), industry meetings which led to the Each handler’s allocation for a crop year Extranet (private web sites within the recommendations, those participating in is based on the percentage of almonds Internet), or portions of a web-site that the meetings were not able to develop handled during the prior year. Handlers target the farming or grower trade. The criteria to define a ‘‘unique’’ or ‘‘non- may purchase additional material at Board believes these types of activities traditional’’ product. Thus, there would cost. This new system, not covered by lend themselves to potential abuses and be no specific parameters for Board staff the credit-back regulations, allows may not necessarily advance the intent to review claims against. Because of

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.087 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 31156 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules this, the recommendation calls for the regulations regarding credit-back Removing certain activities available for Board itself, rather than staff, to promotion and advertising. Under the credit-back is not expected to negatively determine what products would qualify terms of the regulations, handlers may impact handlers, as numerous (Board staff currently reviews all receive credit towards their assessment promotional activities remain for them promotion claims). It is unclear how the obligation for certain of their direct to offset a portion of their assessment Board would make such determinations. expenditures for marketing promotion obligation. The activities proposed to be The lack of criteria could potentially activities, including paid advertising. removed have received little use in the lead to subjective decision making and This rule would make several revisions past, and in some cases lend themselves Board members reviewing claims could to the requirements regarding the to potential abuses that result in create potential conflicts of interest. The activities for which handlers may ineffective use of promotional funds. purpose of these regulations is to receive such credit. These revisions The changes proposed are expected to provide a clear set of guidelines that can include: Revising the time frames and be equally beneficial to all handlers who be applied uniformly by Board staff to clarifying deadlines for when handlers conduct their own promotional avoid these situations. While the must submit documentation to the activities and to the industry as a whole. Department supports the concept of Board on activities conducted; Several alternatives to the proposed providing incentive for new product redefining the growing region eligible changes were considered. The first development, it is not proceeding with for credit for certain types of outdoor alternative in all cases is to leave the this recommendation at this time advertising; revising the list of regulations as they currently exist. because of the aforementioned concerns. creditable activities by eliminating However, this does not address the changes in the industry, technology, or Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis credit for fees charged by advertising and public relations agencies for promotional practices. Nor does it Pursuant to requirements set forth in publicity, trade seminars, purchase of address the administrative inefficiencies the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Board-produced promotional material, and the potential program abuses that Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and sponsorships; and adding use of the have been identified. Alternatives to the has considered the economic impact of Internet as a promotional tool as a new, recommendations concerning removing this action on small entities. credit-back activity. certain activities from the list of credit- Accordingly, AMS has prepared this back activities included leaving the Regarding the impact of this rule on initial regulatory flexibility analysis. activities in the regulations, with further The purpose of the RFA is to fit affected entities, the changes proposed definition and clarification added. regulatory actions to the scale of herein are designed to provide for a However, it was determined that this business subject to such actions in order more effective and efficient use of the would lead to increased regulations and that small businesses will not be unduly industry’s advertising and promotion guidelines, with no assurance of solving or disproportionately burdened. funds, and to improve program the problems. In addition, most of the Marketing orders issued pursuant to the administration. Requiring handlers to activities being removed have been used Act, and rules issued thereunder, are submit documentation to the Board 3 very infrequently by handlers. The unique in that they are brought about weeks, as opposed to 2 weeks, prior to removal of credit for purchase of Board- through group action of essentially the Board’s April and August produced promotional materials was small entities acting on their own assessment billings would change the replaced by an alternative system behalf. Thus, both statutes have small timing, but not the frequency, of the whereby handlers are provided a free entity orientation and compatibility. filings submitted by handlers. This allocation of such materials, with the There are approximately 105 handlers change is not expected to increase the option of purchasing additional of California almonds who are subject to reporting burden on handlers, but rather materials at cost. regulation under the order and provide the Board’s staff sufficient time Regarding the changing of dates for approximately 6,000 almond producers to review the material and credit submitting documents to the Board, in the regulated area. Small agricultural handlers’ accounts in a more timely different dates were considered. service firms have been defined by the manner. Clarifying the deadline for However, it was determined that the Small Business Administration (13 CFR filing claims at the end of a crop year dates ultimately recommended would 121.601) as those having annual receipts would eliminate confusion among allow the minimum amount of time of less than $5,000,000, and small handlers and would allow the Board to necessary for Board staff to review agricultural producers are defined as complete its year end accounting documents, apply credit to handlers’ those having annual receipts of less than practices more timely. Redefining the assessment accounts, and to complete $500,000. growing region eligible for credit for year-end accounting practices in a Based on the most current data outdoor advertising to include only timely manner. Alternatives to changing available, about 54 percent of the counties with less than 1,000 bearing the growing region definition included handlers ship under $5,000,000 worth acres of almonds would help ensure that using a different acreage number as a of almonds and 46 percent ship over credit only be given for outdoor threshold to defining a producing $5,000,000 worth on an annual basis. In advertising that encourages consumers county. However, the industry agreed addition, based on acreage, production, to buy almonds (as opposed to such for purposes of the credit-back program, and grower prices reported by the advertising done in larger bearing 1,000 acres was appropriate. Another National Agricultural Statistics Service, counties directing growers to specific alternative considered removing the and the total number of almond handlers). It would also add flexibility restriction of outdoor advertising in growers, the average annual grower to the regulations to accommodate almond growing counties, but that does revenue is approximately $195,000. In production shifts in the future. Adding not address the problem of handlers view of the foregoing, it can be the Internet as a credit-back activity advertising to growers. concluded that the majority of handlers would allow handlers to take advantage It was determined that the proposed and producers of California almonds of a new communication medium and to changes are the best way to address the may be classified as small entities. provide them with a new promotional situation at this time. These regulations This rule would revise § 981.441 of opportunity that can be used to offset a were designed to reflect the industry’s the order’s administrative rules and portion of their assessment obligation. practices, and these proposed revisions

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.088 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31157 are intended to respond to an evolving resulting from this proposed rule need (B) Trade and consumer product marketplace and changing promotional to be in place prior to the beginning of publicity: Provided, That no Credit-Back practices. Changes have been and will the 1999–2000 crop year, which begins shall be given for related fees charged by continue to be recommended based on on August 1, 1999, so handlers can be an advertising or public relations industry and program experiences. given adequate notice to plan their agency; This rule would not impose any promotional activities accordingly. All (C) Printing costs for promotional additional reporting or recordkeeping written comments received timely will material; requirements on either small or large be considered before a final (D) Direct mail printing and almond handlers. In accordance with determination is made on this matter. distribution; the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 981 (E) Retail in-store demonstrations; collection requirements that are Almonds, Marketing agreements, (F) Point-of-sale materials (not contained in this rule have been Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping including packaging); previously approved by the Office of requirements. (G) Sales and marketing presentation Management and Budget (OMB) and For the reasons set forth in the kits; have been assigned OMB No. 0581– preamble, 7 CFR part 981 is proposed to (H) Trade fairs and exhibits; 0071. As with all Federal marketing be amended as follows: order programs, reports and forms are (I) 50/50 advertising with retailers; periodically reviewed to reduce PART 981ÐALMONDS GROWN IN (J) Couponing (printing, distribution, information requirements and CALIFORNIA and handling costs only); and duplication by industry and public (K) Development and use of web-site sector agencies. Finally, the Department 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR on the Internet for advertising and has not identified any relevant Federal part 981 continues to read as follows: public relations purposes; Provided, rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. That Credit-Back shall be limited to with this rule. 2. Section 981.441 is amended by $5,000 per year, and no credit shall be Additionally, the Board’s meeting was revising the second sentence in given for costs for E-commerce (mail widely publicized throughout the ordering through the Internet), Extranet almond industry and all interested paragraph (a), paragraphs (e)(3), (e)(4)(ii), the first sentence in paragraph (restricted web sites within the persons were invited to attend the Internet), or portions of a web-site that meetings and participate in Board (e)(6)(ii), and paragraph (e)(6)(iv) to read as follows: target the farming or grower trade. deliberations. Like all Board meetings, * * * * * the December 2, 1998, and March 5, § 981.441 Credit for market promotion (6) * * * 1999, meetings were public meetings activities, including paid advertising. (ii) Handlers may receive credit and all entities, both large and small, (a) * * * Credit will be granted either against their assessment obligation up to were able to express their views on this in the form of a payment from the the advertising amount of the issue. The Board itself is composed of Board, or as an offset to the assessment assessment installment due: Provided, 10 members, of which 5 are producers if activities are conducted and That handlers submit the required and 5 are handlers. documented to the satisfaction of the documentation for a qualified activity at Also, the Board has a number of Board at least 2 weeks prior to the least 2 weeks prior to the mailing of the appointed committees to review certain Board’s first and second assessment Board’s first and second assessment issues and make recommendations to billings, and at least 3 weeks prior to the notices, and at least 3 weeks prior to the the Board. The Board formed a task Board’s third and fourth assessment force in July 1998 to review its credit- mailing of the Board’s third and fourth billings in a crop year. * ** back advertising program. The task force assessment notices in a crop year. * ** * * * * * met periodically during the following (iii) * * * (e) * * * months to review the program and (iv) A statement of the Credit-Back consider appropriate changes. The task (3) No Credit-Back will be given for advertising placed in publications that commitments outstanding as of the force presented its recommendations to close of a crop year must be submitted the Board’s Public Relations and target the farming or grower trade. No Credit-Back shall be given for any in full to the Board within 15 days after Advertising Committee on November the close of that crop year. Final claims 13, 1998, and that committee presented outdoor advertising in California almond growing counties with more pertaining to such commitments its recommendations to the Board on outstanding must be submitted within December 2, 1998. The March 5, 1999, than 1,000 bearing acres: Provided, That outdoor advertising in these counties 76 days after the close of that crop year. meeting was held to finalize the Board’s All other final claims for which no recommendations. All of these meetings which specifically directs consumers to a handler-operated outlet offering direct statement of Credit-Back commitments were open to the public, and both large outstanding has been filed must be and small entities were able to purchase of almonds will be eligible for submitted by August 15 of that calendar participate and express their views. Credit-Back. year. Finally, interested persons are invited to (4) * * * submit information on the regulatory (ii) Other market promotion activities. * * * * * and informational impacts of this action Credit-Back shall be granted for market Dated: June 4, 1999. on small businesses. promotion other than paid advertising, Robert C. Keeney, A 30-day comment period is provided for the following activities: Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable to allow interested parties to respond to (A) Marketing research (except pre- Programs. this proposal. Thirty days is deemed testing and test-marketing of paid [FR Doc. 99–14690 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] appropriate because any changes advertising); BILLING CODE 3410±02±P

VerDate 06-MAY-99 15:42 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 31158 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE The Act states that the statute is has determined that this action would intended to occupy the field of not have a significant economic impact Agricultural Marketing Service promotion and consumer education on a substantial number of small involving pork and pork products and of entities. 7 CFR Part 1230 obtaining funds thereof from pork The Act (7 U.S.C. 4801–4819) [No. LS±99±03] producers and that the regulation of approved December 23, 1985, such activity (other than a regulation or authorized the establishment of a Pork Promotion, Research, and requirement relating to a matter of national pork promotion, research, and Consumer Information OrderÐ public health or the provision of State consumer information program. The Decrease in Importer Assessments or local funds for such activity) that is program was funded by an initial in addition to or different from the Act assessment rate of 0.25 percent of the AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, may not be imposed by a State. market value of all porcine animals USDA. The Act provides that administrative marketed in the United States and an ACTION: Proposed rule. proceedings must be exhausted before equivalent amount of assessment on parties may file suit in court. Under imported porcine animals, pork, and SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Pork § 1625 of the Act, a person subject to an pork products. However, that rate was Promotion, Research, and Consumer order may file a petition with the increased to 0.35 percent in 1991 (56 FR Information Act (Act) of 1985 and the Secretary stating that such order, a 51635) and to 0.45 percent effective Pork Promotion, Research, and provision of such order or an obligation September 3, 1995 (60 FR 29963). The Consumer Information Order (Order) imposed in connection with such order final Order establishing a pork issued thereunder, this proposed rule is not in accordance with the law; and promotion, research, and consumer would decrease by sixteen-hundredths requesting a modification of the order or information program was published in of a cent per pound the amount of the an exemption from the order. Such the September 5, 1986, issue of the assessment per pound due on imported person is afforded the opportunity for a Federal Register (51 FR 31898; as pork and pork products to reflect a hearing on the petition. After the corrected, at 51 FR 36383 and amended decrease in the 1998 five-market average hearing, the Secretary would rule on the at 53 FR 1909, 53 FR 30243, 56 FR 4, price for domestic barrows and gilts. petition. The Act provides that the 56 FR 51635, 60 FR 29962, 60 FR 33681 This proposed action would bring the district court of the United States in the and 60 FR 58501) and assessments equivalent market value of the live district in which a person resides or began on November 1, 1986. animals from which such imported pork does business has jurisdiction to review The Order requires importers of and pork products were derived in line the Secretary’s determination, if a porcine animals to pay U.S. Customs with the market values of domestic complaint is filed not later than 20 days Service (USCS), upon importation, the porcine animals. These proposed after the date such person receives assessment of 0.45 percent of the changes will facilitate the continued notice of such determination. animal’s declared value and importers collection of assessments on imported This action also was reviewed under of pork and pork products to pay USCS, porcine animals, pork, and pork the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 upon importation, the assessment of products. United States Code (U.S.C.) 601 et seq.). 0.45 percent of the market value of the DATES: Comments must be received by The effect of the Order upon small live porcine animals from which such July 12, 1999. entities initially was discussed in the pork and pork products were produced. September 5, 1986, issue of the Federal This proposed rule would decrease the ADDRESSES: Send two copies of comments to Ralph L. Tapp, Chief; Register. (51 FR 31898). It was assessments on all of the imported pork determined at that time that the Order and pork products subject to assessment Marketing Programs Branch; Livestock would not have a significant effect upon as published in the Federal Register as and Seed Program; Agricultural a substantial number of small entities. a final rule August 28, 1998, and Marketing Service (AMS), USDA; STOP Many of the estimated 1,000 importers effective on September 28, 1998; (63 FR 0251; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; may be classified as small entities under 45935). Based on information reported Washington, D.C. 20250–0251. the Small Business Administration by USDA, AMS, Livestock and Grain Comments will be available for public definition (13 CFR 121.601). Market News (LGMN) Branch, this inspection during regular business This proposed rule would decrease decrease is consistent with the decrease hours at the above office in Room 2627 the amount of assessments on imported in the annual average price of domestic South Building; 14th and Independence pork and pork products subject to barrows and gilts for calendar year 1998. Avenue, SW.; Washington, D.C. 20250– assessment by sixteen-hundredths of a This decrease in assessments would 0251. cent per pound, or as expressed in cents make the equivalent market value of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: per kilogram, thirty-three-hundredths of live porcine animal from which the Ralph L. Tapp, Chief, Marketing a cent per kilogram. This decrease is imported pork and pork products were Programs Branch, 202/720–1115. consistent with the decrease in the derived reflect the recent decrease in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: annual average price of domestic market value of domestic porcine barrows and gilts for calendar year 1998. animals, thereby promoting Executive Orders 12866 and 12778 and The average annual market price comparability between importer and Regulatory Flexibility Act decreased from $51.30 per domestic assessments. This proposed This proposed rule has been hundredweight in 1997 to $31.82 per rule would not change the current determined to be not significant for hundredweight in 1998, a decrease of assessment rate of 0.45 percent of the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and about 38 percent. Adjusting the market value. therefore has not been reviewed by the assessments on imported pork and pork The methodology for determining the Office of Management and Budget. products would result in an estimated per pound amounts for imported pork This proposed rule has been reviewed decrease in assessments of $888,000 and pork products was described in the under Executive Order 12988, Civil over a 12-month period. Assessments Supplementary Information Justice Reform. This proposal is not collected for 1998 were $3,834,656. accompanying the Order and published intended to have a retroactive effect. Accordingly, the Administrator of AMS in the September 5, 1986, Federal

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.079 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31159

Register at 51 FR 31901. The weight of period is appropriate because the Assessment imported pork and pork products is proposed rule simply provides for an Pork and pork products converted to a carcass weight equivalent adjustment in the per pound assessment cents/ cents/kg by utilizing conversion factors which levels on imported pork and pork lb are published in the Department’s products to reflect changes in live hog 1602.41.2020 ...... 31 .683426 Statistical Bulletin No. 697 ‘‘Conversion prices which occurred from 1997 to 1602.41.2040 ...... 31 .683426 Factors and Weights and Measures.’’ 1998. These live hog prices form the 1602.41.9000 ...... 20 .440920 These conversion factors take into basis for the assessments. This 1602.42.2020 ...... 31 .683426 account the removal of bone, weight lost adjustment, if adopted, should be made 1602.42.2040 ...... 31 .683426 in cooking or other processing, and the effective as soon as possible to promote 1602.42.4000 ...... 20 .440920 nonpork components of pork products. optimum equity. 1602.49.2000 ...... 28 .617288 Secondly, the carcass weight equivalent 1602.49.4000 ...... 24 .529104 is converted to a live animal equivalent List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1230 Dated: June 4, 1999. weight by dividing the carcass weight Administrative practice and equivalent by 70 percent, which is the procedure, Advertising, Agricultural Barry L. Carpenter, average dressing percentage of porcine research, Marketing agreement, Meat Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed animals in the United States. Thirdly, and meat products, Pork and pork Program. the equivalent value of the live porcine products. [FR Doc. 99–14689 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] animal is determined by multiplying the For the reasons set forth in the BILLING CODE 3410±02±P live animal equivalent weight by an preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR Part annual average market price for barrows 1230 be amended as follows: and gilts based on information reported FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION by USDA, AMS, LGMN Branch. Finally, PART 1230ÐPORK PROMOTION, [Notice 1999±8] the equivalent value is multiplied by the RESEARCH, AND CONSUMER applicable assessment rate of 0.45 INFORMATION 11 CFR Part 110 percent due on imported pork and pork 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR products. The end result is expressed in Candidate Debates Part 1230 continues to read as follows: an amount per pound for each type of AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. pork or pork product. To determine the Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4801–4819. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice amount per kilogram for pork and pork of availability. products subject to assessment under Subpart BÐ[Amended] the Act and Order, the cent per pound 2. In § 1230.110 paragraph (b) is SUMMARY: On May 25, 1999, the assessments are multiplied by a metric revised to read as follows: Commission received a Petition for conversion factor 2.2046 and carried to Rulemaking from Mary Clare Wohlford, the sixth decimal. § 1230.110 Assessments on imported pork William T. Wohlford and Martin T. The formula in the preamble for the and pork products. Mortimer urging the Commission to Order at 51 FR 31901 contemplated that * * * * * amend its rules so that the objective it would be necessary to recalculate the (b) The following HTS categories of criteria for inclusion in Presidential and equivalent live animal value of imported pork and pork products are Vice Presidential debates is established imported pork and pork products to subject to assessment at the rates by the Commission itself, and not left to reflect changes in the annual average specified. the discretion of debate staging price of domestic barrows and gilts to organizations. This petition is available maintain equity of assessments between Assessment for inspection in the Commission’s domestic porcine animals and imported Pork and pork products cents/ Public Records Office. pork and pork products. cents/kg lb DATES: Statements in support of or in The average annual market price opposition to the petitions must be filed decreased from $51.30 per 0203.11.0000 ...... 20 .440920 on or before July 12, 1999. hundredweight in 1997 to $31.82 per 0203.12.1010 ...... 20 .440920 hundredweight in 1998, a decrease of 0203.12.1020 ...... 20 .440920 ADDRESSES: All comments should be about 38 percent. This decrease would 0203.12.9010 ...... 20 .440920 addressed to Rosemary C. Smith, Senior result in a corresponding decrease in 0203.12.9020 ...... 20 .440920 Attorney, and must be submitted in assessments for all HTS numbers listed 0203.19.2010 ...... 24 .529104 either written or electronic form. in the table in § 1230.110, 63 FR 45935; 0203.19.2090 ...... 24 .529104 Written comments should be sent to the 0203.19.4010 ...... 20 .440920 Federal Election Commission, 999 E August 28, 1998, of an amount equal to 0203.19.4090 ...... 20 .440920 sixteen-hundredths of a cent per pound, Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463. 0203.21.0000 ...... 20 .440920 Faxed comments should be sent to (202) or as expressed in cents per kilogram, 0203.22.1000 ...... 20 .440920 thirty-three hundredths of a cent per 0203.22.9000 ...... 20 .440920 219–3923, with printed copy follow up. kilogram. Based on the most recent 0203.29.2000 ...... 24 .529104 Electronic mail comments should be available Department of Commerce, 0203.29.4000 ...... 20 .440920 sent to [email protected], and should Bureau of Census, data on the volume 0206.30.0000 ...... 20 .440920 include the full name, electronic mail of imported pork and pork products 0206.41.0000 ...... 20 .440920 address and postal service address of available for the period January 1, 1998, 0206.49.0000 ...... 20 .440920 the commenter. Additional information through December 31, 1998, the 0210.11.0010 ...... 20 .440920 on electronic submission is provided 0210.11.0020 ...... 20 .440920 below. proposed decrease in assessment 0210.12.0020 ...... 20 .440920 amounts would result in an estimated 0210.12.0040 ...... 20 .440920 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: $888,000 decrease in assessments over a 0210.19.0010 ...... 24 .529104 Rosemary C. Smith, Senior Attorney, or 12-month period. 0210.19.0090 ...... 24 .529104 Paul Sanford, Staff Attorney, 999 E This proposed rule provides for a 30- 1601.00.2010 ...... 28 .617288 Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463, day comment period. This comment 1601.00.2090 ...... 28 .617288 (202) 694–1650 or (800) 424–9530.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.081 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 31160 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May Comments may also be sent by DATES: Comments must be received on 25, 1999, the Commission received a electronic mail to [email protected]. or before August 9, 1999. Petition for Rulemaking from Mary Commenters sending comments by ADDRESSES: Please direct comments to: Clare Wohlford, William T. Wohlford electronic mail should include their full Docket No. 99–09, Communications and Martin T. Mortimer regarding the name, electronic mail address and Division, Third Floor, Office of the Commission’s candidate debate postal service address within the text of Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E regulations at 11 CFR 110.13. Paragraph their comments. All comments, Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20219. (c) of that section states, inter alia, that regardless of form, must be submitted by Comments are available for inspection ‘‘[f]or all debates, staging organization(s) July 12, 1999. and photocopying at that address. In must use pre-established objective Consideration of the merits of the addition, comments may be sent by criteria to determine which candidates petition will be deferred until the close facsimile transmission to FAX number may participate in a debate.’’ Id. The of the comment period. If the (202) 874-5274, or by electronic mail to petitioners assert that the objective Commission decides that the petition [email protected]. criteria for inclusion in Presidential and has merit, it may begin a rulemaking Vice Presidential debates should be proceeding. Any subsequent action FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: established by the Commission itself, taken by the Commission will be David Lewis, Community Development and not left to the discretion of debate announced in the Federal Register. Investments Manager, Community Development Division, (202) 874–4930; staging organizations. Therefore, the Dated: June 4, 1999. petition urges the Commission to revise Michael S. Bylsma, Director, Scott E. Thomas, this paragraph to set forth ‘‘mandatory Community and Consumer Law criteria for participation in Presidential Chairman, Federal Election Commission. Division, (202) 874–5750; or Heidi M. and Vice Presidential Debates.’’ Petition [FR Doc. 99–14714 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Thomas, Senior Attorney, Legislative at 1. BILLING CODE 6715±01±P and Regulatory Activities Division, Specifically, the petition recommends (202) 874–5090. that the debates be open to any SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: candidate that (1) has the mathematical DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY potential to win the election in that he Background or she is on the ballot in enough states Office of the Comptroller of the Currency The OCC is proposing to amend 12 to earn 270 Electoral College votes; and CFR part 24, which contains the rules (2) has proven his or her viability by 12 CFR Part 24 relating to national banks’ investments having spent at least $500,000 on the in community development campaign by the end of the month [Docket No. 99±09] corporations (CDCs), community preceding the date of the first scheduled RIN 1557-AB69 development (CD) projects, and other debate held on or after September 1 of public welfare investments. Part 24 the election year. In addition, the Community Development implements 12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh), petition recommends that candidates Corporations, Community which authorizes national banks to have equal access to debates held before Development Projects, and Other make investments designed primarily to September 1 without regard to the above Public Welfare Investments promote the public welfare, including requirements. Copies of the petitions are available AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the the welfare of low- and moderate- for public inspection in the Currency, Treasury. income communities and families, subject to certain percentage of capital Commission’s Public Records Office, ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC limitations. (The investments 20463, Monday through Friday between SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller authorized pursuant to 12 U.S.C. the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. of the Currency (OCC) is proposing to 24(Eleventh) are collectively referred to Copies of the petitions can also be amend part 24, the regulation governing in this proposal as ‘‘public welfare obtained at any time of the day and national bank investments that are investments’’). The purpose of this week from the Commission’s home page designed primarily to promote the proposal is to make burden-reducing at www.fec.gov, or from the public welfare. This proposal simplifies changes that will make it easier for Commission’s FlashFAX service. To the prior notice and self-certification national banks to use the public welfare obtain copies of the petitions from requirements that apply to national investment authority that the statute FlashFAX, dial (202) 501–3413 and banks’ public welfare investments; and regulation provide. follow the FlashFAX service expands the types of investments that a The OCC originally adopted part 24 in instructions. Request document # 239 to national bank may self-certify by 1993 and substantially revised the receive the petition. removing geographic restrictions; and regulation, pursuant to its Regulation All statements in support of or in permits eligible national banks with Review Program, in 1996. See 58 FR opposition to the petitions should be assets of less than $250 million to self- 68464 (Dec. 27, 1993) (final regulation); addressed to Rosemary C. Smith, Senior certify any public welfare investment. 61 FR 49654 (Sept. 23, 1996) (1996 Attorney, and must be submitted in The OCC is also seeking comment on amendments). The 1996 amendments either written or electronic form. whether to modify the methods of encouraged national banks to make Written comments should be sent to the demonstrating community support or public welfare investments by Commission’s postal service address: participation currently prescribed by eliminating unnecessarily burdensome Federal Election Commission, 999 E part 24, and whether the OCC could provisions and streamlining the part 24 Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463. simplify or streamline the procedures procedures. Among other things, the Faxed comments should be sent to (202) and standards contained in part 24. The 1996 amendments: modified the test for 219–3923. Commenters submitting proposal encourages national banks to determining whether an investment faxed comments should also submit a make public welfare investments by primarily promotes the public welfare; printed copy to the Commission’s postal making it easier to comply with the streamlined the investment self- service address to ensure legibility. applicable procedures. certification and prior approval

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.092 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31161 procedures; and expanded the list of constrict national banks from making (3) Formation of a formal business activities eligible for self-certification. otherwise qualifying and beneficial relationship with a community-based The OCC is committed to continually public welfare investments. Moreover, organization in connection with the reevaluating its rules to reduce the OCC’s experience in implementing proposed investment; unnecessary regulatory burden and 12 CFR part 24 suggests that national (4) Contractual agreements with simplify compliance, consistent with banks are seeking more public welfare community partners to provide services the safe and sound operation of national investment opportunities across broader in connection with the proposed banks. This proposal addresses several geographic markets than previously. investment; issues regarding national bank Enhanced interstate operations and the (5) Joint ventures with local small compliance with part 24 that have increasing availability of Internet businesses in the proposed investment; arisen since 1996. Specifically, the banking and other forms of remote and proposal further simplifies the prior banking limit the value of the (6) Financing for the proposed notice and self-certification community benefit information investment from the public sector or requirements that apply to national requirement for the OCC’s evaluation of community development organizations. banks’ public welfare investments; investment proposals. Prior to the 1996 amendments, part 24 further expands the types of Although, as a matter of law, a bank’s required the affected primary investments a national bank may self- authority to make public welfare beneficiaries and representatives of certify by removing geographic investments pursuant to 12 U.S.C. local or State government to have restrictions; and permits an eligible 24(Eleventh) and 12 CFR part 24 is endorsed and demonstrated support for community bank to self-certify any independent of its obligation to serve the investment. In the case of a CDC, a public welfare investment. An eligible the credit needs of its entire community bank had to demonstrate support community bank is an eligible bank 1 under the Community Reinvestment Act through non-bank community with assets of less than $250 million. (CRA), the OCC recognizes that banks participation on the organization’s may want the OCC to consider a public board of directors. 12 CFR 24.4(a)(3) Description of the Proposal welfare investment for CRA purposes. (1993). The OCC modified the Community Benefit Information Retention of the community benefit community support/participation Requirement (§ 24.3(c)) information requirement is not requirement in the 1996 amendments to Current § 24.6 lists certain public necessary, however, to facilitate the provide banks and community groups welfare investments that an eligible identification of a public welfare more flexibility in structuring bank may make by submitting a self- investment that a bank believes should community partnerships under part 24. certification letter to the OCC within 10 be considered for CRA purposes. The OCC added the nonexclusive list of working days after it makes the Instead, the OCC proposes to amend examples of community support or investment. No prior notification or § 24.5 to provide that a national bank participation to the final rule in approval is required. For all other that wants the OCC to consider a response to comments on the 1996 public welfare investments, a national specific public welfare investment proposal. The OCC has not changed § 24.3(d) in bank must submit an investment during a CRA examination may include this proposal, but invites comment on proposal to the OCC for prior approval. a simple statement to that effect in its whether the approach adopted in the Unless otherwise notified in writing by public welfare investment proposal or 2 1996 amendments is effective in the OCC, the proposed investment is self-certification letter. encouraging community involvement in deemed approved 30 calendar days from Demonstration of Community Support national banks’ public welfare the date on which the OCC receives the (§ 24.3(d)) investments. For example, is the current bank’s investment proposal. Under section 24.3(d), a national bank Regardless of which procedure non-bank community support or may make investments pursuant to part applies, § 24.3(c) currently requires a participation requirement appropriate? 24 if it demonstrates that it has non- national bank making a public welfare Are there other ways of demonstrating bank community support for, or investment to demonstrate the extent to support or participations? In particular, participation in, the investment. Section which the investment benefits commenters addressing these issues are 24.3(d) provides that a national bank communities otherwise served by the invited to discuss whether: may demonstrate this support or (1) The current community bank. (The requirement of § 24.3(c) is participation in a number of ways, participation prong of the public welfare referred to in this proposal as the including: test has been sufficient in obtaining community benefit information (1) In the case of an investment in a evidence of adequate community requirement.) Section 24.5 requires the CD entity with a board of directors, support and involvement in national bank to provide a statement in its self- representation on the board of directors banks’ community development certification letter or investment by non-bank community representatives investments; proposal certifying that it has complied with expertise relevant to the proposed (2) General letters of support from with this requirement. investment; community groups or local officials, The OCC is proposing to remove the (2) Establishment of an advisory board without other evidence of community community benefit information for the bank’s community development support or participation, should be requirement, because this requirement activities that includes non-bank considered sufficient to satisfy this is not mandated by statute and may community representatives with requirement; expertise relevant to the proposed (3) Stricter requirements for 1 Part 24 defines an ‘‘eligible bank’’ as a national bank that is well capitalized, has a composite rating investment; community support or participation will of 1 or 2 under the Uniform Financial Institutions have the effect of discouraging public Rating System (the CAMELS rating), has a 2 The OCC’s approval of a public welfare welfare investments pursuant to part 24; Community Reinvestment Act rating of investment made pursuant to 12 CFR part 24 does and ‘‘Outstanding’’ or ‘‘Satisfactory,’’ and is not subject not affect how the investment is evaluated for CRA to a cease and desist order, consent order, formal purposes, and an investment approved under part (4) Institutions should demonstrate written agreement, or Prompt Corrective Action 24 is not necessarily a qualified investment for community support for, or participation directive. 12 CFR 24.2(e). purposes of CRA. in, investments in national or regional

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.093 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 31162 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules community development investment application process is eliminated only As with the proposal to remove the vehicles, and if so, what form this for investments by eligible community community benefit information demonstration should take. banks. The eligibility standard in requirement, the OCC recognizes that, in § 24.2(e) ensures that only well- some cases, the local community Self-Certification of Public Welfare capitalized, well-run community banks investment requirement for self- Investments by an Eligible Community Bank (§ 24.5(a)) can take advantage of this streamlined certification has served as a way for approach. In addition, these public banks to identify investments that they An eligible national bank may make welfare investments are subject to believe may be eligible for CRA credit. public welfare investments listed in review during the examination process For the same reasons as discussed in § 24.6 without prior OCC approval by pursuant to § 24.7. Finally, as set forth connection with that change, a bank that submitting a self-certification letter to in § 24.7, if the OCC finds that an wants the investment to be considered the OCC that satisfies the requirements investment violates law or regulation, is for CRA purposes may include a in the regulation. 12 CFR 24.5(a). inconsistent with the safe and sound statement to that effect in its self- Investments eligible for self-certification operation of the bank, or poses a certification letter. This information will include certain investments relating to significant risk to the deposit insurance be provided to supervisory staff in low- and moderate-income housing, fund, it may require the bank to take connection with the bank’s CRA small businesses located in low- and appropriate remedial action. examination. The OCC notes that this moderate-income areas, employment or change affects only the eligibility of the The Local Community Investment job training for low- or moderate-income investment for self-certification. It does Requirement for Self-Certification individuals, or technical assistance not modify either the part 24 standards (§ 24.6(b)(2)) services for non-profit community for permissible public welfare development organizations; investments Currently, part 24 does not permit a investments or the CRA standards set as a limited partner in certain low- national bank to self-certify an forth in 12 CFR Part 25. income housing tax credit projects; investment if, among other things, more investments in national banks with a Comments than 25 percent of the investment is community development focus; used to fund projects that are located in investments approved by the Federal The OCC requests comment on all a State or metropolitan area other than Reserve Board under 12 CFR 208.21; aspects of this proposal, including the the States or metropolitan areas in and investments previously determined extent to which these proposed changes which the bank maintains its main by the OCC to be permissible under part will encourage national banks to make office or has branches. 12 CFR 24. 12 CFR 24.6. Other investments public welfare investments. 24.6(b)(2). If any portion of a bank’s require application to, and approval by, Commenters are also invited to suggest investment funds projects outside of its the OCC. other revisions that would simplify the Because community banks operate local areas, the bank must include in its standards or streamline the procedures with more limited resources than larger self-certification letter a statement that currently contained in part 24. institutions, the tasks associated with no more than 25 percent of the In addition, the OCC seeks comment the prior approval process for public investment funds these projects. 12 CFR on the impact of this proposal on welfare investments place a greater 24.5(a)(3)(vii). community banks. As discussed in burden on them. In addition, the OCC The OCC proposes to remove this connection with certain of the proposed recognizes that smaller community local community investment changes, the OCC recognizes that banks may serve as the only source of requirement in § 24.6(b) so that a community banks operate with more investments for some CDCs and CD national bank can use the less limited resources than larger projects located in small towns or rural burdensome self-certification process to institutions and may present a different areas and that the prior approval make eligible public welfare risk profile. Thus, the OCC specifically process may inhibit community banks investments in any area. This change requests comment on the impact of the from making these investments. The removes a requirement that is not proposal on community banks’ current proposal therefore amends § 24.5(a) to necessary to implement the statute resources and available personnel with permit eligible community banks because, as discussed in connection the requisite expertise, and whether the (national banks with less than $250 with the removal of the community goals of the proposal could be achieved, million in assets) to self-certify all benefit information requirement, 12 for community banks, through an public welfare investments, not only U.S.C. 24 (Eleventh) does not require alternative approach. that a bank link its public welfare those investments listed in § 24.6. This Finally, the OCC solicits comment on investments to the communities it change will reduce the regulatory whether the proposal is written clearly serves. In addition, this change permits burden and costs associated with the and is easy to understand. On June 1, national banks to use the self- part 24 prior approval process for 1998, the President issued a certification process for investments in eligible community banks in particular Memorandum directing each agency in national community development and may encourage more community the Executive branch to write its rules investment vehicles. Because these banks to make public welfare in plain language. This directive applies vehicles often provide funds for projects investments in local CDCs and CD to all new proposed and final located throughout the United States, it projects that might not be able to attract rulemaking documents issued on or has not always been possible for a bank investments from other sources. after January 1, 1999. The OCC invites This change is consistent with 12 to certify that not more than 25 percent comment on how to make this proposal U.S.C. 24 (Eleventh), which does not of the bank’s investment will support clearer. For example, you may wish to require a national bank to receive prior projects in States or metropolitan areas discuss: OCC approval before making a public other than those in which the bank’s welfare investment within the 5 percent main office or branches are located. (1) Whether we have organized the of capital aggregate limit. Moreover, the Thus, this change should expand the material to suit your needs; change does not raise safety and opportunities for banks to fund (2) Whether the requirements of the soundness concerns because the worthwhile public welfare projects. rule are clear; or

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.094 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31163

(3) Whether there is something else Division, 250 E Street, SW, Attention: PART 24ÐCOMMUNITY we could do to make the rule easier to Paperwork Reduction Project 1557– DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS, understand. 0194, Washington, D.C. 20219. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis The proposal is expected to reduce PROJECTS, AND OTHER PUBLIC annual paperwork burden for WELFARE INVESTMENTS Pursuant to section 605(b) of the recordkeepers because it eliminates Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 1. The authority citation for part 24 certain application and self-certification continues to read as follows: Comptroller of the Currency certifies requirements. The collection of that this proposal would not have a information requirements in this Authority: 12 U.S.C. 24 (Eleventh), 93a, significant economic impact on a proposal are found in 12 CFR 24.5. This 481 and 1818. substantial number of small entities in information is required for the public 2. In § 24.2, paragraphs (f), (g), (h) and accord with the spirit and purposes of welfare investment self-certification and (i) are redesignated as paragraphs (g), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. prior approval procedures. The likely (h), (i) and (j), and a new paragraph (f) 601 et seq.). Accordingly, a regulatory respondents are national banks. is added to read as follows: flexibility analysis is not required. The proposal would reduce regulatory Estimated average annual burden § 24.2 Definitions. burden on national banks by simplifying hours per recordkeeper: 1.9. Start-up costs: None. * * * * * the prior approval process and (f) Eligible community bank means an simplifying and expanding the self- Executive Order 12866 Determination eligible bank that, as of December 31 of certification process for part 24 either of the prior two calendar years investments. The economic impact of The Comptroller of the Currency has had total assets of less than $250 this proposal on national banks, determined that this proposal does not million. regardless of size, is expected to be constitute a ‘‘significant regulatory * * * * * minimal. action’’ for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. Paperwork Reduction Act § 24.3 [Amended] Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 3. In § 24.3, paragraph (c) is removed, For purposes of compliance with the 1995 Determinations and paragraph (d) is redesignated as Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 paragraph (c). U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the OCC invites Section 202 of the Unfunded 4. In § 24.5, paragraph (a)(1) and comment on: Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. paragraph (a)(3)(iii) are revised, (1) Whether the proposed collections 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates Act) paragraph (a)(3)(v) is amended by of information contained in this notice requires that an agency prepare a adding the word ‘‘and’’ at the end of the of proposed rulemaking are necessary budgetary impact statement before paragraph, paragraph (a)(3)(vi) is for the proper performance of the OCC’s promulgating a rule that includes a amended by removing the term ‘‘; and’’ functions, including whether the Federal mandate that may result in and adding a period in its place at the information has practical utility; expenditure by State, local, and tribal (2) The accuracy of the OCC’s end of the sentence, paragraph (a)(3)(vii) governments, in the aggregate, or by the is removed, paragraph (a)(4) is estimate of the burden of the proposed private sector, of $100 million or more information collection; redesignated as paragraph (a)(5), a new in any one year. If a budgetary impact paragraph (a)(4) is added, paragraph (b) (3) Ways to enhance the quality, statement is required, Section 205 of the utility, and clarity of the information to is amended by redesignating paragraph Unfunded Mandates Act also requires (b)(3) through (b)(6) as paragraphs (b)(4) be collected; an agency to identify and consider a (4) Ways to minimize the burden of through (b)(7), and a new paragraph reasonable number of regulatory the information collection on (b)(3) is added to read as follows: alternatives before promulgating a rule. respondents, including the use of As discussed in the preamble, this § 24.5 Public welfare investment self- automated collection techniques or proposed rule is limited to the prior certification and prior approval procedures. other forms of information technology; notice and self-certification process for (a) * * * and (1) Subject to § 24.4(a), an eligible (5) Estimates of capital or start-up part 24 investments. The OCC therefore bank may make an investment described costs and costs of operation, has determined that the proposal will in § 24.6(a) and an eligible community maintenance, and purchase of services not result in expenditures by State, bank may make any investment that to provide information. local, or tribal governments or by the satisfies the requirements of § 24.3 Recordkeepers are not required to private sector of $100 million or more. without prior notification to, or respond to this collection of information Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared approval by, the OCC if the bank follows unless it displays a currently valid OMB a budgetary impact statement or the self-certification procedures in this control number. specifically addressed the regulatory The collection of information alternatives considered. section. requirements contained in this notice of List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 24 * * * * * proposed rulemaking have been (3) * * * submitted to the Office of Management Community development, Credit, (iii) The type of investment (equity or and Budget for review in accordance Investments, National banks, Reporting debt), the investment activity listed in with the Paperwork Reduction Act of and recordkeeping requirements. § 24.3(a) or § 24.6(a), as applicable, that the investment supports, and a brief 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on Authority and Issuance the collections of information should be description of the particular investment; sent to the Office of Management and For the reasons set forth in the * * * * * Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project preamble, the OCC proposes to amend (4) If the bank wants the OCC to 1557–0194, Washington, D.C. 20503, part 24 of chapter I of title 12 of the consider the investment during an with copies to Office of the Comptroller Code of Federal Regulations to read as examination under the CRA (12 U.S.C. of the Currency, Communications follows: 2901 et seq.) and to determine whether

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.096 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 31164 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules it meets the criteria for a qualified for the proposed effective date of a final devices, are classified after FDA has: (1) investment set forth in 12 CFR part 25, rule based on this document. Received a recommendation from a the bank may include a brief statement ADDRESSES: Submit written comments device classification panel (an FDA to that effect in its letter of self- to the Dockets Management Branch advisory committee); (2) published the certification. (HFA–305), Food and Drug panel’s recommendations for comment, * * * * * Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. along with a proposed regulation (b) * * * 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit classifying the device; and (3) published (3) If the bank wants the OCC to written requests for single copies on a a final regulation classifying the device. consider the investment during an 3.5’’ diskette of the draft guidance FDA has classified most examination under the CRA and to entitled ‘‘Premarket Testing Guidelines preamendments devices under these determine whether it meets the criteria for Female Barrier Contraceptive procedures. for a qualified investment set forth in 12 Devices Also Intended to Prevent Devices that were not in commercial CFR part 25, the bank may include a Sexually Transmitted Diseases, April 4, distribution prior to May 28, 1976, brief statement to that effect in its 1990’’ to the Division of Small generally referred to as postamendments investment proposal. Manufacturers Assistance (DSMA) devices, are classified automatically by statute (section 513(f) of the act) into * * * * * (HFZ–220), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and class III without any FDA rulemaking § 24.6 [Amended] Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., process. Those devices remain in class 5. In § 24.6, paragraph (b)(1) is Rockville, MD 20850. Send two self- III and require premarket approval, amended by adding an ‘‘or’’ at the end, addressed adhesive labels to assist that unless and until: (1) The device is paragraph (b)(2) is removed, and office in processing your request, or fax reclassified into class I or II; (2) FDA paragraph (b)(3) is redesignated as your request to 401–443–8818. In order issues an order classifying the device paragraph (b)(2). to receive this draft guidance via your into class I or II in accordance with new fax machine, call the CDRH Facts-On- section 513(f)(2) of the act, as amended Dated: May 27, 1999. by the FDAMA; or (3) FDA issues an John D. Hawke, Jr., Demand (FOD) System at 800–899–0381 or 301–827–0111 from a touch-tone- order finding the device to be Comptroller of the Currency. telephone. At the first voice prompt substantially equivalent, in accordance [FR Doc. 99–14754 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] press 1 to access DSMA Facts, at second with section 513(i) of the act, to a BILLING CODE 4810±33±P voice prompt press 2, and then enter the predicate device that does not require document number (384) followed by the premarket approval. The agency pound sign (#). Follow the remaining determines whether new devices are DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND voice prompts to complete your request. substantially equivalent to previously HUMAN SERVICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: offered devices by means of premarket Colin M. Pollard, Center for Devices and notification procedures in section 510(k) Food and Drug Administration Radiological Health (HFZ–470), Food of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations. 21 CFR Part 884 and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, A preamendments device that has [Docket No. 99N±1309] 301–594–1180. been classified into class III may be marketed, by means of premarket SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Obstetrical and Gynecological notification procedures, without Devices; Proposed Classification of I. Background submission of a premarket approval application (PMA) until FDA issues a Female Condoms A. Classification of Medical Devices final rule under section 515(b) of the act AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (21 U.S.C. 360e(b)) requiring premarket HHS. Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), as approval. ACTION: Proposed rule. amended by the Medical Device Consistent with the act and Amendments of 1976 (the 1976 regulations, FDA consulted with the SUMMARY: The Food and Drug amendments) (Pub. L. 94–295), the Safe Obstetrical and Gynecological Device Administration (FDA) is proposing to Medical Devices Act of 1990 (the Classification Panel regarding the classify the preamendments female SMDA) (Pub. L. 101–629), and the Food classification of this device. This panel condom intended for contraceptive and and Drug Administration Modernization was subsequently terminated, prophylactic purposes. Under this Act of 1997 (the FDAMA) (Pub. L. 105– rechartered, and renamed the proposal, the preamendments female 115), established a comprehensive Obstetrics-Gynecology Devices Panel condom would be classified into class system for the regulation of medical (the Panel). III (premarket approval). The agency is devices intended for human use. publishing in this document the March Section 513 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360c) B. Regulatory History of Female 7, 1989, recommendations of FDA’s established three categories (classes) of Condoms Obstetrics-Gynecology Devices Panel devices, depending on the regulatory In the Federal Register of April 3, (the Panel) regarding the classification controls needed to provide reasonable 1979 (44 FR 19894), FDA published a of this device. After considering public assurance of their safety and proposed rule classifying all known comments on this classification effectiveness. The three categories of obstetrical and gynecological proposal, FDA will publish a final rule devices are class I (general controls), preamendments devices, including classifying this device. This action is class II (special controls), and class III condoms. The proposed rule described being taken to establish regulatory (premarket approval). the methods used by the agency to controls that will provide reasonable Under section 513 of the act, devices identify such preamendments devices, assurance of the safety and effectiveness that were in commercial distribution e.g., FDA’s 1972 survey of device of this device. before May 28, 1976 (the date of manufacturers, FDA’s searches of DATES: Written comments by Septmeber enactment of the 1976 amendments), published literature, and the activities 8, 1999. See section IV of this document generally referred to as preamendments of the Panel. Subsequently, in the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.098 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31165

Federal Register of February 26, 1980 New Method for the Profession, states on result, in accordance with section 513(f) (45 FR 12710), FDA published a final page 12, ‘‘[T]he technique with this of the act, the device was automatically rule classifying certain obstetrical and method (the modified Gee Bee classified into class III (Ref. 4). In April gynecological preamendments devices, technique) has a factor of safety equal 1989, FDA also advised the Energy including classifying the condom into to, if not better than, the diaphragm. It Basin Clinic that the agency’s response class II (§ 884.5300 (21 CFR 884.5300)). overcomes all the objections to the to the firm’s 510(k) was incorrect, in The condom encompasses rubber condom * * *.’’ These that the firm’s ‘‘barrier female condom’’ preamendments barrier-type sheaths statements are taken by the agency to is not substantially equivalent to the that cover the entire shaft of the penis mean that the device was indicated as condom as defined in § 884.5300 and for purposes of contraception a contraceptive product (by reference to that commercial marketing would (preventing pregnancy), prophylaxis the diaphragm), and as a prophylactic misbrand the device under section (preventing transmission of sexually product (by reference to the condom, 502(f) and (o) of the act (21 U.S.C. 352(f) transmitted diseases (STD’s)), or semen which at that time (1934) was solely and (o)) (Ref. 5). collection (diagnostic testing). indicated as a prophylactic, i.e., for During an August 25, 1989, open Preamendments devices preventing the transmission of sexually Panel meeting, FDA, the Panel, other characteristically falling within this related diseases). Subsequently, the Federal health agency experts, and classification are generally referred to as agency presented this Gee Bee Ring interested parties discussed premarket condoms. information to the Panel as new testing requirements for female barrier Following classification of the information about a preamendments contraceptives that also claim condom into class II, FDA received two device not previously known to the prevention of STD’s transmission. 510(k) notifications for ‘‘female agency. Currently, postamendments female condoms’’ intended to be inserted into During an open meeting held on condoms are classified automatically by the vagina and held in place to line the March 7, 1989, (Ref. 14) the Panel statute (section 513(f) of the act) into vaginal walls for purposes of reviewed all available information class III and in the Federal Register of contraception and prophylaxis. These concerning the classification of a June 7, 1990 (55 FR 23299), FDA has 510(k) notifications claimed substantial barrier-type pouch device that is made available draft guidance equivalency to the condom identified in inserted into the vagina prior to coitus describing the studies needed to support § 884.5300. Initially, in late 1987, in and lines the vaginal wall and external a PMA application for female condoms response to a 510(k) notification cervix. Such available information that also claim to prevent STD’s (Ref. 6). submitted by the Energy Basin Clinic to indicated that the preamendments This draft guidance describes the market a ‘‘barrier female condom,’’ FDA device, known as the Gee Bee Ring, was preclinical, clinical feasibility, and concurred that this condom, later called distributed, beginning in the 1930’s and clinical safety and effectiveness studies the Bikini Condom, was substantially for some years thereafter, as a female needed to expedite the study and equivalent to the class II condom (Ref. condom, i.e., as a ‘‘modified condom evaluation of PMA’s for female condom 1). Subsequently, in 1989, the agency placed in the hands of the female * ** devices that also claim prevention of received a 510(k) notification from the for proper insertion and use.’’ (See Ref. STD’s transmission. See the Wisconsin Pharmacal Co. for the WPC– 2.) The Panel determined that this ADDRESSES section of this document 333 female use condom-like device particular device represented a generic for the guidance’s availability. (WPC–333 device), later called the type of preamendments device that the On August 29, 1990, FDA responded Femshield/Reality (Intra-) Vaginal Panel identified as the vaginal pouch, to another 510(k) notification for a Pouch and Reality Female Condom. rather than the condom, noting that the ‘‘female condom’’ which was submitted This 510(k) submission brought new classification regulation for the condom by MD Personal Products, Inc. information to the agency’s attention device (§ 884.5300) identifies the (hereinafter referred to as MD Products). concerning the existence of a condom as ‘‘a sheath which completely In response to the 510(k), FDA advised preamendments female use condom-like covers the penis with a closely fitting MD Products that its pouch-type device device. membrane’’ (emphasis added). The intended to line the vagina is not The Wisconsin Pharmacal Co. regulation also states that the condom is substantially equivalent to either the claimed in its 510(k) notification that its used ‘‘for contraceptive and for condom identified in § 884.5300 or the WPC–333 device was substantially prophylactic purposes (preventing Gee Bee Ring, due to differences in equivalent to the condom identified in transmission of sexually transmitted technological characteristics and design § 884.5300 as well as to another disease)’’ and ‘‘to collect semen to aid (Ref. 7). preamendments device known as the in the diagnosis of infertility.’’ Because On May 29, 1993, FDA approved the Gee Bee Ring. Documentation in the an intravaginal pouch loosely lines the PMA for the Wisconsin Pharmacal Co. 510(k) notification indicated that the interior of the vagina, rather than ‘‘Reality’’ Female Condom (Ref. 8). Gee Bee Ring was a double-ringed closely fitting the penis, and because pouch-type preamendments device there is no data to establish the safe and II. Recommendations of the Panel intended for insertion into the vagina to effective use of the intravaginal pouch, During a public meeting held on line the walls of the vagina for the Panel recommended that FDA not March 7, 1989, the Panel made the contraceptive (pregnancy prevention) include the intravaginal pouch in the following recommendations with and prophylactic (prevention of STD’s condom classification (§ 884.5300), but respect to the classification of the transmission) purposes (Ref. 2). classify this generic type of device as a intravaginal pouch: Upon receiving this information, FDA device that is distinct from condoms. verified the existence, commercial Subsequently, in April 1989, in A. Identification distribution, and uses of the Gee Bee response to the Wisconsin Pharmacal The Panel recommended that the Ring, as best it could, through an Co. 510(k), FDA advised the firm that its device be identified as follows: An affidavit and review of a May 1934 WPC–333 device is not substantially intravaginal pouch is a sheath-like booklet printed contemporaneously equivalent to either the condom device that lines the vaginal wall and is with the distribution of the product identified in § 884.5300 or the Gee Bee inserted into the vagina prior to the (Refs. 2 and 3). The booklet entitled A Ring, due to design differences. As a initiation of coitus. It is indicated for

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.105 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 31166 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules contraceptive and prophylactic The Panel believed that the Leakage, breakage, dislodgement, or (preventing the transmission of STD’s) intravaginal pouch should be classified displacement of the device during purposes. into class III because general controls sexual intercourse could result in the The Panel cautioned against the use of and special controls would not provide occurrence of an undesired pregnancy. the term condom in the generic type of reasonable assurance of the safety and 2. Disease Transmission device because a condom is defined as effectiveness of the device, and the If the device fails due to leakage, ‘‘a sheath which completely covers the device is purported or represented to be breakage, dislodgement, or penis with a closely fitting membrane,’’ for a use in supporting or sustaining displacement, contact with infected and use of the term to identify this human life or for a use which is of semen or vaginal secretions or mucosa generic type of device may be substantial importance in preventing could result in the transmission of misunderstood by some persons to impairment of human health, or STD’s, including HIV (causing AIDS). suggest that products in this group have presents a potential unreasonable risk of 3. Adverse Tissue Reaction the same performance characteristics as illness or injury. Although the safety of Unless the biocompatibility of traditional full-sheath male condoms. some device characteristics, such as the materials and substances comprising the biocompatibility of device substances device are tested, local tissue irritation, B. Recommended Classification of the and sensitization or systemic toxicity Panel contacting the body, could be controlled through materials tests and could occur when the vaginal pouch The Panel recommended that the specifications, the Panel believes there contacts the vaginal wall and cervical intravaginal pouch be classified into is insufficient evidence that a mucosa, and the penis. class III (premarket approval). The Panel performance standard could be 4. Ulceration and Other Physical unanimously recommended assigning a established to provide reasonable Trauma high priority to premarket approval assurance of the safe and effective III. Proposed Classification because of the absence of testing and performance of the device. For example, clinical medical data regarding the no valid scientific evidence On its own initiative, FDA is safety and effectiveness of the device demonstrates whether, how often, or to proposing to change the name of the and because device failure could result what degree, the intravaginal pouch generic type of device identified by the in release of semen into the vagina dislodges or becomes displaced during Panel from ‘‘intravaginal pouch’’ to leading to unwanted pregnancies and intercourse. ‘‘female condom.’’ FDA agrees with the transmission of disease, such as Panel’s finding that the female condom acquired immune deficiency syndrome D. Summary of Data on Which the represents a type of preamendments (AIDS) caused by the human Recommendation is Based device that has different technological immunodeficiency virus (HIV) from The Panel based its recommendation characteristics than the preamendments HIV-infected semen. For women for on information provided by FDA, data condom identified in § 884.5300 and whom pregnancy is contraindicated due and information contained in references concurs with the Panel’s to medical conditions such as heart 2 and 9, and on the Panel members’ recommendation that the female disease or diabetes mellitus, the risk of personal knowledge of, and experience condom not be considered a type of an unwanted pregnancy can be severe, with, contraceptive methods of birth device that falls within the classification even life threatening. control, including barrier-type category of condom (§ 884.5300). contraceptives. Additionally, the Panel FDA believes that the proposed name, C. Summary of Reasons for ‘‘female condom,’’ better connotes the Recommendation found no data in the literature or in studies discussed before the Panel to intended female use and purposes of the After reviewing the information support the safety and effectiveness of device than does the term, ‘‘intravaginal provided by FDA, and after the devices. pouch,’’ i.e., female usage of the pouch- consideration of the open discussions The Panel noted that failure of like device to line the vaginal walls for during the Panel meeting and the Panel intravaginal pouches because of purposes of preventing pregnancy and members’ personal knowledge of and breakage, leakage, dislodgement, or STD’s transmission. Adequate labeling clinical experience with the device displacement that leads to the release of for female condoms, including adequate system, the Panel gave the following semen, could result not only in directions for use, and actual usage by reasons in support of its undesired pregnancies, but also in the female users will make clear to sexual recommendation to classify the transmission of STD’s, such as AIDS. partners the differences between female intravaginal pouch into class III. Therefore, the Panel recommended that condoms and male condoms. The Panel recommended that the the labeling of these devices contain use FDA disagrees with the Panel’s intravaginal pouch be classified into effectiveness information, particularly, concern that the use of the term class III because no published laboratory pregnancy rate information, and ‘‘condom’’ to describe or make reference or clinical study data could be found adequate indications and directions for to the female condom may imply that that demonstrate the safety and use. The Panel believed that the device the female condom will have the same effectiveness of the device. Reference to must be subject to premarket approval contraceptive and prophylactic this type of device in past literature is to assure that manufacturers effectiveness as a condom, as defined in limited (Ref. 2). More recent literature demonstrate the satisfactory § 884.5300, in preventing undesired affirms the preliminary nature of certain performance of the device for its pregnancy and protecting against STD’s, studies; the need for in vitro and in vivo intended use or uses, thereby providing including AIDS. The agency believes preclinical studies, including reasonable assurance of its safety and any such misconception can be permeability studies of the device effectiveness. dispelled by requiring that the labeling materials with respect to bacterial and of the female condom device clearly and viral STD-causing organisms; and the E. Risks to Health adequately state the contraceptive need for microbiological and clinical The Panel identified the following failure rates pertinent to any claims data that demonstrate the safety and risks to health associated with use of the made for preventing undesired contraceptive and prophylactic efficacy device: pregnancy and adequately describe of this generic type of device (Ref. 9). 1. Pregnancy clinical effectiveness data, including

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.105 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31167 pertinent information on the protecting against the transmission of regulatory action as defined by the impermeability of the device to sexually STD’s, including HIV (Refs. 10 through Executive Order and so it is not subject transmitted viral or bacterial disease, 13). The agency believes that the present to review under the Executive Order. associated with any prophylactic claims voluntary industry standard and the The Regulatory Flexibility Act for protection against STD’s, including agency’s methodology for testing requires agencies to analyze regulatory AIDS. conventional condoms for pinhole leaks options that would minimize any FDA notes that differences in are not suitable for testing the female significant impact of a rule on small technological characteristics and design condom for leaks without significant entities. FDA believes that there is likely among devices within the same generic modification and validation. no interest at this time in marketing the type of device may raise new questions FDA notes that the labeling of certain device to be classified by this rule. FDA of safety and effectiveness that prevent marketed barrier contraceptive devices, is taking this action because it has the devices from being substantially such as the contraceptive diaphragm determined that premarket approval is equivalent to one another. Such was the and accessories (21 CFR 884.5350), and necessary to provide reasonable case for the 510(k) notifications for the cervical cap (21 CFR 884.5250), assurance of the safety and effectiveness certain postamendments female identify pregnancy rates associated with of the device, if there is any interest in condoms claiming substantial the use of the devices. The expected marketing one in the future. Without equivalence to the preamendments failure or pregnancy rates for use of the this rule (and a subsequent requirement female condom, the Gee Bee Ring. In the conventional full-sheath condom are for PMA’s), a person could market a preamble of the final rule setting forth widely published. Such information is device by claiming substantial classification procedures (43 FR 32988 not available for the preamendments equivalence to the Gee Bee Ring. All at 32989, July 28, 1978), FDA noted that female condom device. Consequently, premarket submissions for ‘‘female ‘‘The term ‘generic type of device’ the agency agrees with the Panel that condom’’ type devices that FDA has describes FDA’s grouping, for reasons of pregnancy rate information, derived received to date have been for devices administrative convenience, of devices from valid clinical study data, should be that have been found to be not that are to be regulated in the same way included in female condom labeling. substantially equivalent to the Gee Bee because they present similar safety and Otherwise, the labels would fail to Ring and, therefore, those devices are effectiveness concerns. A generic type of disclose a material fact regarding the not preamendments devices and are not device will include devices that may or consequences which may result from to be classified by this rule. If a final may not be ‘within a type’ and using the female condom. rule is issued classifying these devices ‘substantially equivalent’ to each other.’’ in class III, FDA would be required to (Emphasis added.) IV. Effective Date undertake subsequent notice and FDA believes the female condom FDA proposes that any final rule that comment rulemaking to establish an should be classified into class III may issue based on this proposal effective date by which PMA’s would be because general controls and special become effective 30 days after its date required for this device. Under section controls would not provide reasonable of publication in the Federal Register. 501(f)(2)(B) of the act (21 U.S.C. assurance of the safety and effectiveness V. Environmental Impact 351(f)(2)(B)), a rule requiring PMA’s for of the device and the device is this device could not take effect any purported or represented to be for a use The agency has determined under 21 sooner than 30 months after the in supporting or sustaining human life CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type effective date of a final rule classifying or for a use which is of substantial that does not individually or the device or 90 days after publication importance in preventing impairment of cumulatively have a significant effect on of the final rule requiring the PMA’s, human health, or presents a potential the human environment. Therefore, whichever is later. unreasonable risk of illness or injury. neither an environmental assessment The agency therefore certifies that this FDA believes that the calling for PMA’s nor an environmental impact statement proposed rule, if issued, will not have for this device should be a high priority. is required. a significant economic impact on a FDA agrees with the Panel’s VI. Analysis of Impacts substantial number of small entities. In conclusions and recommendations addition, this proposed rule will not regarding the unproven contraceptive FDA has examined the impacts of the impose costs of $100 million or more on effectiveness of the preamendments proposed rule under Executive Order either the private sector or State, local, female condom and its indeterminate 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act and tribal governments in the aggregate, efficacy in protecting against the (5 U.S.C. 601–612) (as amended by and therefore a summary statement or transmission of STD’s. The agency has subtitle D of the Small Business analysis under section 202(a) of the neither received nor found in the Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 literature valid scientific evidence from 104–121), and the Unfunded Mandates is not required. laboratory tests, preclinical studies, or Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)). clinical investigations that does the Executive Order 12866 directs agencies VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 following: (1) Demonstrates the to assess all costs and benefits of FDA tentatively concludes that this biocompatibility of materials used in the available regulatory alternatives and, proposed rule requires no collections of preamendments female condom; (2) when regulation is necessary, to select information. Therefore, clearance by the measures performance characteristics, regulatory approaches that maximize Office of Management and Budget under such as displacement, dislodgement, net benefits (including potential the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is bursting, and tearing; (3) assesses the economic, environmental, public health not required. contraceptive safety and effectiveness of and safety, and other advantages; the preamendments device in distributive impacts; and equity). The VIII. Submission of Comments preventing pregnancy, in terms of agency believes that this proposed rule Interested persons may, on or before reported failure or pregnancy rates is consistent with the regulatory September 8, 1999, submit to the based upon usage (Refs. 2, 9, and 10); philosophy and principles identified in Dockets Management Branch (address or (4) demonstrates the prophylactic the Executive Order. In addition, the above) written comments regarding this efficacy of the preamendments device in proposed rule is not a significant proposal. Two copies of any comments

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.105 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 31168 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules are to be submitted except that 14. Obstetrics-Gynecology Devices Panel, volatile organic compound (VOC). The individuals may submit one copy. transcript and meeting minutes, March 7, Michigan Department of Environmental Comments are to be identified with the 1989. Quality (MDEQ) submitted this revision docket number found in brackets in the List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 884 on August 20, 1998 and supplemented heading of this document. Received it with a November 3, 1998, letter. Medical devices. comments may be seen in the office DATES: Comments on this proposed Therefore, under the Federal Food, above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., action must be received by July 12, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under Monday through Friday. 1999. authority delegated to the Commissioner IX. References of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that ADDRESSES: You may send written 21 CFR part 884 be amended as follows: comments to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, The following references have been Regulation Development Section, Air placed on display in the Dockets PART 884ÐOBSTETRICAL AND Programs Branch (AR–18J), United Management Branch (address above) GYNECOLOGICAL DEVICES States Environmental Protection and may be seen by interested persons Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR Chicago, Illinois 60604. through Friday. part 884 continues to read as follows: Copies of the proposed SIP revision 1. Letter from the Office of Device Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, and EPA’s analysis are available for Evaluation, CDRH, FDA, to the Energy Basin 360j, 371. inspection at the following location: Clinic regarding substantially equivalent United States Environmental Protection determination for the Barrier Condom, 2. Section 884.5330 is added to subpart F to read as follows: Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation August 3, 1987. Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 2. Beadle, E. L., ‘‘A New Method for the Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please Profession: Outline of Successful § 884.5330 Female condom. telephone Kathleen D’Agostino at Prophylactic Program,’’ The Hemingway (a) Identification. A female condom is Press, Waterbury, CN, 1934. (312)886–1767 before visiting the a sheath-like device that lines the Region 5 Office.) 3. Affidavit from Richard Beadle to FDA vaginal wall and is inserted into the regarding the Gee Bee Ring, its labeling, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: vagina prior to the initiation of coitus. its distribution, July 17, 1989. Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 4. Letter from the Office of Device It is indicated for contraceptive and prophylactic (preventing the Engineer, Regulation Development Evaluation, CDRH, FDA, to the Wisconsin Section (AR–18J), Air Programs Branch, Pharmacal Co. regarding the not substantially transmission of sexually transmitted diseases) purposes. Air and Radiation Division, United equivalent determination for the WPC–333 States Environmental Protection Vaginal or Female Condom, April 14, 1989. (b) Classification. Class III (premarket 5. Letter from the Office of Device approval). Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Evaluation, CDRH, FDA, to the Energy Basin (c) Date premarket approval Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Clinic regarding the not substantially application (PMA) or notice of (312) 886–1767. equivalent determination for the Barrier completion of a product development SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Condom, April 26, 1989. protocol (PDP) is required. No effective A. Background Information 6. CDRH, FDA guidance document entitled B. Contents of State Submittal and ‘‘Premarket Testing Guidelines for Female date has been established of the requirement for premarket approval for EPA’s Evaluation Barrier Contraceptive Devices Also Intended C. EPA’s Proposed Action to Prevent Sexually Transmitted Diseases,’’ the devices described in paragraph (b) of April 4, 1990. this section. See § 884.3 for effective A. Background 7. Letter from the Office of Device dates of requirement for premarket Evaluation, CDRH, FDA, to MD Personal approval. On August 20, 1998, the MDEQ Products, Inc., regarding the not substantially submitted to EPA a proposed revision to Dated: May 28, 1999. equivalent determination for the Women’s the Michigan SIP. MDEQ supplemented Choice Brand Condom,’’ August 29, 1990. Linda S. Kahan, the proposed revision with a November 8. Letter from the Office of Device Deputy Director for Regulations Policy, Center 3, 1998, letter from Robert Irvine. The Evaluation, CDRH, FDA, to the Wisconsin for Devices and Radiological Health. submittal included a revision to the Pharmacal Co. regarding PMA approval for [FR Doc. 99–14653 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] State’s definition of VOC, as well as the ‘‘Reality’’ Female Condom, May 7, 1993. BILLING CODE 4160±01±F other rule revisions and rescissions. In 9. Bounds, W., J. Guillebaud, L. Stewart, this document EPA is proposing action and S. Steele, ‘‘A Female Condom only on the revision to the definition of (FemshieldTM); A Study of its User- Acceptability,’’ British Journal of Family ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION VOC, R 336.1122(f). We will address the Planning, 14:83, 1988. AGENCY remaining rule revisions and rescissions 10. Bounds, W., ‘‘Male and Female in separate rulemaking actions. 40 CFR Part 52 Condoms,’’ British Journal of Family B. Contents of State Submittal and Planning, 15:14, 1989. [MI72±01±7280; FRL±6357±2] 11. Connell, E. B., ‘‘Barrier EPA’s Evaluation Contraceptives,’’ Clinical Obstetrics and Approval and Promulgation of State The State’s definition of the term Gynecology, 32:377, 1989. Implementation Plans; Michigan ‘‘volatile organic compound’’ is ‘‘any 12. Harris, J. R., L. W. Kanagas, and J. D. compound of carbon, or mixture of Shelton, ‘‘Role of Condoms in Preventing AGENCY: Environmental Protection compounds of carbon that participates HIV Transmission in Developing Countries,’’ Agency (EPA). in photochemical reactions, excluding Heterosexual Transmission of AIDS, ch. 32, the following materials, all of which do p. 399, Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1990. ACTION: Proposed rule. 13. Gregersen, E., and B. Gregersen, ‘‘The not contribute appreciably to the Female Condom—A Pilot Study of the SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to formation of ozone: * * * *’’ The Acceptability of a New Female Barrier disapprove a revision to Michigan’s definition goes on to list the exempt Method,’’ Acta Obstetricia ET Gynecologica State Implementation Plan (SIP) which compounds. The wording of the State Scan, 69:73, 1990. would change the State’s definition of definition is ambiguous, in that it could

VerDate 06-MAY-99 15:42 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31169 imply that there are compounds, other volatility threshold specifically for proposing to disapprove Michigan’s SIP than those listed, which arguably do not consumer products, to differentiate revision request. ‘‘participate in photochemical between products containing II. Administrative Requirements reactions,’’ and therefore may be ingredients with higher volatility. Many excluded from the definition of VOC. consumer products would contain 100 A. Executive Order 12866 Instead, the State should define the term percent VOC by definition, making all of VOC as all organic compounds except them subject to rules designed to reduce The Office of Management and Budget those that EPA has listed as negligibly VOCs from consumer products, unless (OMB) has exempted this regulatory photochemically reactive. (See 40 CFR we devised a means to distinguish them. action from Executive Order (E.O.) 51.100(s).) As worded, the definition is To address this problem, we examined 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning unacceptable. the possibility of targeting only those and Review.’’ The State has added the following consumer products with relatively B. Executive Order 12875 substances as materials excluded from higher volatility. We also noted in the the State definition of VOC: acetone; proposed rule for Consumer Products Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue cyclic, branched, or linear completely- that it did not alter our overall VOC a regulation that is not required by methylated siloxanes; policy, which does not allow vapor statute and that creates a mandate upon parachlorobenzotriflouride; pressure cutoffs, such as 0.1 mm Hg, to a state, local or tribal government, trichlorofluoromethane (CFC–11); exempt compounds from the definition unless the Federal government provides dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC–12); of VOC. Thus, the proposed Consumer the funds necessary to pay the direct 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane Products rule did not redefine VOC, it compliance costs incurred by those (CFC–113); 1,2-dichloro 1,1,2,2- proposed to adopt an applicability governments. If the mandate is tetrafluoroethane (CFC–114); threshold based on pressure for that unfunded, EPA must provide to the chloropentafluoroethane (CFC–115); specific source category only. OMB a description of the extent of 1,1-dichloro 1-fluoroethane (HCFC– Michigan has proposed a change to EPA’s prior consultation with 141b); 1-chloro 1,1-difluoroethane the definition of VOC which would representatives of affected State, local (HCFC–142b); chlorodifluoromethane allow the State to use ‘‘other methods and tribal governments, the nature of (HCFC–22); 1,1,1-trifluoro 2,2- and procedures acceptable to the their concerns, copies of any written dichloroethane (HCFC–123); 2-chloro- department’’ to determine compliance communications from the governments, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC–124); with emission limits if the methods and a statement supporting the need to trifluoromethane (HFC–23); listed in rules 336.2004 and 336.2040 do issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. pentafluoroethane (HFC–125); 1,1,2,2- not result in accurate or reliable results. 12875 requires EPA to develop an tetrafluoroethane (HFC–134); 1,1,1,2- This represents unacceptable State effective process permitting elective tetrafluoroethane (HFC–134a); 1,1,1- discretion. The State must submit any officials and other representatives of trifluoroethane (HFC–143a); 1,1- State, local and tribal governments ‘‘to difluoroethane (HFC–152a); and change in test methods to EPA for our approval as a SIP revision. provide meaningful and timely input in perfluorocarbon compounds which fall the development of regulatory proposals into these classes: cyclic, branched, or C. EPA’s Proposed Action containing significant unfunded linear, completely fluorinated alkanes; mandates.’’ This rule does not create a cyclic, branched, or linear, completely To determine a rule’s approvability, we must evaluate the rule for mandate on state, local or tribal fluorinated ethers with no governments. The rule does not impose unsaturations; cyclic, branched, or consistency with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, EPA regulations and any enforceable duties on these entities. linear, completely fluorinated tertiary Accordingly, the requirements of amines with no unsaturations; and the our interpretation of these requirements as expressed in EPA section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply sulfur containing perfluorocarbons with to this rule. no unsaturations and with sulfur bonds policy guidance documents. We have only to carbon and fluorine. These found Michigan’s proposed SIP revision C. Executive Order 13045 compounds are on the list of to be inconsistent with the Federal Protection of Children from compounds exempted from the Federal definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s). Environmental Health Risks and Safety definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s), The proposed revision is also Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), and their exclusion is acceptable. inconsistent with EPA policy guidance In addition to the compounds listed documents, including: ‘‘Issues Relating applies to any rule that: (1) is above, however, the State has included to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, determined to be ‘‘economically as an exempt compound, ‘‘ingredient Deficiencies and Deviations, significant’’ as defined under E.O. compounds in materials other than Clarification to Appendix D of 12866, and (2) concerns an surface coatings that have a vapor November 24, 1987 Federal Register environmental health or safety risk that pressure less than or equal to 0.1 Notice’’ dated May 25, 1988; EPA’s EPA has reason to believe may have a millimeters of mercury at the policy memorandum dated June 8, 1989, disproportionate effect on children. If temperature at which they are used.’’ from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon the regulatory action meets both criteria, This is unacceptable because it Monoxide Programs Branch, entitled the Agency must evaluate the contradicts established EPA policy and ‘‘Definition of VOC: Rationale;’’ EPA’s environmental health or safety effects of is inconsistent with the Federal policy memorandum dated April 17, the planned rule on children, and definition of VOC found in 40 CFR 1987, from G. T. Helms, Chief, Control explain why the planned regulation is 51.100(s). Programs Operations Branch, entitled preferable to other potentially effective In the past, MDEQ has cited EPA’s ‘‘Definition of VOC;’’ and EPA’s policy and reasonably feasible alternatives similar treatment of certain VOCs in our memorandum dated April 17, 1987, considered by the Agency. Consumer Products rule to justify its from G. T. Helms, Chief, Control This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 proposed change. However, we noted in Programs Operations Branch, entitled because it is does not involve decisions our proposed Consumer Products rule ‘‘Definition of Volatile Organic intended to mitigate environmental (61 FR 14531) that the we adopted the Compounds (VOC’s).’’ Therefore, we are health or safety risks.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.100 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 31170 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

D. Executive Order 13084 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 6982(n). That notice also announced a Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 45-day public comment period on the a regulation that is not required by prepare a budgetary impact statement to report. The Agency has received statute, that significantly affects or accompany any proposed or final rule numerous requests to extend the public uniquely affects the communities of that includes a Federal mandate that comment period by up to six months. Indian tribal governments, and that may result in estimated annual costs to Because the Agency is currently subject imposes substantial direct compliance State, local, or tribal governments in the to a court-approved consent decree to costs on those communities, unless the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 issue its regulatory determination by Federal government provides the funds million or more. Under section 205, October 1, 1999, EPA is not able, at this necessary to pay the direct compliance EPA must select the most cost-effective time, to grant an extension of the costs incurred by the tribal and least burdensome alternative that comment period, since any extension governments. If the mandate is achieves the objectives of the rule and would leave insufficient time for EPA to unfunded, EPA must provide to the is consistent with statutory complete a regulatory determination by OMB, in a separately identified section requirements. Section 203 requires EPA that date. However, the Agency is of the preamble to the rule, a to establish a plan for informing and currently discussing the possibility of description of the extent of EPA’s prior advising any small governments that an extension of this deadline with the consultation with representatives of may be significantly or uniquely parties to the consent decree. Such an affected tribal governments, a summary impacted by the rule. extension would allow the Agency to of the nature of their concerns, and a The EPA has determined that the grant an extension of the public statement supporting the need to issue disapproval action proposed does not comment period. Pending the the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 include a Federal mandate that may conclusion of those discussions and any requires EPA to develop an effective result in estimated annual costs of $100 extension of the consent decree process permitting elected officials and million or more to either State, local, or deadline, the closing date for the other representatives of tribal tribal governments in the aggregate, or comment period on the Report remains governments ‘‘to provide meaningful to the private sector. This Federal June 14, 1999. and timely input in the development of disapproval action imposes no new DATES: The comment period on the regulatory policies on matters that requirements. Accordingly, no Report to Congress on Fossil Fuel significantly or uniquely affect their additional costs to State, local, or tribal Combustion Wastes closes June 14, communities.’’ This rule does not governments, or to the private sector, 1999. significantly or uniquely affect the result from this action. ADDRESSES: Those persons wishing to communities of Indian tribal List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 submit public comments must send an governments. Accordingly, the original and two copies of their Environmental protection, Air requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. comments referencing EPA docket pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 13084 do not apply to this rule. number F–1999–FF2P–FFFFF to: RCRA Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, and Docket Information Center (5305G), U.S. E. Regulatory Flexibility Volatile organic compounds. Environmental Protection Agency The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. Headquarters (EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, generally requires an agency to conduct Dated: May 28, 1999. SW., Washington, DC, 20460. Hand a regulatory flexibility analysis of any Francis X. Lyons, deliveries of comments should be made rule subject to notice and comment Regional Administrator, Region 5. to the Arlington, VA address below. rulemaking requirements unless the [FR Doc. 99–14763 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Internet to: agency certifies that the rule will not BILLING CODE 6560±50±P have a significant economic impact on [email protected]. Comments in a substantial number of small entities. electronic format should also identify Small entities include small businesses, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the docket number F–1999–FF2P– small not-for-profit enterprises, and AGENCY FFFFF. All electronic comments must small governmental jurisdictions. EPA’s be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding disapproval of the State request under 40 CFR Part 261 the use of special characters and any Section 110 and subchapter I, part D of form of encryption. Commenters should the Clean Air Act does not affect any [FRL±6358±2] not submit electronically any existing requirements applicable to Report to Congress on Fossil Fuel confidential business information (CBI). small entities. Any pre-existing Federal Combustion Wastes; Response to An original and two copies of CBI must requirements remain in place after this Requests for Extension of Public be submitted under separate cover to: disapproval. Federal disapproval of the Comment Period RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, state submittal does not affect its state Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. enforceability. Moreover, EPA’s AGENCY: Environmental Protection EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC disapproval of the submittal does not Agency. 20460. impose any new Federal requirements. ACTION: Response to requests for Public comments and supporting Therefore, EPA certifies that this extension of public comment period. materials are available for viewing in disapproval action does not have a the RCRA Docket Information Center significant impact on a substantial SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I number of small entities because it does Agency published a notice of Building, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson not remove existing requirements and availability on April 28, 1999 (64 FR Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC impose any new Federal requirements 22820) for the Agency’s Report to is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday Congress on Fossil Fuel Combustion through Friday, excluding federal F. Unfunded Mandates Wastes that is required by section holidays. To review docket materials, Under section 202 of the Unfunded 8002(n) of the Resource Conservation we recommend that the public make an Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. appointment by calling (703) 603–9230.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.102 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31171

The public may copy a maximum of 100 decree in Gearhart v. Reilly, Civil No. petitioner, as follows: Mountain West pages from any regulatory docket at no 91–2345 (D.D.C.) to complete the Broadcasting, c/o Victor A. Michael, Jr., charge. Additional copies cost $0.15 per regulatory determination by October 1. 6807 Foxglove Drive, Cheyenne, WY page. The Report to Congress is also EPA would not be able to meet this 82009. available electronically. See the deadline if the Agency granted any FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Supplementary Information section extension to the comment period. The Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) below for information on electronic Agency is currently discussing the 418–2180. access. possibility of an extension of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For deadline with the parties to the consent synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of general information, contact the RCRA decree. Such an extension would in turn Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. Hotline at (800) 424–9346 or TDD allow the Agency to grant an extension 99–207, adopted May 26, 1999, and (hearing impaired) (800) 553–7672. In of the public comment period. However, released June 4, 1999. The full text of the Washington, DC metropolitan area, unless and until the court-approved this Commission decision is available call (703) 412–9810 or TDD (703) 412– schedule is modified, the Agency is for inspection and copying during 3323. For more detailed information on bound to work towards completing the normal business hours in the FCC’s specific aspects of the Report to regulatory determination under the Reference Information Center (Room CY Congress, contact Dennis Ruddy, U.S. current schedule. Therefore, interested A–257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Environmental Protection Agency parties should be prepared to submit Washington, DC. The complete text of (5306W), 401 M Street, SW., their comments by the current June 14, this decision may also be purchased Washington, DC 20460, at (703) 308– 1999 deadline for the receipt of public from the Commission’s copy contractor, 8430, or e-mail: [email protected]. comments. International Transcription Service, In the event the current court-ordered SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., schedule for completing the regulatory the full report, titled Report to Congress: Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil determination is extended, the Agency Provisions of the Regulatory Fuels; Volume 2—Methods, Findings, will promptly publish a notice in the Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to and Recommendations (EPA publication Federal Register extending the deadline this proceeding. number EPA 530–R–99–010), are for the receipt of public comments. Members of the public should note available for inspection and copying at Dated: June 4, 1999. that from the time a Notice of Proposed the EPA Headquarters library, at the Elizabeth Cotsworth, Rule Making is issued until the matter RCRA Docket (RIC) office identified in Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste. is no longer subject to Commission ADDRESSES above, at all EPA Regional [FR Doc. 99–14768 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] consideration or court review, all ex Office libraries, and in electronic format BILLING CODE 6560±50±P parte contacts are prohibited in at the following EPA Web site: http:// Commission proceedings, such as this www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/ one, which involve channel allotments. index.htm. Printed copies of Volume 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules and the executive summary, titled COMMISSION governing permissible ex parte contacts. Report to Congress: Wastes from the For information regarding proper Combustion of Fossil Fuels; Volume 1— 47 CFR Part 73 filing procedures for comments, See 47 Executive Summary (EPA publication CFR 1.415 and 1.420. [MM Docket No. 99±207; RM±9626] number EPA 530–S–99–010), can also List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 be obtained by calling the RCRA/ Radio Broadcasting Services; Kuna, ID Superfund Hotline at (800) 424–9346 or Radio broadcasting. (703) 412–9810. The Executive AGENCY: Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission. Commission. Summary is also available in electronic John A. Karousos, ACTION: format at the EPA Web site identified Proposed rule. Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules above. SUMMARY: This document requests Division, Mass Media Bureau. I. Background comments on a petition for rule making [FR Doc. 99–14732 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] The Environmental Protection Agency filed by Mountain West Broadcasting BILLING CODE 6712±01±P published a notice of availability on requesting the allotment of Channel April 28, 1999 (64 FR 22820) for the 247C to Kuna, Idaho, as that locality’s first local aural transmission service. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Agency’s Report to Congress on Fossil COMMISSION Fuel Combustion Wastes that is required Petitioner is requested to provide additional engineering showings to by section 8002(n) of the Resource 47 CFR Part 73 Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), demonstrate that its proposal could 42 U.S.C. 6982(n). Please see the April comply with the city grade coverage [MM Docket No. 99±208; RM±9627] 28, 1999 notice for particulars on the requirements of Section 73.315 of the Commission’s Rules. Coordinates used Radio Broadcasting Services; Melba, purpose and content of the Report to ID Congress. for this proposal are 43–04–26 NL and The April 28, 1999 notice also 116–59–54 WL. AGENCY: Federal Communications announced a 45-day public comment DATES: Comments must be filed on or Commission. period on the Report to Congress, which before July 26, 1999, and reply ACTION: Proposed rule. was to end on June 14, 1999. In comments on or before August 10, 1999. response to that notice, numerous ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal SUMMARY: This document requests parties have requested that EPA extend Communications Commission, comments on a petition for rule making the public comment period by up to six Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filed by Mountain West Broadcasting months. EPA is, however, currently filing comments with the FCC, requesting the allotment of Channel required by a court-approved consent interested parties should serve the 260C2 to Melba, Idaho, as that locality’s

VerDate 06-MAY-99 15:42 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 31172 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules first local aural transmission service. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Commission proceedings, such as this Petitioner is requested to provide COMMISSION one, which involve channel allotments. additional engineering showings to See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules demonstrate that its proposal could 47 CFR Part 73 governing permissible ex parte contacts. comply with the city grade coverage [MM Docket No. 99±209; RM±9628] For information regarding proper requirements of Section 73.315 of the filing procedures for comments, See 47 Commission’s Rules. Coordinates used Radio Broadcasting Services; Buras, CFR 1.415 and 1.420. for this proposal are 43–08–21 NL and LA List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 116–45–25 WL. AGENCY: Federal Communications Radio broadcasting. DATES: Comments must be filed on or Commission. before July 26, 1999, and reply Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. comments on or before August 10, 1999. John A. Karousos, Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making Division, Mass Media Bureau. Communications Commission, [FR Doc. 99–14734 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filed by Mountain West Broadcasting BILLING CODE 6712±01±U filing comments with the FCC, requesting the allotment of Channel interested parties should serve the 279C2 to Buras, Louisiana, as that petitioner, as follows: Mountain West community’s first local aural transmission service. Petitioner is FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Broadcasting, c/o Victor A. Michael, Jr., COMMISSION 6807 Foxglove Drive, Cheyenne, WY requested to provide additional 82009. engineering showings to demonstrate 47 CFR Part 73 the availability of a suitable area for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: tower construction as the site restriction [MM Docket No. 99±210; RM±9629] Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) required to accommodate the proposal 418–2180. appears to be located in marshland. Radio Broadcasting Services; Flagstaff, AZ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Coordinates used for this proposal are synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 29–18–15 NL and 89–32–00 WL. AGENCY: Federal Communications Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. DATES: Comments must be filed on or Commission. 99–208, adopted May 26, 1999, and before July 26, 1999, and reply ACTION: Proposed rule. released June 4, 1999. The full text of comments on or before August 10, 1999. this Commission decision is available ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal SUMMARY: This document requests for inspection and copying during Communications Commission, comments on a petition for rule making normal business hours in the FCC’s Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filed on behalf of Mountain West Reference Information Center (Room CY filing comments with the FCC, Broadcasting, requesting the allotment A–257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., interested parties should serve the of Channel 279C3 to Flagstaff, Arizona, Washington, DC. The complete text of petitioner, as follows: Mountain West as that community’s fifth local FM this decision may also be purchased Broadcasting, c/o Victor A. Michael, Jr., transmission service. A separate request, from the Commission’s copy contractor, 6807 Foxglove Drive, Cheyenne, WY filed by Mark S. Haughwout to allot International Transcription Service, 82009. Channel 279A to Flagstaff will be considered as comments in support of Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the instant proposal, as Commission Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) policy is to allot the highest class Provisions of the Regulatory 418–2180. channel requested to a community that Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a this proceeding. meets the technical provisions of our synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of rules. Coordinates used for this proposal Members of the public should note Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. are 35–17–19 NL and 111–38–26 WL. that from the time a Notice of Proposed 99–209, adopted May 26, 1999, and DATES: Comments must be filed on or Rule Making is issued until the matter released June 4, 1999. The full text of before July 26, 1999, and reply is no longer subject to Commission this Commission decision is available comments on or before August 10, 1999. consideration or court review, all ex for inspection and copying during parte contacts are prohibited in normal business hours in the FCC’s ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Commission proceedings, such as this Reference Information Center (Room CY Communications Commission, one, which involve channel allotments. A–257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules Washington, DC. The complete text of filing comments with the FCC, governing permissible ex parte contacts. this decision may also be purchased interested parties should serve the petitioner, as follows: Mountain West For information regarding proper from the Commission’s copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Broadcasting, c/o Victor A. Michael, Jr., filing procedures for comments, See 47 President, 6807 Foxglove Drive, CFR 1.415 and 1.420. Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Provisions of the Regulatory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) Radio broadcasting. Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. 418–2180. Federal Communications Commission. Members of the public should note SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a John A. Karousos, that from the time a Notice of Proposed synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Rule Making is issued until the matter Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. Division, Mass Media Bureau. is no longer subject to Commission 99–210, adopted May 26, 1999, and [FR Doc. 99–14733 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] consideration or court review, all ex released June 4, 1999. The full text of BILLING CODE 6712±01±U parte contacts are prohibited in this Commission decision is available

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.109 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31173 for inspection and copying during Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filed by Mountain West Broadcasting normal business hours in the FCC’s filing comments with the FCC, requesting the allotment of Channel Information Center (Room CY–A257), interested parties should serve the 249C3 to Amelia, Louisiana, as that 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, petitioner, as follows: Mountain West community’s first local aural DC. The complete text of this decision Broadcasting, c/o Victor A. Michael, Jr., transmission service. Petitioner is may also be purchased from the 6807 Foxglove Drive, Cheyenne, WY requested to provide additional Commission’s copy contractor, 82009. engineering showings to demonstrate International Transcription Service, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the availability of a suitable area for Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) tower construction as the site restriction Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. 418–2180. required to accommodate the proposal Provisions of the Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a appears to be located in marshland. Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of Coordinates used for this proposal are this proceeding. Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 29–30–21 NL and 91–03–46 WL. Members of the public should note 99–211, adopted May 26, 1999, and that from the time a Notice of Proposed released June 4, 1999. The full text of DATES: Comments must be filed on or Rule Making is issued until the matter this Commission decision is available before July 26, 1999, and reply is no longer subject to Commission for inspection and copying during comments on or before August 10, 1999. consideration or court review, all ex normal business hours in the FCC’s parte contacts are prohibited in ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Reference Information Center (Room CY Communications Commission, Commission proceedings, such as this A–257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., one, which involve channel allotments. Washington, DC 20554. In addition to Washington, DC. The complete text of filing comments with the FCC, See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules this decision may also be purchased governing permissible ex parte contacts. interested parties should serve the from the Commission’s copy contractor, petitioner, as follows: Mountain West For information regarding proper International Transcription Service, Broadcasting, c/o Victor A. Michael, Jr., filing procedures for comments, See 47 Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., 6807 Foxglove Drive, Cheyenne, WY CFR 1.415 and 1.420. Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. 82009. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Radio broadcasting. this proceeding. Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) Federal Communications Commission. Members of the public should note 418–2180. John A. Karousos, that from the time a Notice of Proposed Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Rule Making is issued until the matter SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Division, Mass Media Bureau. is no longer subject to Commission synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of [FR Doc. 99–14735 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] consideration or court review, all ex Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. BILLING CODE 6712±01±P parte contacts are prohibited in 99–212, adopted May 26, 1999, and Commission proceedings, such as this released June 4, 1999. The full text of one, which involve channel allotments. this Commission decision is available FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules for inspection and copying during COMMISSION governing permissible ex parte contacts. normal business hours in the FCC’s For information regarding proper Reference Information Center (Room CY 47 CFR Part 73 filing procedures for comments, See 47 A–257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., [MM Docket No. 99±211; RM±9630] CFR 1.415 and 1.420. Washington, DC. The complete text of List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 this decision may also be purchased Radio Broadcasting Services; Winona, from the Commission’s copy contractor, AZ Radio broadcasting. International Transcription Service, AGENCY: Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission. Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Commission. John A. Karousos, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. ACTION: Proposed rule. Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Provisions of the Regulatory Division, Mass Media Bureau. Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to SUMMARY: This document requests [FR Doc. 99–14736 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] this proceeding. comments on a petition for rule making BILLING CODE 6712±01±P Members of the public should note filed by Mountain West Broadcasting that from the time a Notice of Proposed requesting the allotment of Channel Rule Making is issued until the matter 242C3 to Winona, Arizona, as that FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS is no longer subject to Commission locality’s first local aural transmission COMMISSION consideration or court review, all ex service. Information is requested regarding the attributes of Winona, 47 CFR Part 73 parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this Arizona, to determine whether it is a [MM Docket No. 99±212; RM±9640] bona fide community for allotment one, which involve channel allotments. purposes. Coordinates used for this Radio Broadcasting Services; Amelia, See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules proposal are 35–12–12 NL and 111–24– LA governing permissible ex parte contacts. 24 WL. For information regarding proper AGENCY: Federal Communications DATES: Comments must be filed on or Commission. filing procedures for comments, See 47 before July 26, 1999, and reply CFR 1.415 and 1.420. ACTION: Proposed rule. comments on or before August 10, 1999. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal SUMMARY: This document requests Communications Commission, comments on a petition for rule making Radio broadcasting.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.108 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 31174 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

Federal Communications Commission. Members of the public should note 99–202, adopted May 26, 1999, and John A. Karousos, that from the time a Notice of Proposed released June 4, 1999. The full text of Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Rule Making is issued until the matter this Commission decision is available Division, Mass Media Bureau. is no longer subject to Commission for inspection and copying during [FR Doc. 99–14737 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] consideration or court review, all ex normal business hours in the FCC’s BILLING CODE 6712±01±P parte contacts are prohibited in Reference Information Center (Room CY Commission proceedings, such as this A–257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., one, which involve channel allotments. Washington, DC. The complete text of FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules this decision may also be purchased COMMISSION governing permissible ex parte contacts. from the Commission’s copy contractor, For information regarding proper International Transcription Service, 47 CFR Part 73 filing procedures for comments, See 47 Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., [MM Docket No. 99±213; RM±9641] CFR 1.415 and 1.420. Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. Provisions of the Regulatory List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio Broadcasting Services; Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to Kootenai, ID Radio broadcasting. this proceeding. Federal Communications Commission. Members of the public should note AGENCY: Federal Communications that from the time a Notice of Proposed Commission. John A. Karousos, Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Rule Making is issued until the matter ACTION: Proposed rule. Division, Mass Media Bureau. is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex SUMMARY: This document requests [FR Doc. 99–14738 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] parte contacts are prohibited in comments on a petition for rule making BILLING CODE 6712±01±P Commission proceedings, such as this filed by Mountain West Broadcasting one, which involve channel allotments. requesting the allotment of Channel See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules 294A to Kootenai, Idaho, as that FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION governing permissible ex parte contacts. locality’s first local aural transmission For information regarding proper service. As Kootenai is located within 47 CFR Part 73 filing procedures for comments, See 47 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.- CFR 1.415 and 1.420. Canada border, concurrence of the [MM Docket No. 99±202; RM±9620] Canadian government to this proposal is List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio Broadcasting Services; required. Coordinates used for this Radio broadcasting. proposal are 48–18–37 NL and 116–30– Mountainaire, AZ Federal Communications Commission. 45 WL. AGENCY: Federal Communications John A. Karousos, DATES: Comments must be filed on or Commission. Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules before July 26, 1999, and reply ACTION: Proposed rule. comments on or before August 10, 1999. Division, Mass Media Bureau. [FR Doc. 99–14739 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal SUMMARY: This document requests Communications Commission, comments on a petition for rule making BILLING CODE 6712±01±P Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filed by Mountain West Broadcasting filing comments with the FCC, requesting the allotment of Channel 293A to Mountainaire, Arizona, as that FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS interested parties should serve the COMMISSION petitioner, as follows: Mountain West locality’s first local aural transmission Broadcasting, c/o Victor A. Michael, Jr., service. Information is requested 47 CFR Part 73 6807 Foxglove Drive, Cheyenne, WY regarding the attributes of Mountainaire, 82009. Arizona, to determine whether it is a [MM Docket No. 99±203; RM±9621] bona fide community for allotment FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: purposes. Coordinates used for this Radio Broadcasting Services; Dove Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) Creek, CO 418–2180. proposal are 35–13–00 NL and 111–42– 01 WL. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a AGENCY: Federal Communications DATES: Comments must be filed on or synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of Commission. before July 26, 1999, and reply Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. ACTION: Proposed rule. comments on or before August 10, 1999. 99–213, adopted May 26, 1999, and released June 4, 1999. The full text of ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal SUMMARY: This document requests this Commission decision is available Communications Commission, comments on a petition for rule making for inspection and copying during Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filed by Mountain West Broadcasting normal business hours in the FCC’s filing comments with the FCC, requesting the allotment of Channel Reference Information Center (Room CY interested parties should serve the 273C3 to Dove Creek, Colorado, as that A–257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., petitioner, as follows: Mountain West locality’s first local aural transmission Washington, DC. The complete text of Broadcasting, c/o Victor A. Michael, Jr., service. Coordinates used for this this decision may also be purchased 6807 Foxglove Drive, Cheyenne, WY proposal are 35–45–54 NL and 108–54– from the Commission’s copy contractor, 82009. 18 WL. International Transcription Service, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DATES: Comments must be filed on or Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) before July 26, 1999, and reply Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. 418–2180. comments on or before August 10, 1999. Provisions of the Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of Communications Commission, this proceeding. Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.111 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31175 filing comments with the FCC, requesting the allotment of Channel FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS interested parties should serve the 228A to Grand View, Idaho, as that COMMISSION petitioner, as follows: Mountain West locality’s first local aural transmission Broadcasting, c/o Victor A. Michael, Jr., service. Coordinates used for this 47 CFR Part 73 6807 Foxglove Drive, Cheyenne, WY proposal are 42–53–47 NL and 116–05– [MM Docket No. 99±205; RM±9624] 82009. 30 WL. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Radio Broadcasting Services; DATES: Comments must be filed on or Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) Hazelton, ID 418–2180. before July 26, 1999, and reply comments on or before August 10, 1999. AGENCY: Federal Communications SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Commission. ADDRESSES: synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of Secretary, Federal ACTION: Proposed rule. Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. Communications Commission, 99–203, adopted May 26, 1999, and Washington, DC 20554. In addition to SUMMARY: This document requests released June 4, 1999. The full text of filing comments with the FCC, comments on a petition for rule making this Commission decision is available interested parties should serve the filed by Mountain West Broadcasting for inspection and copying during petitioner, as follows: Mountain West requesting the allotment of Channel normal business hours in the FCC’s Broadcasting, c/o Victor A. Michael, Jr., 232C3 to Hazelton, Idaho, as that Reference Information Center (Room CY 6807 Foxglove Drive, Cheyenne, WY locality’s first local aural transmission A–257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 82009. service. Coordinates used for this Washington, DC. The complete text of proposal are 42–35–54 NL and 114–07– this decision may also be purchased FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 54 WL. from the Commission’s copy contractor, Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) DATES: Comments must be filed on or International Transcription Service, 418–2180. before July 26, 1999, and reply Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a comments on or before August 10, 1999. Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Provisions of the Regulatory Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. Communications Commission, Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 99–204, adopted May 26, 1999, and Washington, DC 20554. In addition to this proceeding. filing comments with the FCC, released June 4, 1999. The full text of Members of the public should note interested parties should serve the this Commission decision is available that from the time a Notice of Proposed petitioner, as follows: Mountain West Rule Making is issued until the matter for inspection and copying during Broadcasting, c/o Victor A. Michael, Jr., is no longer subject to Commission normal business hours in the FCC’s 6807 Foxglove Drive, Cheyenne, WY consideration or court review, all ex Reference Information Center (Room CY 82009. parte contacts are prohibited in A–257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commission proceedings, such as this Washington, DC. The complete text of Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) one, which involve channel allotments. this decision may also be purchased 418–2180. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules from the Commission’s copy contractor, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a governing permissible ex parte contacts. International Transcription Service, synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of For information regarding proper Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. filing procedures for comments, See 47 Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. 99–205, adopted May 26, 1999, and CFR 1.415 and 1.420. Provisions of the Regulatory released June 4, 1999. The full text of List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this Commission decision is available this proceeding. for inspection and copying during Radio broadcasting. normal business hours in the FCC’s Members of the public should note Federal Communications Commission. Reference Information Center (Room CY that from the time a Notice of Proposed John A. Karousos, A–257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Rule Making is issued until the matter Washington, DC. The complete text of Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules is no longer subject to Commission Division, Mass Media Bureau. this decision may also be purchased consideration or court review, all ex [FR Doc. 99–14740 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] from the Commission’s copy contractor, parte contacts are prohibited in BILLING CODE 6712±01±P International Transcription Service, Commission proceedings, such as this Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., one, which involve channel allotments. Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules Provisions of the Regulatory COMMISSION governing permissible ex parte contacts. Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to For information regarding proper this proceeding. Members of the public should note 47 CFR Part 73 filing procedures for comments, See 47 that from the time a Notice of Proposed [MM Docket No. 99±204; RM±9623] CFR 1.415 and 1.420. Rule Making is issued until the matter Radio Broadcasting Services; Grand List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 is no longer subject to Commission View, ID consideration or court review, all ex Radio broadcasting. parte contacts are prohibited in AGENCY: Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission. Commission proceedings, such as this Commission. John A. Karousos, one, which involve channel allotments. ACTION: Proposed rule. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules governing permissible ex parte contacts. SUMMARY: This document requests Division, Mass Media Bureau. For information regarding proper comments on a petition for rule making [FR Doc. 99–14741 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] filing procedures for comments, See 47 filed by Mountain West Broadcasting BILLING CODE 6712±01±P CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.114 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 31176 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 proposal are 42–30–22 NL and 114–21– from the Commission’s copy contractor, Radio broadcasting. 45 WL. International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Federal Communications Commission. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 26, 1999, and reply Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800. John A. Karousos, comments on or before August 10, 1999. Provisions of the Regulatory Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to Division, Mass Media Bureau. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, this proceeding. [FR Doc. 99–14742 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Members of the public should note BILLING CODE 6712±01±P Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, that from the time a Notice of Proposed interested parties should serve the Rule Making is issued until the matter FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS petitioner, as follows: Mountain West is no longer subject to Commission COMMISSION Broadcasting, c/o Victor A. Michael, Jr., consideration or court review, all ex 6807 Foxglove Drive, Cheyenne, WY parte contacts are prohibited in 47 CFR Part 73 82009. Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [MM Docket No. 99±206; RM±9625] See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) governing permissible ex parte contacts. Radio Broadcasting Services; 418–2180. Kimberly, ID For information regarding proper SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a filing procedures for comments, See 47 AGENCY: Federal Communications synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of CFR 1.415 and 1.420. Commission. Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 ACTION: Proposed rule. 99–206, adopted May 26, 1999, and released June 4, 1999. The full text of Radio broadcasting. SUMMARY: This document requests this Commission decision is available comments on a petition for rule making for inspection and copying during Federal Communications Commission. filed by Mountain West Broadcasting normal business hours in the FCC’s John A. Karousos, requesting the allotment of Channel Reference Information Center (Room CY Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules 291C3 to Kimberly, Idaho, as that A–257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Division, Mass Media Bureau. locality’s first local aural transmission Washington, DC. The complete text of [FR Doc. 99–14743 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] service. Coordinates used for this this decision may also be purchased BILLING CODE 6712±01±P

VerDate 06-MAY-99 11:47 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A10JN2.116 pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP1 31177

Notices Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 111

Thursday, June 10, 1999

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER to establish the Advisory Committee on Committee Act and the approval of the contains documents other than rules or Small Farms, hereinafter referred to as chair or the chair’s designee. proposed rules that are applicable to the the Committee. Persons nominated for the Advisory public. Notices of hearings and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and The Committee will monitor Committee on Small Farms will be rulings, delegations of authority, filing of government and private sector actions required to complete and submit an petitions and applications and agency and policy and program proposals that Advisory Committee Membership statements of organization and functions are relate to small farms and ranches, Background Information Questionnaire examples of documents appearing in this including limited-resource farms and (form AD 755). section. ranches; evaluate the impact such The duties of the Committee are actions and proposals may have upon solely advisory. The Committee will the growth and continuation of small meet at least once a year and make DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE farms and ranches; review USDA recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture regarding USDA’s small Office of the Chief Economist; Notice programs and strategies to implement farms program and other matters related of Intent To Establish an Advisory small farm policy; advise the Secretary to small farms. The first meeting is Committee on Small Farms and Solicit on actions to strengthen USDA planned for September 1999, and all Nominations for the Committee programs; and evaluate other approaches that the Committee would meetings will be open to the public. AGENCY: Office of the Chief Economist, deem advisable or which the Secretary Committee members will be reimbursed USDA. of Agriculture or the Director of for official travel expenses only. ACTION: Notice of intent to establish and Sustainable Development and Small Nominations are being sought through solicitation of nominations for Advisory Farms may request the Committee to the media, the Federal Register, and Committee on Small Farms. consider. other appropriate methods. The Committee will have 15 Nominations should include the SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of members, one of whom will serve as following information: name, title, Agriculture (USDA) proposes to chair and be appointed by the Secretary address, telephone number, and establish an Advisory Committee on of Agriculture, and one of whom will organization, and may be submitted by Small Farms. The purpose of the serve as a vice-chair and be appointed e-mail to: [email protected] or faxed Committee is to gather and analyze by the Committee. Members will to (202) 690–4915. The required information regarding small U.S. farms represent small farms and ranches, and Advisory Committee Membership and ranches and recommend to the the diverse groups USDA programs Information Questionnaire is also Secretary of Agriculture actions to take serve, including but not limited to, available on the Internet (see to ensure their continued viability and finance, commerce, conservation, instructions below) and may be to enhance their economic livelihood. cooperatives, nonprofit organizations, requested by telephone, fax, or e-mail The Committee is in the public interest rural communities, academia, state and using the information above. The and within the duties and local governments, Native Americans, completed questionnaire may be faxed responsibilities of the Department of farm workers, and other interests as the to the number above, mailed, or e- Agriculture. Establishment of the Secretary determines. USDA will follow mailed directly from the Internet web Committee also ensures the continued equal opportunity practices in making site. implementation and consideration of appointments to the Committee. To All mailed correspondence should be the recommendations made by the ensure that recommendations of the sent to Alfonzo Drain, Office of the National Commission on Small Farms in Committee take into account the needs Chief Economist, U.S. Department of its report, ‘‘A Time to Act.’’ of the diverse groups served by the Agriculture, Room 112–A, Jamie L. DATES: Written comments and Department, membership shall include, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence nominations must be received on or to the extent practicable, individuals Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250– before June 25, 1999. with demonstrated ability to represent 3810. You may access the Advisory ADDRESSES: Comments and nominations minorities, women, and persons with Committee Membership Background should be sent to Alfonzo Drain, Deputy disabilities. Information Questionnaire (form AD Director of Small Farms, Office of the The Secretary of Agriculture shall 755) on-line at: http://www.usda.gov/ Chief Economist, U.S. Department of make all appointments to the Committee oce/osfsd/advisorynotice.htm. You will Agriculture, Room 112–A, Jamie L. and the members will serve at the have a choice of completing and Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Secretary’s discretion. Members will submitting the Questionnaire on-line or Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250– serve staggered terms. Initially, the printing it from an Adobe PDF file and 3810. Telephone: 202–720–3238; Fax: Secretary will appoint 5 members to mailing or faxing the completed 202–690–4915. one-year terms, 5 members to two-year Questionnaire to the above address or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: terms, and 5 members to three-year fax number. Alfonzo Drain, 202/720–3238. E-mail terms. As vacancies expire, the Signed at Washington, DC, June 1, 1999. address: [email protected]. Secretary will appoint members as Keith Collins, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant appropriate. The Committee may Chief Economist, Office of the Chief to the Federal Advisory Committee Act establish subcommittees as it Economist. (5 U.S.C. app. 2), notice is hereby given determines necessary subject to the [FR Doc. 99–14777 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] that the Secretary of Agriculture intends provisions of the Federal Advisory BILLING CODE 3410±01±P

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.026 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31178 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

BROADCASTING BOARD OF credit scoring, community outreach by Dated at Washington, DC, June 1, 1999. GOVERNORS lending institutions, and lending to Carol-Lee Hurley, minority owned businesses. The Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. Sunshine Act Meeting Committee will continue planning [FR Doc. 99–14663 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] DATE AND TIME: June 17, 1999; 8:30 a.m. future activities. BILLING CODE 6335±01±P PLACE: Sheraton Chicago Hotel, 301 East Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation North Water Street, Parlor C (lobby COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS level), Chicago, Illinois 60611. to the Committee, should contact CLOSED MEETING: The members of the Committee Chairperson Lewis Anthony, Sunshine Act Meeting Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) 202–483–3262, or Ki-Taek Chun, will meet in closed session to review Director of the Eastern Regional Office, AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil and discuss a number of issues relating 202–376–7533 (TDD 202–376–8116). Rights. to U.S. Government-funded non- Hearing-impaired persons who will DATE AND TIME: Friday, June 18, 1999, military international broadcasting. attend the meeting and require the 9:30 a.m. They will address internal procedural, services of a sign language interpreter PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, budgetary, and personnel issues, as well should contact the Regional Office at 624 Ninth Street, NW, Room 540, as sensitive foreign policy issues least ten (10) working days before the Washington, DC 20425. relating to potential options in the U.S. scheduled date of the meeting. STATUS: international broadcasting field. This The meeting will be conducted Agenda meeting is closed because if open it pursuant to the provisions of the rules likely would either disclose matters that and regulations of the Commission. I. Approval of Agenda would be properly classified to be kept II. Approval of Minutes of May 14, 1999 secret in the interest of foreign policy Dated at Washington, DC, June 1, 1999. Meeting under the appropriate executive order (5 Carol-Lee Hurley, III. Announcements U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. IV. Staff Director’s Report information the premature disclosure of [FR Doc. 99–14662 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] V. Racial and Ethnic Tensions in which would be likely to significantly BILLING CODE 6335±01±P American Communities: The New frustrate implementation of a proposed York Report agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B)) VI. State Advisory Committee Report In addition, part of the discussion will COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS ‘‘Alaskan Natives and Other relate solely to the internal personnel Minorities in the Special Education and organizational issues of the BBG or Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting Program of Four Alaskan Districts’’ the International Broadcasting Bureau. of the Maryland Advisory Committee (Alaska) (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2) and (6)). VII. Future Agenda Items. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER Persons interested in obtaining more the provisions of the rules and INFORMATION: David Aronson, Press and information should contact either regulations of the U.S. Commission on Communications (202) 376–8312. Brenda Hardnett or John Lindburg at Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Stephanie Y. Moore, (202) 401–3736. Maryland Advisory Committee to the General Counsel. Dated: June 7, 1999. Commission will convene at 10 a.m. and [FR Doc. 99–14926 Filed 6–8–99; 3:29 pm] adjourn at 4 p.m. on June 29, 1999, at John A. Lindburg, BILLING CODE 6750±06±M Legal Counsel and Acting Executive Director. the Frederick County Commission, Winchester Hall, First Floor Hearing [FR Doc. 99–14837 Filed 6–8–99; 11:07 am] Room, 12 East Church Street, Frederick, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BILLING CODE 8230±01±M Maryland 21701. The purpose of the meeting is to review the status of the International Trade Administration current project on Korean American COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS store owners in Baltimore, discuss [A±570±803] Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting alternatives and select the next project, Antidumping Duty Administrative of the District of Columbia Advisory and hear presentations by invited Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools Committee speakers on civil rights developments. From the People's Republic of China Persons desiring additional Notice is hereby given, pursuant to information, or planning a presentation AGENCY: Import Administration, the provisions of the rules and to the Committee, should contact Ki- International Trade Administration, regulations of the U.S. Commission on Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern Department of Commerce. Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Regional Office, 202–376–7533 (TDD ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit District of Columbia Advisory 202–376–8116). Hearing-impaired for final results of review. Committee to the Commission will persons who will attend the meeting convene at 9:30 a.m. and adjourn at SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 12:45 p.m. on July 1, 1999, at the JC and require the services of a sign (the Department) is extending the time Penney Government Relations Office language interpreter should contact the limit for the final results of the (Suite 1015), 1156 15th Street NW, Regional Office at least ten (10) working administrative review of the Washington, DC 20036. The purpose of days before the scheduled date of the antidumping duty order on Heavy the meeting is to invite representatives meeting. Forged Hand Tools from the People’s from the financial services industry to The meeting will be conducted Republic of China. The review covers discuss current issues in the mortgage pursuant to the provisions of the rules four manufacturers/exporters of the lending discrimination debate including and regulations of the Commission. subject merchandise to the United

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.239 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31179

States for the period February 1, 1997 to International Trade Administration, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE January 31, 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1999. Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, International Trade Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Washington, D.C. 20230. [A±834±802] Lyman Armstrong or Frank Thomson, The Applicable Statute Office 4, Office of the AD/CVD Final Determination of Sales at Less Enforcement, Import Administration. Unless otherwise indicated, all Than Fair Value: Uranium From the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Republic of Kazakhstan and Constitution Ave., NW Washington, Act), as amended, are references to the AGENCY: Import Administration, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–3601, or provisions effective January 1, 1995, the International Trade Administration, (202) 482–4793, respectively. effective date of the amendments made U.S. Department of Commerce. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because it to the Act by the Uruguay Round EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1999. is not practicable to complete the final Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, all FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: results of the this review within the citations to the Department’s regulations James C. Doyle, Sally C. Gannon or initial time limit established by the are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 Juanita H. Chen, Enforcement Group III, Uruguay Round Agreements Act (245 (1998). Import Administration, International days after the last day of the anniversary Trade Administration, U.S. Department month), pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) Postponement of Final Determination of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended and Extension of Provisional Measures Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; (the Act), the Department is extending telephone: 202–482–3793. the time limit for completion of the final On February 25, 1999, the affirmative results until July 7, 1999. See preliminary determination was SUMMARY: After the Republic of Memorandum from Bernard T. Carreau published in this proceeding (see Notice Kazakhstan (‘‘Kazakhstan’’) terminated to Robert LaRussa, on file in the Central of Preliminary Determination of Sales at the suspension agreement on uranium Records Unit located in room B–099 of Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat- from Kazakhstan, the U.S. Department the main Department of Commerce Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) resumed building (June 1, 1999). From the Russian Federation, 64 FR its antidumping investigation on This extension is in accordance with 9312). Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of uranium from Kazakhstan. The section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act (19 the Act, on March 4, 1999, respondent Department determines that imports of U.S.C. 1675 (a)(3)(A). JSC Severstal (Severstal) requested that uranium from Kazakhstan are being Dated: June 4, 1999. the Department extend the final sold, or are likely to be sold, in the Bernard T. Carreau, determination in this case for the full United States at less than fair value, as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import sixty days permitted by statute. provided in Section 735 of the Tariff Act Administration. Severstal also requested an extension of of 1930, as amended (1994) (‘‘the Act’’). [FR Doc. 99–14780 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] the provisional measures (i.e., SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BILLING CODE 3510±DS±U suspension of liquidation) period from The Applicable Statute four to six months in accordance with the Department’s regulations (19 CFR Unless otherwise indicated, all DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 351.210(e)(2)). Therefore, in accordance citations to the Act are references to the provisions effective in 1994. In addition, with 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), on May 6, International Trade Administration unless otherwise indicated, all citations 1999, we partially extended this final to the Department’s regulations are [A±821±809] determination until June 10, 1999 (see citations to the regulations at 19 CFR Postponement of Final Determination of Part 353 (1994). Postponement of Final Determination Antidumping Duty Investigation of Hot- of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Case History Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality From the Russian Federation, 64 FR Steel From the Russian Federation On November 29, 1991, the 24329). Due to complex and contentious Department initiated an antidumping AGENCY: Import Administration, issues associated with this final investigation on uranium from the International Trade Administration, determination, this notice serves to fully Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Department of Commerce. extend this final determination until no (‘‘Soviet Union’’). See Initiation of ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit later than 135 days after the date of Antidumping Duty Investigation: for final determination of antidumping publication of the preliminary Uranium from the Union of Soviet duty investigation. determination as originally requested by Socialist Republics, 56 FR 63711 the respondents, i.e., until July 10, 1999. (December 5, 1991). On December 25, SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce Suspension of liquidation will be 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved and (the Department) is extending the time extended accordingly. the United States subsequently limit for the final determination in the recognized the twelve newly antidumping duty investigation of hot- This notice of postponement is independent states (‘‘NIS’’) which rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel published pursuant to 19 CFR emerged, one of which was the Republic (Hot-Rolled Steel) from the Russian 351.210(g). of Kazakhstan. On January 16, 1992, the Federation (Russia). Dated: June 4, 1999. Department presented an antidumping EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1999. Richard W. Moreland, duty questionnaire to the Embassy of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn the Russian Federation, the only NIS Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Baranowski or Rick Johnson at (202) Administration. which had a diplomatic facility in the 482–3208 or 482–3818, respectively; United States at that time, for service on [FR Doc. 99–14781 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group Kazakhstan. On January 30, 1992, the III, Office 9, Import Administration, BILLING CODE 3510±DS±P Department sent questionnaires to the

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.116 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31180 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

United States Embassy in Moscow, See Termination of Suspension and extending the hearing date to May which served copies of the Agreement, Resumption of Antidumping 25, 1999. See Antidumping questionnaire on the permanent Investigation, and Termination of Investigation on Uranium from the representative to the Russian Federation Administrative Review on Uranium Republic of Kazakhstan: Notice of of each NIS. The questionnaires were From Kazakhstan, 64 FR 2877 (January Extension of Time for Briefs and served on February 10 and 11, 1992. On 19, 1999). On January 13, 1999, the Hearing, 64 FR 24137 (May 5, 1999). March 25, 1992, the Department stated Department issued a supplemental On May 17, 1999, the Department that it intended to continue its questionnaire for the original period of received case briefs from Kazakhstan antidumping duty investigation with investigation (‘‘POI’’) to Kazakhstan. and from the uranium coalition respect to the NIS of the former Soviet The supplemental questionnaire was consisting of the Ad Hoc Committee of Union. See Postponement of issued to Kazakhstan as requests for Domestic Uranium Producers (a Preliminary Antidumping Duty separate rates were not submitted to the petitioner), the Paper, Allied-Industrial- Determination: Uranium from the Department. On January 28, 1999, Chemical and Energy Workers Former Union of Soviet Socialist Kazakhstan requested a 60-day International Union (the successor to Republics (USSR), 57 FR 11064 (April 1, postponement of the date of the petitioner Oil, Chemical, and Atomic 1992). Department’s final determination. On Workers’ Union), and USEC, Inc. On June 3, 1992, the Department February 1, 1999, Kazakhstan submitted (hereinafter collectively ‘‘Uranium issued its preliminary determination, in its response to Section A of the Coalition’’). On May 21, 1999, the its antidumping duty investigation on supplemental questionnaire. On Department received rebuttal briefs from uranium from Kazakhstan, that imports February 3, 1999, Kazakhstan submitted Kazakhstan and the Uranium Coalition. of uranium from Kazakhstan were being, minor corrections to its Section A On May 26, 1999, the Department or were likely to be, sold in the United response. On February 17, 1999, conducted a hearing on the issues. States at less than fair value, as Kazakhstan submitted its response to provided for in the Act. See Preliminary Sections C and D of the supplemental Scope of the Investigation Determinations of Sales at Less Than questionnaire. The merchandise covered by this Fair Value: Uranium from Kazakhstan, In reviewing Kazakhstan’s response, investigation constitutes one class or Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine the Department determined that kind of merchandise. The merchandise and Uzbekistan; and Preliminary Kazakhstan’s response required covered by this investigation includes Determinations of Sales at Not Less significant additional information. Than Fair Value: Uranium from Therefore, on March 5, 1999, the natural uranium in the form of uranium Armenia, Azerbaijan, Byelarus, Georgia, Department issued a second ores and concentrates; natural uranium Moldova and Turkmenistan, 57 FR supplemental questionnaire. On March metal and natural uranium compounds; 23380 (June 3, 1992). On October 16, 12, 1999, the Department published a alloys, dispersions (including cermets), 1992, the Department amended the notice in the Federal Register ceramic products and mixtures preliminary determination to include postponing the final determination date containing natural uranium or natural highly enriched uranium (‘‘HEU’’) in the to June 3, 1999 and postponing the uranium compounds; uranium enriched 235 scope of the investigation. See hearing date to May 12, 1999. See Notice in U and its compounds; alloys, Antidumping; Uranium from of Postponement of Final Antidumping dispersions (including cermets), ceramic Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Determination: Uranium From products, and mixtures containing 235 Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan; Kazakhstan, 64 FR 12287 (March 12, uranium enriched in U or compounds 235 Suspension of Investigations and 1999). On March 17, 1999, Kazakhstan of uranium enriched in U . Both low Amendment of Preliminary responded to the Department’s second enriched uranium (‘‘LEU’’) and HEU are Determinations, 57 FR 49221 (October supplemental questionnaire. Kazakhstan included within the scope of this 30, 1992). Also on this date, the stated that it has endeavored to the best investigation. LEU is uranium enriched Department also signed an agreement of its ability to assemble the in U235 to a level of up to 20 percent, suspending the information, but complete data no while HEU is uranium enriched in U235 InvestigationInvestigation investigation. longer exists for the POI. Kazakhstan to a level of 20 percent or more. The See Agreement Suspending the argued that it should not be penalized uranium subject to this investigation is Antidumping Investigation on Uranium for actions taken by parties, such as the provided for under subheadings from Kazakhstan, 57 FR 49222 (October Russian Federation Ministry for Atomic 2612.10.00.00, 2844.10.10.00, 30, 1992) (‘‘Suspension Agreement’’). Energy (‘‘MINATOM’’), prior to the 2844.10.20.10, 2844.10.20.25, The basis for the Suspension Agreement existence of Kazakhstan. Instead, 2844.10.20.50, 2844.10.20.55, was an agreement by Kazakhstan to Kazakhstan provided information from 2844.10.50.00, 2844.20.00.10, restrict exports of uranium to the United 1994, which it claimed was the earliest 2844.20.00.20, 2844.20.00.30, and States. available data, and provided no 2844.20.00.50, of the Harmonized Tariff On November 10, 1998, the translations for the documents Schedule (‘‘HTS’’). Although the HTS Department received notice from previously submitted. On April 19, subheadings are provided for Kazakhstan of its intent to terminate the 1999, Kazakhstan submitted additional convenience and customs purposes, our Suspension Agreement. Section XII of information to supplement its Section D written description of the scope of these the Suspension Agreement provides that response. proceedings is dispositive. HEU is also Kazakhstan may terminate the The Department conducted included in the scope of this Suspension Agreement at any time upon verification of the provided information. investigation. ‘‘Milling’’ or ‘‘conversion’’ notice to the Department, and The Department conducted verification performed in a third country does not termination would be effective 60 days in Almaty, Kazakhstan, from May 4, confer origin for purposes of this after such notice. Accordingly, on 1999 through May 8, 1999. On May 5, investigation. Milling consists of January 11, 1999, the Department 1999, the Department published a notice processing uranium ore into uranium terminated the Suspension Agreement, in the Federal Register extending the concentrate. Conversion consists of as requested by Kazakhstan, and deadline for case briefs until May 17, transforming uranium concentrate into resumed the iInvestigationnvestigation. 1999, rebuttal briefs until May 21, 1999, natural uranium hexafluoride (UF6).

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31181

Since milling or conversion does not Interested Party Comments have been concerned about confer origin, uranium ore or Comment 1: The Uranium Coalition Kazakhstan’s opportunity to respond to concentrate of Kazakhstan origin that is argues that the Department’s decision to the questionnaire upon resumption of subsequently milled and/or converted issue a new questionnaire to Kazakhstan the Investigationinvestigation. in a third country will be considered of after termination of the Suspension The Uranium Coalition notes that the Kazakhstan origin. The Department Agreement, because Kazakhstan may Department’s preliminary determination continues to regard enrichment of not have had a full opportunity to was based on BIA because Kazakhstan uranium as conferring origin. respond to the original antidumping did not supply any requested information. The Uranium Coalition Period of the Investigation questionnaire, was inconsistent with the factual record and established legal argues that the Department has The POI is June 1, 1991 through precedent. The Uranium Coalition consistently refused to accept new November 30, 1991. contends that record evidence indicates information submitted to remedy deficiencies that led to a BIA Verification the Department gave Kazakhstan ample opportunity to respond in the preliminary determination, citing As provided in Section 776(b) of the Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Act, the Department conducted a preliminary segment of this Investigationinvestigation. The Uranium Columbia; Final Results of Antidumping verification of the information provided Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR by Kazakhstan using standard Coalition states that the Department exceeded the minimum requirements of 42833, 42855 (August 19, 1995); and verification procedures including, Final Determination of Sales at Less delivering a public version of the where possible, the examination of Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled petition to the Embassy for the Soviet relevant sales and financial records and Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Union in Washington, D.C., notifying attempts to trace back to original source Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Kazakhstan of the deadline for its documentation containing relevant Italy, 58 FR 37152, 37153 (July 9, 1993). response, providing Kazakhstan an information, as well as the examination The Uranium Coalition also argues that opportunity to extend the deadline for of 1994 documentation and other 19 U.S.C. Section 1673c(i)(1)(B) directs its response, and ensuring Kazakhstan available information. the Department to treat the date on had adequate opportunity to comment which the Suspension Agreement is Best Information Available on information submitted by other terminated as the day on which the The Department has determined, in parties. See 19 C.F.R. Sections 353.12(g), preliminary determination is issued. accordance with Section 776(c) of the 353.31(b)(2), and 353.31(c)(3). The The Uranium Coalition argues that Act, that the use of best information Uranium Coalition notes that the allowing submission of information available (‘‘BIA’’) is appropriate in this Department delivered two copies of the after the preliminary determination will investigation. In deciding whether to petition, two copies of the lead to abuse of the statutory provision use BIA, Section 776(c) provides that questionnaire, extended the deadline for for suspension agreements, in that the Department may take into account responses three times, issued a new initially non-cooperative parties could whether the respondent provided a service list, and remained in constant be afforded an additional opportunity to complete, accurate, and timely response contact with the Deputy Trade provide the required information, to the Department’s request for factual Representative of the Trade perhaps years later. information. The Department requires a Representation of the Russian Finally, the Uranium Coalition argues response which provides complete and Federation. The Uranium Coalition that due process is compromised by the accurate information on U.S. sales and further notes that in the Department’s collection of new information after the factors of production in order to cable requesting the Foreign preliminary determination, as the consider the response in its final Commercial Service deliver the Department is left insufficient time to determination. The responses which questionnaire, the Department stated properly analyze the information, Kazakhstan submitted were severely that its efforts in serving the conduct verification, and interested deficient on their face: no U.S. sales questionnaires is to give each republic parties are left insufficient time to data was provided, and factors of the opportunity to fully participate. The review and comment on the production information from the POI Uranium Coalition goes on to state that information. The Uranium Coalition was so incomplete as to render the data its arguments concerning the notes that due process concerns are useless for the Department’s purposes. Department’s efforts are supported by particularly serious if the Department Furthermore, the Department was the findings of the court in the issues a final determination based on a unable to verify the information which Techsnabexport, Ltd. v. United States data set different from that used in the Kazakhstan did provide. Accordingly, proceedings (hereinafter collectively preliminary determination. the incomplete nature of Kazakhstan’s ‘‘Tenex’’ proceedings). See 795 F. Supp. Kazakhstan argues that the responses and the failure of the data to 428 (Ct. Int’l Trade Ct. Int’l Trade1992) Department’s decision to provide verify requires the Department to use (‘‘Tenex I’’); 802 F. Supp. 469 (Ct.t. Kazakhstan an opportunity to submit BIA. BIA is based on information Int’lnt’l Traderade 1992) (‘‘Tenex II’’). information in the resumed submitted in the petition, detailed in the The Uranium Coalition points out that Investigationinvestigation was correct Department’s initiation notice, and it had been argued in the Tenex and proper. Kazakhstan notes that the analyzed in the preliminary proceedings that the Department had Department ‘‘may request any person to determination. See Comment 2, below. violated the parties’ procedural due submit factual information at any time process rights to notice and opportunity during a proceeding.’’ 19 CFR. Section Fair Value Comparisons to participate, and the Court of 353.31(b)(1). Kazakhstan agrees that the To determine whether sales of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) determined Department made a valiant effort to uranium from Kazakhstan to the United that the actions taken by the Department serve the initial questionnaire, but States were made at less than fair value, provided adequate process and the argues that it was unable, not unwilling, the Department sought to compare the opportunity to participate in the to respond to the questionnaire. United States prices to the foreign Investigationinvestigation to the fullest Kazakhstan argues that at the time of the market value. See Comment 2, below. extent, thus, the Department should not initial questionnaire, Kazakhstan was

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.103 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31182 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices undergoing its creation and the resumed investigation. Kazakhstan investigation, the Department considers restructuring, including establishing a argues that the supplemental it reasonable to have afforded system to oversee uranium production questionnaires were all the more Kazakhstan an additional opportunity to in its territory. Kazakhstan notes that appropriate considering there was no fully participate in the investigation. the National Joint-Stock Company of republic-specific information on the Comment 2: The Uranium Coalition Atomic Energy and Industry (‘‘KATEP’’) record which would allow the argues that the Department should use was not created until after the Department to make a proper analysis of BIA and apply the 177.87 percent questionnaires were served on the NIS. dumping in the resumed investigation. margin calculated for natural uranium Kazakhstan notes that its willingness to Department’s Position: The in the preliminary determination. The respond is demonstrated by its full Department recognizes that the court in Uranium Coalition notes that Section cooperation with the Department during the Tenex proceedings determined that 776(c) of the Act mandates the the seven years of the suspension the actions taken by the Department Department to use BIA ‘‘whenever a agreement. Kazakhstan argues that this provided adequate opportunity to party * * * refuses or is unable to indicates that it would have provided participate in the investigation to the produce information requested in a the information requested by the fullest extent. In discussing notice and timely manner and in the form required, Department in the original opportunity to be heard and participate or otherwise significantly impedes an Investigationinvestigation had it been in in the investigation, the CIT stated that investigation * * *’’ See also 19 U.S.C. a position to do so at the time. the ‘‘petition gave notice of intent to Section1677e(c). The Uranium Coalition Kazakhstan disagrees with the reach exports from the republics as well argues that application of BIA furthers Uranium Coalition’s claim that the as the USSR, and the proceedings have the purpose of encouraging full Department is creating bad precedent in been sufficiently delayed so that the disclosure by respondents, so that the suspension agreements by allowing plaintiffs have had adequate notice and Department can compute margins as Kazakhstan the opportunity to submit opportunity to participate.’’ Tenex I at accurately as possible. The Uranium sales and factor information in the 437. The Court further stated that Coalition argues that the Department resumed investigation. Kazakhstan ‘‘although unionwide data was used at must apply BIA even when a argues that because the circumstances in the outset, presumably the republics respondent’s inability to provide this investigation are exceptional, the have been given the opportunity to requested information is due to only ‘‘precedent’’ established is that the provide republic-specific data. If circumstances outside the respondent’s Department has the discretion, under presented with the question, the court control. See Final Determination of extreme circumstances and in the will decide in conjunction with review Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Sweaters interest of fairness, to determine of the final determination whether the Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-Made whether it is appropriate to provide an opportunity given was statutorily Fiber From Taiwan, 55 F.R. 34585 opportunity to submit information in a sufficient.’’ Tenex II at 473. (August 23, 1990) (documents destroyed resumed investigation. Kazakhstan Given the unique circumstances of by fire); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 794 notes that the Department’s decision to this case and the lapse of time since the F. Supp. 1156, 1160 (Ct. Int’l Trade provide such an opportunity is in original questionnaires were presented, 1992) (corporate policy to destroy data accordance with the Tenex proceedings, Kazakhstan may have gained access to after five years). The Uranium Coalition where the CIT stated that if presented the data the Department originally argues that the CIT has rejected a ‘‘best with the question, it would ‘‘decide in requested. The Department determined efforts’’ exception to the application of conjunction with review of the final that it was appropriate to give such BIA. See Tai Yang Metal Industrial Co., determination whether the opportunity additional opportunity to Kazakhstan to Ltd. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 973, given [to provide republic-specific data] provide the originally-requested 977–78 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989); Uddeholm was statutorily sufficient.’’ See 802 F. information at this time. The CIT noted Corp. v. United States, 676 F. Supp. Supp. at 473 that the ‘‘[due process] test is one of 1234, 1237 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987). The Kazakhstan also disagrees with the fundamental fairness in light of the total Uranium Coalition further argues that Uranium Coalition’s claim that the circumstances.’’ Tenex I at 436. Kazakhstan’s inability to obtain domestic interested parties may not Therefore, while the Department information from third parties 1 is no have had an adequate opportunity to fulfilled its due process obligation given exception to the requirement of a BIA review and comment on the information the circumstances at the beginning of determination. The Uranium Coalition submitted in the resumed investigation. this proceeding, the circumstances have argues that the Department has Kazakhstan notes that the Uranium changed, calling for a more consistently applied BIA when Coalition had over three months to accommodating opportunity to respond information held by a third party has examine Kazakhstan’s sales and factor to the original questionnaire. not been submitted. See Fresh and information, none of which has In essence, the Uranium Coalition Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway; materially changed since the date of argues that the Department gave Final Results from Antidumping Duty initial filing. Accordingly, Kazakhstan Kazakhstan too much due process; yet Administrative Review, 58 FR 37912, argues that the Uranium Coalition fails to indicate a maximum limit on cannot contend it had no opportunity to due process measures. The Department 37915 (July 14, 1993); see also Tapered comment on the submitted information. took such measures in light of the Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Kazakhstan further notes that the unique circumstances of this Finished and Unfinished, from the Uranium Coalition has never offered investigation. At the time of the People’s Republic of China; Final material comments or submitted any preliminary investigation and issuance Results of Antidumping Duty sales or factor information specific to of the original questionnaire, the Soviet Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 65527, Kazakhstan during any point in the Union had just collapsed and the 65538 (December 13, 1996). The investigation. resulting NIS, including Kazakhstan, Uranium Coalition also notes that the In light of the circumstances, were struggling to establish themselves. 1 The Uranium Coalition notes that it is uncertain Kazakhstan argues that the Department Taking this into consideration, along from the evidence whether Kazakhstan expended appropriately provided Kazakhstan the with the fact that eight years have sufficient effort in obtaining information from third opportunity to submit information in elapsed since initiation of the parties.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.104 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31183

Department has determined that the fact data is insufficient for the Department to possible sources of POI sales and that a third party might have incentive calculate a margin. production information, it is unclear not to provide information is no As Kazakhstan is the sole respondent what records they created and retained exception to the application of BIA. See and a non-market economy, the in the ordinary course of business as Notice of Final Determination of Sales Uranium Coalition argues the only rate each followed different standards then. at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled the Department should use is the rate Furthermore, Kazakhstan notes that Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel from the preliminary determination. none of these records are under its Products from Japan, 64 FR 24329, The rate established in the preliminary control; Uzhpolymetal is in Kyrgyzstan 24368 (May 6, 1999) 2. determination was based upon the and Vostokredmet is located in The Uranium Coalition argues that the petition and information submitted by Tajikistan. As for Tselliny and Kaskor, Department should apply total, not Petitioners and two parties from which Kazakhstan states that it explained partial, BIA in calculating the final the Department solicited information. during verification that neither regional margin. The Uranium Coalition first See Preliminary Determination of Sales department was under the direct control argues that the Department should have at Less Than Fair Value: Uranium from of KATEP or of Kazatomprom. Finally, proceeded to a final determination Kazakhstan, et al. 57 FR at 23382. Kazakhstan notes that because many of based on BIA due to Kazakhstan’s The Uranium Coalition argues that the third parties now compete with failure to answer the original Kazakhstan has not cooperated with the Kazakhstan in the uranium market, they questionnaire. Disagreeing with the investigation from the start, beginning have an incentive not to respond to Department’s decision to issue a with its failure to respond to the original requests for information. supplemental questionnaire instead, the questionnaire. The Uranium Coalition Kazakhstan also argues that after the Uranium Coalition argues that, notes that while Kazakhstan had 60 dissolution of the Soviet Union on nevertheless, the Department should days to prepare for the resumed December 25, 1991, there was no formal investigation after providing notice of apply total BIA in its final centralized management of uranium its intent to terminate the Suspension determination as Kazakhstan’s activities in Kazakhstan until the Agreement, it nevertheless provided no subsequent response is inadequate, establishment of KATEP on February information. Furthermore, the Uranium untimely and not verifiable. The 12, 1992. Kazakhstan notes that while Coalition notes that the data untimely Uranium Coalition points to numerous KATEP was created to take sole provided by Kazakhstan during deficiencies in Kazakhstan’s response, responsibility for all sales of subject verification could have been reviewed including: (1) No U.S. sales information merchandise from Kazakhstan, KATEP provided for its Section C response, prior to the date its questionnaire did not have full day-to-day which is necessary to calculate prices; responses were due. The Uranium management responsibility over all (2) information based on 1994 and 1998 Coalition argues that this demonstrates uranium production in Kazakhstan. data, instead of 1991 data; (3) factors of Kazakhstan’s failure to cooperate; the Kazakhstan asserts that Kazatomprom, production reported only for the in situ Department should consider created on July 12, 1997, was the first leaching production processes, despite Kazakhstan’s lack of cooperation in its entity with sole responsibility for the the use of other processes during both final determination and apply the rate mining and marketing of uranium from 1991 and 1994; (4) incomplete factors of established in the preliminary Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan argues that the production data provided; (5) no determination. lack of formal oversight contributed to financial or government documents While Kazakhstan disagrees with the provided; (6) no quantity and value of continuation of the investigation, it the incomplete nature of the 1991 and sales data provided for its Section A argues that if the investigation is not 1994 records. response; and (7) no supporting terminated, the Department should use Kazakhstan argues that the passage of documentation for Section D provided, 1994 factor information in its final time is another constraint on the as requested by the Department. The determination. Kazakhstan argues that it availability of information. Kazakhstan Uranium Coalition argues that cooperated to the best of its ability, notes that the individuals who recorded Kazakhstan should not be allowed to again noting that the original information during the POI are not the benefit from submitting self-selected respondent named in the petition, the same individuals who helped prepare information. While 1991 information Soviet Union, no longer exists. the questionnaire responses. Without may no longer be available, the Uranium Kazakhstan states that several third the personal recollection of these Coalition argues that regardless of the parties control the POI data on sales and individuals, Kazakhstan argues that passage of time, change in personnel, production for the area in the Soviet reconstruction of the archived files was and destruction of relevant records, the Union now known as Kazakhstan. difficult. Kazakhstan also argues that Department should base its final Kazakhstan notes that it attempted to because the POI is eight years ago, much determination on BIA. See Koyo Seiko obtain data from these third parties. of the 1991 (as well as the 1994) Co. Ltd. v. United States, 796 F. Supp. Within MINATOM, Kazakhstan states information has been destroyed in the 517, 525 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992) (applying that it contacted and requested ordinary course of business pursuant to BIA where respondent was unable to information from the First Department, document destruction policies, provide 1974 information in 1986). The Atomredmetzoloto, which oversaw referencing the certificate of destruction Uranium Coalition argues that not only mining and milling in the Soviet Union produced during verification as is the Department unable to calculate during the POI, and Techsnabexport, examples of the policies. See May 13, foreign market value without factors of which oversaw all uranium sales from 1999 Verification Report (‘‘Verification production data, overall, the submitted the Soviet Union during the POI. Report’’), at 13 and 26. Kazakhstan was Kazakhstan states that it received no also hindered in its efforts to locate data 2 The Uranium Coalition states that while that information from these requests. as much of the information on uranium determination was made under the current Kazakhstan also states that while the was, and still is, considered state antidumping statute, the principle of making an regional departments that reported to secrets. Kazakhstan states that adverse inference when information is not provided applies to the pre-URAA use of BIA. See Rhone Atomredmetzoloto (Uzhpolymetal, knowledge on the material was limited Poulenc v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190–91 Vostokredmet, Tselliny and and circulation of information was (Fed. Cir. 1990). Prikaspiysky (a.k.a. Kaskor)) are restricted. Only a limited number of

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31184 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices documents on uranium were made and Kazakhstan notes that the Department response lacks sufficient data to use in circulated among a small circle of has substantial discretion in selecting the calculation of a dumping margin, it officials. Accordingly, Kazakhstan the source of BIA to use in its nevertheless contains sufficient data for argues that this made locating complete calculations. See Magnesium Corp. v. the Department to conclude that a sets of documents difficult. United States, 938 F. Supp. 885, 902 (Ct. serious and sustained effort was Kazakhstan argues that its efforts in Int’l Trade 1996). Kazakhstan asserts undertaken by Kazakhstan to provide light of the unusual and difficult that the Uranium Coalition incorrectly data responsive to the Department’s situation indicates it cooperated to the contends that the Department must use questionnaires for the POI. Therefore, best of its ability and, thus, the information submitted in the petition as the Department is basing the final Department should use the 1994 factors BIA. Kazakhstan notes that the margin on an average of the margins for information submitted by Kazakhstan in Department may consider any and all uranium concentrate and enriched the final determination. Kazakhstan information on the record in selecting uranium derived from the petition. In argues that the 1994 information it BIA and argues that the final this instance, the petition included produced, despite the described determination should be based on margins for natural and enriched obstacles, is as complete as possible, as republic-specific data. Accordingly, uranium, which the Department well as verifiable. Kazakhstan states that Kazakhstan argues that the data it has adjusted for purposes of the preliminary it submitted 1994 factors information for submitted is far superior to the determination See Preliminary four of the seven facilities operating information submitted by the Determination of Sales at Less Than during the POI. Kazakhstan argues that petitioners. Fair Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy the Department has complete Department’s Position: The Steel Pipe from Taiwan, 57 FR 17892 information on the total uranium output Department continues to apply the (April 28, 1992). The average of those at these four facilities, and the inputs overall rate of 115.82 percent as the BIA rates, as adjusted, is 115.82 percent. needed to produce one kilogram of rate for the final determination. The Comment 3: The Uranium Coalition uranium at each of those facilities. Department notes that at verification asserts that the Department has the Kazakhstan argues that the main source none of the information provided, authority to clarify the scope of this documents provided for 1994, the timely or otherwise, could be traced to Investigationinvestigation to include technical reports, tied to other annual report information at Kazakhstan origin natural uranium information available for 1994, such as verification. Further, the Department enriched in third countries in order to the unit reports, monthly cost of was unable to check original well-site prevent the potential circumvention of production reports and the annual and factory information to tie to the few any future antidumping duty order. The report filed with government technical reports available for review. Uranium Coalition further asserts that authorities. Kazakhstan concedes that As a result, the record data can only be such a clarification would be in the Department was generally unable to considered fragmentary. Without any accordance with the Department’s trace the 1994 technical reports to a verifiable data, the Department must substantial transformation analysis, the level of detail lower than the unit resort to the rate established at intent of the petition, and the purpose reports but argues that this was because preliminary determination. of the antidumping law. Regarding their more detailed information did not exist, Additionally, while Kazakhstan asserts circumvention concerns, the Uranium and was not because of any that it should not be held responsible Coalition cites the potential cost savings inconsistency in the information. for the failure of Tenex to provide data for utilities purchasing Kazakhstan Kazakhstan argues that the 1994 regarding U.S. shipments of subject origin uranium at the unrestricted factors information is as representative merchandise during the POI, the market price and claim that contracts of uranium production during the POI Department notes that precedent to the permitting the foreign enrichment of as any other source. Kazakhstan also contrary exists. Even where another Kazakhstan origin uranium are already argues that the 1994 factors information party controls the information, the in place. The Uranium Coalition notes accurately represents possible uranium Department may rely on BIA if the that the Department’s need to address production today. Accordingly, information is not provided by the potential circumvention in its Kazakhstan argues that an antidumping respondent. See Helmerich & Payne, substantial transformation analyses may duty based on the provided 1994 factors Inc. v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 2d result in a determination which differs information would be superior to one 304, n. 6 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998). from that of the United States Customs based on other sources. In comparing The Department’s practice is to base Service (‘‘U.S. Customs’’) and that, in the 1994 information with the limited BIA on a simple average of the margins this case, the elements of the information available for 1991, based on petition data, as opposed to Department’s substantial transformation Kazakhstan claims that similar inputs the highest margin based on petition analysis require a determination that were consumed at similar levels and data, when the Department determines third-country enrichment does not facility production levels were that the respondent has attempted to change the country of origin of comparable. In fact, Kazakhstan suggests cooperate with the Department’s Kazakhstan uranium. that 1994 data may be preferred over Investigationinvestigation. In this The Uranium Coalition asserts that, 1991 data as Kazakhstan controlled the instance, the Department calculated a while the petition’s scope did not 1994 facilities, whereas MINATOM natural and enriched uranium rate, specifically include uranium enriched controlled the 1991 facilities. modifying the original petition rates. in third countries, its intent was clearly Furthermore, Kazakhstan argues that the Therefore, the Department considers it to cover all forms of uranium products 1994 factors are based on actual appropriate to apply the average rate of and to prevent circumvention. The production information in Kazakhstan 115.82%. See e.g., Preliminary Uranium Coalition argues that there was at the same facilities operating in 1991, Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair no reasonable basis in 1991 to foresee whereas the factors submitted by Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel the increasing use of foreign enrichment petitioners and used in the preliminary Pipe from Taiwan, 57 FR 17892 (April by U.S. utilities and that the Suspension determination were estimates for 28, 1992). The Department believes that Agreement was subsequently modified Canadian facilities, where actual source Kazakhstan attempted to cooperate in to cover these third-country enrichment documents were not used. this proceeding because, while the transactions. Finally, the Uranium

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.107 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31185

Coalition notes that the Department Kazakhstan argues that the Uranium be, and has been, used to introduce must clarify the scope of this Coalition raised the third-country dumped merchandise into U.S. Investigationinvestigation in order to enrichment issue so late in the commerce. The Uranium Coalition achieve the antidumping law’s purpose proceeding that its due process rights asserts that the Department has the of remedying the negative impact on a were prejudiced. The Department finds authority to inform U.S. Customs that, U.S. industry of unfairly traded imports. that neither the Department nor due to the fungibility of the product and The Uranium Coalition argues that, Kazakhstan could effectively examine the nature of commercial activities in when the unfairly-priced Kazakhstan the issue prior to issuance of the final this particular industry, all Kazakhstan uranium is enriched abroad rather than determination. A review of the case uranium entries, including TIB entries, in the United States, the injurious effect schedule on and after the date of the must be subject to antidumping duty on the mining sector of the U.S. Uranium Coalition’s filing illustrates the assessment to prevent circumvention of industry is not altered and that the point. The Uranium Coalition’s an order. adverse effects are in fact exacerbated submission was filed on April 26, 1999, Alternatively, the Uranium Coalition because the enrichment sector of the one week prior to the beginning of urges the Department, at a minimum, to U.S. industry is damaged. verification. The Department conducted direct U.S. Customs to consider any Kazakhstan contends that the verification in Kazakhstan during the entry of Kazakhstan uranium as a Uranium Coalition’s request represents week of May 4, 1999 through May 8, consumption entry subject to the an untimely attempt to improperly 1999, and issued a verification report on antidumping order unless the TIB expand the scope of the investigation May 13, 1999. Parties filed case briefs ‘‘statement of use’’ accompanying the and any resulting antidumping duty on May 17, 1999, and rebuttal briefs on TIB application under 19 CFR 10.31 order to cover uranium produced in May 21, 1999. The hearing was held on includes a statement that the uranium to countries not subject to this May 26, 1999, just eight days before the be imported under TIB will not be, and Investigationinvestigation. Kazakhstan date of the final determination. This has not been, used as part of any swap, argues that all of the factors normally schedule simply did not permit the loan, or exchange transaction. considered by the Department in its Department sufficient time to issue Kazakhstan argues that the Uranium substantial transformation analysis supplemental questionnaires, pose Coalition’s request to include confirm that enrichment does questions to the Uranium Coalition or Kazakhstan uranium entered under TIB substantially transform and confer a engage in the other activities necessary in the scope of this proceeding is both new country of origin on enriched to properly evaluate the law, arguments, untimely and improper and should be uranium. Thus, Kazakhstan asserts the and facts surrounding this issue. rejected by the Department. Kazakhstan Department does not have the authority Additionally, the Uranium Coalition’s notes that this issue was first raised in to expand the scope of this proceeding. filing on this issue was made in the the Uranium Coalition’s case brief, Kazakhstan further asserts that context of an investigation resumed disallowing the Department the including uranium enriched, and after an almost eight-year hiatus, during opportunity to make use of proper therefore produced, in third countries in which the Government of Kazakhstan notice and comment procedures before the scope of this case would violate the began rationalizing its uranium departing from a prior practice with World Trade Organization’s Agreement production. Furthermore, during the such broad implications. Furthermore, on Rules of Origin as well as initial investigation, the respondent Kazakhstan notes the Uranium ‘‘circumvent’’ the standards for country became independent, further Coalition’s concession that the circumvention established in the U.S. complicating the link between the Department has previously held, and statute. initial 1991–92 phase of the the CIT upheld, that antidumping duty Department’s Position: The investigation, the 1999 resumed orders do not apply to merchandise Department agrees with Kazakhstan, in investigation, and the third-country entered under TIB. part. As an initial matter, there is no enrichment issue. Department’s Position: The evidence on the record to indicate that As a result of the above Department agrees with Kazakhstan. As there were any entries into the United considerations, and to provide sufficient noted by the Uranium Coalition, the States during the POI of Kazakhstan opportunity for full analysis of the law, Department has previously rejected a uranium enriched in a third country. In argument and facts regarding this issue, request to apply antidumping duties to fact, the Uranium Coalition notes in its the Department will initiate a scope merchandise imported under TIB brief that the practice about which they inquiry on Kazakhstan uranium procedures. See Remand Determination: are concerned evolved after the POI. enriched in a third country Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, The Uranium Coalition’s concern simultaneously with the issuance of any Court No. 94–04–00236 (Apr. 17, 1995). clearly centers on current and future antidumping order in this proceeding. The CIT then upheld this decision. See contracts involving third-country Comment 4: The Uranium Coalition Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, enrichment and, therefore, is unrelated contends that the Department should 901 F. Supp. 362 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1995). to the calculation of a dumping margin include uranium imported under a U.S. While the Department recognizes the on uranium from Kazakhstan during the Customs temporary import bond (‘‘TIB’’) Uranium Coalition’s concerns regarding POI. Thus, the Department need not within the scope of this the atypical characteristics of uranium decide in this final determination Investigationinvestigation in order to and the uranium industry, the whether uranium from Kazakhstan prevent certain ‘‘swap’’ transactions Department reaffirms its prior finding enriched in a third country was sold at which may otherwise be used to that merchandise entered pursuant to less than fair value during the POI. circumvent a future antidumping duty TIB is not entered for consumption. As With respect to the third-country order. The Uranium Coalition argues a result, antidumping duties cannot enrichment issue, its importance and that, in this case, the Department has apply to TIB entries. In addition, the complexity is illustrated by the clear evidence, based on the past Department has no legal authority to extensive argument contained in the conduct of importers and domestic instruct U.S. Customs to require an Uranium Coalition’s and Kazakhstan’s parties during the administration of the additional certification for such briefs and in the time devoted to this Suspension Agreement, that Kazakhstan TIB entries, as alternatively issue at the hearing. However, temporarily-imported merchandise can requested by the Uranium Coalition.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.109 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31186 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Comment 5: Kazakhstan notes that the former Soviet Union was traded unfairly investigation is not ‘‘on behalf of’’ the respondent named in the original in the United States. domestic uranium industry. antidumping petition, the Soviet Union, In support of its conclusion, the Kazakhstan argues that the was dissolved less than one month after Uranium Coalition cites to Tenex II. See Department has the power to rescind its initiation of the 802 F. Supp. 469. According to the decision to initiate an antidumping Investigationinvestigation and no longer Uranium Coalition, the CIT held that the investigation where it is discovered that exists. Kazakhstan stresses that while Department had full legal authority to the petition is not being maintained on the courts sustained the determination continue its uranium investigation behalf of the industry. See Gilmore Steel to continue the against the former Soviet republics, Corp. versus United States, 585 F. Supp. Investigationinvestigation despite the notwithstanding dissolution of the 670, 674 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1984). dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union, because the antidumping Kazakhstan argues that when members final determination of the statute did not require the Department of the domestic industry provide Investigationinvestigation must be based to take into account changes in political grounds to doubt a petitioner’s standing, on facts involving Kazakhstan, not the structures in the course of its the Department should evaluate Soviet Union. Kazakhstan argues that investigation. Further, according to the whether those parties which oppose the the distinction between Kazakhstan and Uranium Coalition, since the Tenex investigation represent a majority of the the Soviet Union is critical to the proceedings, this rationale has been domestic industry, to determine Department’s analyses of: (1) Whether applied consistently by the Department. whether the petition is properly filed on the petition was filed on behalf of the See Transfer of the Antidumping Order behalf of the domestic industry. See domestic industry against Kazakhstan in on Solid Urea from the Union of Soviet Suramerica de Aleaciones Laminadas, particular; (2) whether there were sales Socialist Republics to the C.A. v. United States, 966 F.2d 660, of subject merchandise from Kazakhstan Commonwealth of Independent States 662–63 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Kazakhstan to the United States during the POI; and and the Baltic States and Opportunity to claims that PRI and Cogema account for (3) the selection of surrogate values for Comment, 57 Fed. Reg. 28828 (Jun. 29, a majority of the domestic industry and, Kazakhstan. 1992); Application of U.S. Antidumping since this majority of the domestic According to the Uranium Coalition, and Countervailing Duty Laws to Hong industry opposes the investigation, the fact that Kazakhstan is no longer a Kong, 62 Fed. Reg. 42965 (Aug. 11, Kazakhstan argues that the Department part of the Soviet Union does not 1997); Solid Urea from the German should terminate the investigation Democratic Republic, 63 Fed. Reg. 7122, 3 change the Department’s obligation to immediately. 7122–23 (Feb. 12, 1998); Certain Cut-to- conduct an antidumping investigation The Uranium Coalition also states that Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from of uranium produced during the POI in the letters from PRI and Cogema were the Former Yugoslav Republic of the territory which is now Kazakhstan. not properly filed, are therefore not on Macedonia, 64 Fed. Reg. 12993 (Mar. The Uranium Coalition argues that the the record of this investigation and thus 16, 1999). Department reasonably construed the cannot be considered by the Department’s Position: The Department. Moreover, even if the antidumping statute as authorizing Department agrees with Kazakhstan, in continuation of this letters had been properly placed on the part. The Department agrees that record, the Uranium Coalition Investigationinvestigation, despite the Kazakhstan is a different entity from the fact that the petition leading to this continues, Cogema and PRI are parties Soviet Union. In recognition of that fact, that are related to the producer through Investigationinvestigation was filed the Department attempted to collect and against subject merchandise from the their joint ventures in Kazakhstan. verify separate Kazakhstan-specific Hence, neither PRI nor Cogema would Soviet Union. information. However, Kazakhstan be considered part of the domestic According to the Uranium Coalition, failed to provide sufficient verifiable Section 731 of the Act instructs the industry. data which the Department could use in Department’s Position: The Department to impose antidumping its analysis. As a result, the Department duties whenever foreign merchandise is Department agrees with the Uranium must use BIA, for the reasons discussed Coalition. The Department notes that sold at less than fair value in the United in Comment 2, above. The Department the letters submitted by PRI and States, where the International Trade notes that the continuation of this Cogema, as domestic uranium producers Commission determines that such investigation against Kazakhstan was opposed to the investigation, were imported merchandise causes injury to challenged at the CIT, where the improperly submitted and cannot be a domestic industry. The Uranium Department’s decision to continue was considered. First, the letter from PRI, to Coalition further argues that this upheld. See Tenex proceedings. statutory provision contains no Comment 6: Kazakhstan argues that which Kazakhstan refers, does not requirement that the Department take the investigation should be terminated appear on the record for this changes in the political landscape of a as the Uranium Coalition does not have investigation. Second, the courtesy foreign territory into account when the support of the domestic industry copies of the PRI and Cogema letters determining whether the imposition of and, thus, lacks standing to represent provided separately to Department antidumping duties is warranted. the industry in the resumed analysts show no certificate of service, According to the Uranium Coalition, it investigation. Kazakhstan claims that and thus it appears that the parties were is the foreign merchandise—not the two of the original petitioners, Power never properly served the letters. particular political configuration of the Resources, Inc. (‘‘PRI’’) and Cogema, Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.31(g)(2), the territory in which the merchandise Inc. (‘‘Cogema’’), currently account for Department ‘‘will not accept any originated—which is the critical aspect over half the production of uranium in document that is not accompanied by a of the antidumping analysis. Thus, the the United States. Kazakhstan states that certificate of service listing the parties Uranium Coalition concludes, changes PRI expressed its opposition to the served, the type of document served, in the geopolitical territory of the former investigation in an April 15, 1999 letter 3 As an alternative, Kazakhstan suggest that the Soviet Union are not relevant for and Cogema expressed its opposition in Department survey all uranium producers in the purposes of determining whether a May 5, 1999 letter. Kazakhstan argues United States to determine the producers’ stance on uranium produced in any region of the that their opposition indicates that the the investigation.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.110 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31187 and, for each, indicating the date and the region’s economy was under the that the Department’s instructions to method of service.’’ Third, neither letter guidance and control of Soviet U.S. Customs was ‘‘for all contains a certification as to the authorities and companies existing in manufacturers, producers, and exporters contents of the letter, as required under the region had no independent of uranium from Kazakhstan.’’ The 19 CFR 353.31(i).4 production or sales activities. Uranium Coalition notes that the burden The PRI and Cogema letters were also Kazakhstan argues that during the POI, of proof is on Kazakhstan to produce untimely submitted. Pursuant to 19 CFR Tenex had sole authority for making evidence that there were no sales of 353.31(c)(2), the Department ‘‘will not sales of uranium produced in the Soviet subject merchandise to the United consider any allegation in an Union, noting that Tenex is a wholly- States during the POI. See Electrolytic investigation that the petitioner lacks owned and controlled subsidiary of Manganese Dioxide from Ireland; Final standing unless the allegation is MINATOM. Kazakhstan further notes Determination of No Sales at Less Than submitted, together with supporting that, pursuant to contracts between Fair Value, 54 FR 8776 (March 2, 1989); factual information, not later than 10 Tenex and the uranium producers for see also, Final Determination of No days before the scheduled date for the the region during the POI, the manner Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Secretary’s preliminary determination.’’ in which the uranium producers were Ferrosilicon from Argentina, 58 FR The Department notes that while compensated for uranium provided to 27534, 27535 (May 10, 1993). The Pathfinder Mines Corporation Tenex reveal that the uranium Uranium Coalition argues that (‘‘Pathfinder’’), a Cogema subsidiary, producers had no control over sales. Kazakhstan has failed to meet its burden properly submitted a letter to the record Accordingly, Kazakhstan states that by failing to provide verified evidence, in furtherance of Cogema’s opposition, even if there was any evidence of sales noting that the Department’s verification Pathfinder’s letter was dated May 17, from Kazakhstan to the United States report states that Kazakhstan did not 1999, which is clearly past the during the POI, and Kazakhstan asserts provide any evidence that could have regulatory deadline. there is no such evidence, under the resolved whether there were any Finally, even if PRI and Cogema had circumstances it is not reasonable to shipments to the United States during properly expressed their opposition to conclude that Kazakhstan or its uranium the POI. Furthermore, the Uranium this investigation, publicly available producers bore any responsibility for Coalition contends that it is highly information indicates that PRI, a wholly those sales. likely that there were sales of uranium owned subsidiary of Cameco, and Kazakhstan insists that ‘‘where parties from Kazakhstan to the United States Cogema, a foreign-owned producer, in the territory that is now the Republic during the POI as the region now known have certain joint ventures with of Kazakhstan were not even as Kazakhstan accounted for 50 percent Kazakhstan that mandate the responsible for the sales of their of all uranium production by the former Department to disregard their merchandise at the time, proving the Soviet republics in 1991. See the opposition to the investigation. See the negative is virtually impossible.’’ See Uranium Coalition’s Rebuttal Brief at Uranium Coalition’s rebuttal brief, at Kazakhstan’s Rebuttal Brief, at 17. 32. Kazakhstan states that the Uranium Exhibit 3 (‘‘The Reconstruction of the Department’s Position: The Uranium Industry in Kazakhstan’’). Coalition has not disputed that no sales of subject merchandise produced in Department agrees with the Uranium Section 771(4)(A) defines the term Coalition. The issue of continuing this industry to mean ‘‘the domestic Kazakhstan were made to the United States during the POI. Kazakhstan proceeding with respect to the producers as a whole of a like product.’’ individual Republic was previously Section 771(4)(B) provides that ‘‘when argues that without sales, the Department has previously held that settled in court. See Tenex proceedings. some producers are related to the Thus, the claim that Kazakhstan itself exporters * * * of the allegedly * ** ‘‘there are no United States prices with which to compare foreign market value, did not make any sales of uranium to dumped merchandise, the term the U.S. during the POI is irrelevant to ‘‘industry’’ may be applied in and, thus, no dumping margins.’’ See Final Determination of No Sales at Less this investigation. As the Uranium appropriate circumstances by excluding Coalition points out, Kazakhstan such producers from those included in Than Fair Value: Ferrosilicon from Argentina, 58 FR 27534, 27535 (May 10, accounted for 50 percent of all uranium that industry.’’ As both PRI and Cogema production of the Soviet Union. have business relations with the foreign 1993). Kazakhstan argues that this conclusion flows directly from the Furthermore, at verification, the producer in this investigation, the definition of U.S. price. See 19 CFR Department found that Tenex and the Department is disregarding their 353.41(a). Kazakhstan argues there is no Tselliny combinat had signed a positions for purposes of standing. For evidence of any sales, thus, the commission agreement in 1990. See these aforementioned reasons, even if Department has no reasonable basis to Verification Report at 3. This the objections had been properly and conclude that there were any dumping commission contract supports the timely filed, the Department would margins and the investigation should be contention that a regular channel of continue this investigation. terminated. trade of natural uranium from Comment 7: Kazakhstan argues that it The Uranium Coalition argues that Kazakhstan through Tenex to foreign made no sales of subject merchandise to Kazakhstan’s assertion, that it made no locations had been established. The the United States during the POI as it sales of subject merchandise to the Department noted at verification that did not exist during the POI. Kazakhstan United States during the POI, is based Kazakhstan’s responses ‘‘included argues that as part of the Soviet Union, on the incorrect assumption that the shipping documents indicating that investigation covers material sold by uranium produced in Kazakhstan may 4 The Department notes that even had the letters been certified, the contents fail to substantiate Kazakhstan or by a ‘‘Kazakh entity.’’ have been shipped to the United States Kazakhstan’s claim that PRI and Cogema represent The Uranium Coalition argues that by Tenex both before and during the a majority of the domestic uranium industry by Kazakhstan should properly be POI.’’ See Verification Report at 10–11. providing the evidence stipulated in the considering material from Kazakhstan At verification, given this evidence, the Department’s regulations. Accordingly, the Department cannot assume that PRI and Cogema that is sold in the United States, and not Department attempted to confirm represent a majority of the domestic uranium considering the party that controlled whether there were sales of subject industry. production or sold the uranium, noting merchandise to the United States during

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.111 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31188 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices the POI. While the Department publicly available information on the market value of the subject merchandise requested additional data from record to value virtually every input exceeds the United States price, for all Kazakhstan regarding U.S. sales, used to produce subject merchandise is manufacturers, producers and exporters Kazakhstan failed to provide any data to from South Africa. Accordingly, of uranium from Kazakhstan. These clarify the existing evidence. Similarly, Kazakhstan argues that the Department suspension of liquidation instructions when the Department attempted to should select South Africa as the will remain in effect until further notice. follow up on the Tenex-Tselliny primary surrogate country in the interest International Trade Commission combinat contract, Kazakhstan did not of calculating a fair and accurate margin Notification provide any supporting documentation, in the final determination. Finally, such as receipts or other documentation Kazakhstan argues that the Department In accordance with Section 735(b)(2) indicating payments received from should not add freight charges to the of the Act, the Department has notified Tenex pursuant to the contract. As a valuation of any input for which freight- the International Trade Commission result, the Department was unable to inclusive import values are used as (‘‘ITC’’) of its final determination. The examine key source data which could surrogate values. ITC will determine whether these have supported Kazakhstan’s claim of The Uranium Coalition rebuts imports are materially injuring, or no shipments to the United States of Kazakhstan’s contention that South threaten material injury to, the United subject merchandise during the POI. Africa should be the primary surrogate States uranium industry. The ITC shall Evidence on the record indicates that country by stating that the Department make this determination before the uranium from what is now known as does not change surrogate countries latter of: (1) 120 days after the effective Kazakhstan was most likely shipped to after the preliminary determination date of the preliminary determination; the United States during the POI. unless it finds compelling reasons to do or (2) 45 days after publication of the Kazakhstan was unable to provide so. The Uranium Coalition argues that, Department’s final determination. If the information countering this evidence. to date, Kazakhstan has not provided ITC determines that such injury does Accordingly, the Department must such information. Further, the Uranium not exist with respect to uranium, this conclude as BIA that there were sales of Coalition cites to the Addendum to proceeding will be terminated and all subject merchandise to the United Memorandum Regarding Choice of securities will be refunded or canceled. States during the POI and Kazakhstan Surrogate Countries, Antidumping If the ITC determines that such injury did not provide data on those sales. Investigation of Uranium from the exists with respect to uranium, the Former Soviet Union (March 24, 1992), Department will issue an antidumping Comment 8: Kazakhstan argues that where the Department determined that the Department should use South Africa duty order directing U.S. Customs the most appropriate course of action officials to assess antidumping duties on as the primary surrogate country. was to use the surrogate countries Kazakhstan argues that its surrogate all imports of uranium from Kazakhstan decided upon for the Soviet Union, for for the period discussed above in the value submission to the record, dated the NIS. The Uranium Coalition also April 28, 1999, demonstrates that South Suspension of Liquidation section of contends that Kazakhstan’s premise that this notice. Africa satisfies the statutory criteria for the Department did not perform a selection as the primary surrogate This determination is issued and surrogate country analysis is incorrect. published in accordance with Section country, pursuant to Section 773(c)(4) of Furthermore, the Uranium Coalition the Act. Kazakhstan argues that the 735(d) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673(d)) states that Kazakhstan’s assertion that and 19 C.F.R. 353.20(a)(4). Department is permitted to select a because Kazakhstan is not the Soviet different surrogate country in the final Union that the Department’s prior Dated: June 3, 1999. determination than selected in the analysis is incorrect. Finally, the Richard W. Moreland, preliminary determination, citing Uranium Coalition argues that the Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Tehnoimportexport v. United States, information on the record for South Administration. 766 F. Supp. 1169, 1175 (Ct. Int’l Trade Africa is incomplete and unreliable in [FR Doc. 99–14782 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] 1991); and Kerr McGee Chemical Corp. many respects. BILLING CODE 3510±DS±U v. United States, 985 F. Supp. 1166, Department’s Position: As the 1180 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1997). Kazakhstan Department is relying on BIA for its argues that in the preliminary calculation of the antidumping duty DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE determination, the Department used a margin in this proceeding, this issue is single surrogate based on Soviet Union moot. See Comment 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric economic data because, lacking accurate Administration Suspension of Liquidation or detailed information, the Department [Docket No. 990416102±9102±01] mistakenly assumed that the level of In accordance with Section 735(d) of economic development of the former the Act, the Department is instructing RIN 0648±ZA64 Soviet Union republics was essentially U.S. Customs to continue suspending Notice and Request for Proposals the same. However, Kazakhstan argues liquidation of all unliquidated entries of there is now enough information uranium from Kazakhstan, as defined in AGENCY: National Weather Service available to show the former republics’ the Scope of the Investigation section of (NWS), National Oceanic and different levels of economic this notice, that are entered or Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), development, thus, the Department withdrawn from warehouse for Department of Commerce (DOC). should not make the same assumption consumption on or after January 11, ACTION: Request for proposals. at the final determination. Kazakhstan 1999 (the effective date of the argues that the Department has termination of the Suspension SUMMARY: The Collaborative Science, generally preferred using publicly Agreement). U.S. Customs shall Technology, and Applied Research available pricing information as the continue to require a cash deposit or (CSTAR) Program represents an NOAA/ source of surrogate values as opposed to bond equal to 115.82 percent ad NWS effort to create a cost-effective using proprietary information. valorem, the estimated weighted- continuum from basic and applied Kazakhstan asserts that the only average amount by which the foreign research to operations through

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.112 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31189 collaborative research between initially be provided for only the first topography, weather regimes, and operational forecasters and academic year of the program. If an application is mission. institutions which have expertise in the selected for initial funding, the NWS Program Priorities environmental sciences. These activities has no obligation to provide additional improve the accuracy of forecasts and funding in connection with that award NOAA will give sole attention to warnings of environmental hazards by in subsequent years. Funding for each individual proposals addressing the applying scientific knowledge and subsequent year of a multi-year proposal identified science needs/priorities from information from the modernization of will be contingent upon satisfactory NWS Regions and the National Centers the NWS. The NOAA CSTAR Program progress in relation to the stated goals for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) as is a contributing element of the U.S. of the proposal to address specific listed below. It is anticipated one Weather Research Program, which is science needs and priorities of the NWS proposal will be funded addressing one coordinated by the interagency and the availability of funds. or more of the science needs/priorities Committee on Environmental and Applications should include a scope of of both the NWS Eastern and Central Natural Resources. NOAA’s program is work and a budget for the entire award Regions. Universities are also designed to complement other agency period. Each funding period must be encouraged to submit proposals contributions to that national effort. discrete and clearly distinguished from addressing any of the science needs/ DATES: Proposals must be received by any other funding period. The funding priorities of other NWS Regions and the NWS no later than close of business, instrument for extramural awards will Centers. However, there is no guarantee Friday, October 1, 1999. We anticipate be a cooperative agreement since one or funding will be available for these review of full proposals will occur more NOAA/NWS components— activities. Principal investigators must during October 1999 and funding forecast offices, Centers, or regional clearly describe collaborative activities should begin during early 2000 for most headquarters—will be substantially and scientific interactions with NWS approved projects. January 1, 2000, involved in implementation of the forecast offices, River Forecast Centers, should be used as the proposed start project. Examples of substantial National Centers, or regional date on proposals, unless otherwise involvement may include, but are not headquarters throughout the course of directed by the appropriate Program limited to, proposals for collaboration the research proposal. A proposal must Officer. Applicants should be notified of between NOAA scientists and a be submitted by multiple principle their status within 3 months of the recipient scientist and/or contemplation investigators and contain at least two closing date. All proposals must be by NOAA of detailing Federal personnel distinct subtasks addressing one or more submitted in accordance with the to work on proposed projects. Funding of the science needs/priorities listed by guidelines below. Failure to follow for non-U.S. institutions and contractual a single NWS Region or by NCEP. these guidelines will result in proposals arrangements for services and products Investigators are asked to specify clearly being returned to the submitter. for delivery to NOAA are not available which science priorities/needs are being under this announcement. Matching ADDRESSES: Proposals must be pursued and to which region or share is not required by this program. submitted to National Weather Service, center(s) they belong. NOAA; 1325 East-West Highway, Room Program Objectives The names, affiliations and phone 13316; Silver Spring, Maryland 20910– The long term objective of the CSTAR numbers of relevant NWS regional/ 3283. Program is to improve the overall NCEP focal points are provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam forecast and warning capabilities of the Prospective applicants should Contorno at the above address, or at operational hydrometeorological communicate with these focal points for phone 301–713–1970 ext. 193, or fax to community by addressing the following information on priorities within 301–713–1520, or on the Internet at national science priorities: Quantitative regional science needs. Applicants [email protected]. Precipitation Estimation (QPE) and should send proposals to the NOAA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Forecasting (QPF), including NWS program office identified earlier precipitation type and probabilistic QPF rather than to individual focal points. Funding Availability (PQPF); Flash flood and probabilistic NWS Central Region Science Needs/ NOAA/NWS believes its warning and river prediction; Prediction of seasonal- Priorities forecast mission will benefit to-interannual and decadal climate significantly from a strong partnership variability, and the impacts of these The NWS Central Region science with outside investigators. Current variabilities on extreme weather events; needs/priorities which can be addressed program plans assume the total Prediction of tropical cyclones near by proposals are as follows: resources provided through this landfall, including track, intensity, and Improve severe weather warnings by: announcement will support extramural associated precipitation, and hazardous (1) Developing more accurate efforts through the broad academic weather; Prediction of marine conceptual models for tornado, hail, and community. Because of Federal budget conditions, including fog, winds, coastal wind events for different geographical uncertainties, it has not been ocean, and open ocean waves; The effect locations in Central Region, including determined how much money will be of topography and other surface forcing the Central Plains, Northern Plains, available through this announcement. on local weather regimes; Locally Ozark Plateau, mid and upper Proposals should be prepared assuming hazardous weather, especially severe Mississippi Valley, lower Ohio Valley, an annual budget of no more than convection, winter weather, and and Great Lakes regions. $125,000. It is expected between two phenomena that affect aviation; (2) Developing more accurate and four awards will be made Conditions conducive for the rapid diagnostic strategies/methodologies to dependent on the availability of funds. development of wildfires and the interrogate remote sensing data (radar, This program announcement is for dispersion of smoke and other air- satellite, etc.) particularly for weaker projects to be conducted by university quality hazards. and shorter lived severe thunderstorm investigators not to exceed a 3-year Individual NWS Regions and Centers and tornado events. period. When a proposals for a multi- have a subset of these science priorities (3) Expanding our understanding of year award is approved, funding will due to differences in factors such as elevated nocturnal convection for

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31190 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices different geographical locations in boundaries. The interaction of gravity mesoscale modeling studies and Central Region. waves and related phenomena with capabilities aimed at improving Pacific Improve QPFs through a better severe storms and winter weather Region model support. understanding of: systems throughout the East. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) The climatology of precipitation, The primary factors causing high Mark Jackson, NOAA/NWS/Pacific including subregional information winds, waves, and flooding near the Region Regional Scientist, 808–532– stratified by day, season, and amount Atlantic Coast, Chesapeake Bay, and 6413, or on the Internet at and time of occurrence. Great Lakes. Widespread river and [email protected]. (2) Cloud physics and micro-physical localized flash flooding produced by processes related to precipitation synoptic and sub-synoptic scale weather NWS National Centers for efficiency of stratiform and connective systems interacting with the complex Environmental Prediction Science clouds. topography and expanding urbanization Needs/Priorities (3) Water vapor distribution and of the eastern United States. transport. The individual centers of NCEP have Innovative approaches to formulate, established the following science needs/ (4) The initiation of convective produce, display, and deliver high- precipitation (tropical, lake/sea breeze, priorities which may be addressed in resolution hydrometeorological proposals: complex terrain, etc.). forecasts and products to meet the (5) The uniqueness of stratiform evolving needs of the user community Environmental Modeling Center precipitation. throughout the heavily populated (6) The uniqueness of extreme heavy Atmospheric and ocean data eastern United States. rain events. assimilation. (7) Precipitation estimation methods. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Atmospheric and ocean numerical (8) Geographic and orographic Carter, NOAA/NWS//Eastern Region forecast modeling. influences. Improve winter weather Scientific Services Division, 516–524– Hydrometerological Prediction Center forecasts by better understanding the 5131, or on the Internet at development, intensification, and [email protected]. Ensemble models for PQPF. sudden acceleration northeastward of NWS Western Region Service Needs/ Targeted observations for improvement strong mid-west storm systems Priorities of medium range forecasting(day following lee side cyclogenesis. 3–7). Improve aviation forecasts by better The science needs/priorities are based understanding the development and on Doppler weather surveillance radar Marine Prediction Center dissipation of fog and stratus for the (WSR–88D) measurements of convective Objective marine verification using all different geographical locations in and wintertime QPEs over complex in-situ and remote data sources. terrain in the inter-mountain West area Central Region. Develop more efficient Improved use of surface marine of the United States. In the arid inter- and effective methodologies to review observations from all sources in data mountain West, water is a critical and numerical model guidance in the assimilation. forecast process. Develop innovative closely managed resource. Complex methodologies to improve weather terrain, the location of many NWS Climate Prediction Center WSR–88D radars on mountain tops, and services to the public. Improve monthly and seasonal unique meteorological/orographic FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: precipitation skill scores. Richard Livingston, NOAA/NWS/ characteristics of western storms combine to limit the effectiveness of the Improve coupled model and associated Central Region Scientific Services ensemble runs. Division, 816–426–5672 ext. 300, or on current WSR–88D QPE algorithms. the Internet at Proposals should be targeted at Aviation Weather Center [email protected]. improving the capability of the WSR– 88D to assist operational forecasters to: Improve prediction of locally hazardous NWS Eastern Region Science Needs/ Make better summertime convective weather (e.g., sever convection, winter Priorities flash-flood warnings over inter- weather, etc.) that affect aviation. Improve predictions of icing and NWS Eastern Region has listed the mountain West terrain. turbulence. following science needs/priorities to be Provide improved WSR–88D-based addressed by proposals: winter season rain and snow QPEs. Storm Prediction Center Unique geomorphic influences on These WSR–88D based QPEs are very weather problems such as the type, dependent on complex terrain. Development of technology to remotely sense the detailed vertical distribution amount, duration, and intensity of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of moisture in the atmosphere. precipitation associated with the Andy Edman, NOAA/NWS/Western complex terrain of the Appalachian Region Scientific Services Division, Development of a relocatable mesoscale Mountains; or the formation, duration, 801–524–5131, or on the Internet at model which has detailed boundary and intensity of severe storms and [email protected]. layer physics for improvement in winter weather phenomena along the forecasting hail, wind gusts, etc. NWS Pacific Region Science Needs/ Atlantic Seaboard and the Great Lakes. Tropical Prediction Center The relationship of land-falling tropical Priorities storms and hurricanes to severe The science needs/priorities of the Improve hurricane-intensity and wind- weather, heavy precipitation, flooding, NWS Pacific Region are as follows: structure forecasts. Continue and flash flooding throughout the Optimizing the utility of new improving hurricane track forecasts. eastern United States. The development observing systems, especially satellite FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and enhancement of severe storms observations over the Pacific. Sondra Young, NOAA/NWS/National throughout the Middle Atlantic and the Conducting observational synoptic Centers for Environmental Prediction, Piedmont regions due to the influence climatological studies. Helping develop 301–763–8000 ext. 7004, or on the of small-scale thermal and moisture and enhance operational and off-line Internet at [email protected].

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.120 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31191

Eligibility Program Policy Factors number, and address. The total amount All accredited U.S. colleges and In deciding which applications are to of Federal funds being requested should universities are eligible for funding be funded, the Selecting Official will be listed for each budget period. under this announcement. The choose at least one award which (2) Abstract: An abstract must be restriction is needed because the results addresses the Central Region science included and should contain an of the collaboration are to be needs and at least one award which introduction of the problem, rationale, incorporated in academic processes addresses the Eastern Region science and a brief summary of work to be which ensure academic needs. Further, the selecting official completed. The abstract should appear multidisciplinary peer review as well as may take into account the need to on a separate page, headed with the Federal review of scientific validity for spread awards geographically and proposal title, institutions investigators, use in operations. Funding for non-U.S. among universities. While a university total proposed cost, and budget period. institutions is not available under this may submit more than one application, (3) Results from prior research. The announcement. the selecting official may limit the results of related projects supported by Evaluation Criteria awards to only one per university. NOAA and other agencies should be Finally, the amount of funds available described, including their relation to the The evaluation criteria and weighting and whether an application currently proposed work. Reference to of the criteria are as follows: substantially duplicates other projects each prior research award should (1) Operational Applicability (30 currently approved for funding or include the title, agency, award number, percent): Importance and applicability funded by NOAA or other Federal PIs, period of award, and total award. of the proposed science activities to agencies may be considered by the The section should be a brief summary operational hydrometeorology. Are Selecting Official. and should exceed two pages total. prospects good that the proposed science priorities can be transferred to Proposal Submission (4) Statement of work. The proposed weather forecast operations in a project must be completely described, The requirements for proposal including identification of the problem, reasonable time frame? preparation are provided below. Failure (2) Scientific Merit (30 percent): scientific objectives, proposed to follow these requirements will result Intrinsic scientific value of the subject methodology, relevance to the priorities in proposals being returned to the and the study proposed as they relate to of the NWS Region or Center, and the the specific science priorities. submitter. program priorities listed above. Benefits (3) Experience of principal Proposals of the proposed project to the general investigators collaborating and public and the scientific community interacting with operational (1) Proposals submitted to the NOAA should be discussed. A year-by-year hydrometeorologists (20 percent): NWS CSTAR Program must include the summary of proposed work must be Principal investigators must clearly original and two unbound copies of the included. The statement of work, document past scientific collaborations proposal. including references but excluding with operational meteorologists. (2) Investigators are not required to figures and other visual materials, must (4) Cost Effectiveness (10 percent): submit more than three copies of the not exceed 15 pages of text. In general, Ability of researchers to leverage other proposal. Investigators are encouraged proposals from three or more resources; high ratio of operationally to submit official proposal copies for the investigators may include a statement of useful results versus proposed costs. full review process if they wish all work containing up to 15 pages of (5) Methodology (10 percent): reviewers to receive color, unusually × overall project description plus up to 5 Focused scientific objective and sized (not 8.5 11), or otherwise unusual additional pages for individual project strategy, including data management materials submitted as part of the descriptions. proposal. Only three copies of the considerations, project milestones, and (5) Budget, Applicants must submit a timeliness; and final products. federally required forms are needed. (3) Proposals are limited to 30 pages Standard Form 424 ‘‘Application for Selection Procedures (numbered), including budget, Federal Assistance,’’ including a All proposals will be evaluated and investigators vitae, and all appendices detailed budget using the Standard individually ranked in accordance with and should be limited to funding Form 424a, ‘‘Budget Information—Non- the assigned weights of the above requests for 1- to 3-year duration. Construction Programs.’’ The form is evaluation criteria by an independent Appended information may not be used included in the standard NOAA peer panel review, three to seven NWS to circumvent the page length limit. application kit. The proposal must experts representing NWS Regions and Federally mandated forms are not include total and annual budgets Centers and non-Federal experts may be included within the page count. corresponding with the descriptions used in this process. Their (4) Proposals should be sent to the provided in the statement of work. recommendations and evaluations will NWS at the address listed earlier. Additional text to justify expenses be considered, along with the program (5) Facsimile transmissions and should be included as necessary. policy factors discussed below, by the electronic mail submission of full (6) Vitae. Abbreviated curriculum selecting official who will select the proposals will not be accepted. vitae are sought with each proposal. proposals to be funded and determine Required Elements: All proposals Reference lists should be limited to all the amount of funds available for each should include the following elements: publications in the last 3 years with up proposal. Unsatisfactory performance by (1) Signed title page. The title page to five other relevant papers. a recipient under prior Federal awards should be signed by the Principal (7) Current and pending support. For may result in an application not being Investigator (PI) and the institutional each investigator, submit a list which considered for funding. Because the representative and should clearly includes project title, supporting agency selecting official will take into account indicate which project area is being with grant number, investigator months, program policy factors, awards may not addressed. The PI and institutional dollar value, and duration. Requested necessarily be made to the highest representative should be identified by values should be listed for pending scored proposals. full name, title, organization, telephone support.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.123 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31192 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Other Requirements to all Federal laws and Federal and DOC of race, color, age, sex, national origin, (1) Applicants may obtain a standard policies, regulations, and procedures or disability shall be excluded from NOAA application kit from the NOAA applicable to Federal financial participation in, denied benefits of, or Office of Grants Management. Primary assistance awards. be subjected to discrimination under applicant Certification—All primary (9) Pre-award Activities. If applicants any program or activity receiving applicants must submit a completed incur any costs prior to an award being financial assistance from the NOAA Form CD–511, ‘‘Certification Regarding made, they do so solely at their own risk NWS. The NOAA NWS does not have Debarment, Suspension, and Other of not being reimbursed by the a direct telephonic device for the deaf Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Government. Notwithstanding any (TDD capabilities can be reached Workplace Requirements and verbal or written assurance that may through the State of Maryland-supplied Lobbying.’’ Applicants are also hereby have been received, there is no TDD contact number, 800–735–2258, notified of the following: obligation on the part of DOC to cover between the hours of 8 a.m.–4:30 p.m. (2) Nonprocurement Debarment and pre-award costs. This notice contains collection-of- Suspension. Prospective participants (as (10) Drug-Free Workplace. Grantees information requirements subject to the defined at 15 CFR 26.105) are subject to (as defined at 15 CFR Part 26, Section Paperwork Reduction Act. The standard 15 CFR part 26, ‘‘Nonprocurement 605) are subject to 15 CFR Part 26, application forms required to be used Debarment and Suspension,’’ and the Subpart F, ‘‘Government-wide have been approved by the Office of related section of the certification form Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace Management and Budget under control prescribed above applies; to State and (Grants)’’ and the related section of the numbers 0348–0043, 0348–0044, and Local Governments, as applicable. certification form prescribed above 0348–0046. Notwithstanding any other Applications under this program are not applies. provision of law, no person is required (11) Anti-Lobbying. Persons (as subject to E.O. 12372, to respond to nor shall a person be defined at 15 CFR Part 28, Section 105) ‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal subject to a penalty for failure to comply are subject to the lobbying provisions of Programs.’’ with a collection of information subject (3) All non-profit and for-profit 31 U.S.C. 1352, ‘‘Limitation on use of to the requirements of the Paperwork applicants are subject to a name check appropriated funds to influence certain Reduction Act unless that collection of review process. Name checks are Federal contracting and financial information displays a current valid intended to reveal whether any key transactions,’’ and the lobbying section OMB control number. individuals associated with the of the certification form prescribed above applies to applications/bids for Authority: 15 U.S.C. 313; 49 U.S.C. 44720 applicant have been convicted of, or are (b); 33 U.S.C. 883d, 883e; 15 U.S.C. 2904; 15 presently facing, criminal charges such grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts for more than $100,000, and U.S.C. 2931 et seq. (CFDA No.11.468)— as fraud, theft, perjury, or other matters Applied Meteorological Research. loans and loan guarantees for more than which significantly reflect on the Classification: This notice has been applicant’s management, honesty, or $150,000, or the single family maximum mortgage limit for affected programs, determined to be not significant for financial integrity. purposes of E.O. 12866. The standard (4) A false statement on an whichever is greater. forms have been approved by the Office application is grounds for denial or (12) Anti-Lobbying Disclosures. Any of Management and Budget pursuant to termination of funds and grounds for applicant that has paid or will pay for the Paperwork Reduction Act under possible punishment by a fine or lobbying using any funds must submit OMB approval number 0348–0043, imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. an SF–LLL, ‘‘Disclosure of Lobbying 0348–0044, and 0348–0046. 1001. Activities,’’ as required under 15 CFR (5) No award of Federal funds shall be Part 28, Appendix B. Dated: June 7, 1999. made to an applicant who has an (13) Lower Tier Certifications. John J. Kelly, Jr., Recipients shall require applicants/ outstanding delinquent Federal debt Assistant Administrator for Weather Services. until either: bidders for subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, or other lower tier-covered [FR Doc. 99–14783 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] (i) the delinquent account is paid in BILLING CODE 3510±KE±M full, transactions at any tier under the award (ii) A negotiated repayment schedule to submit, if applicable, a completed Form CD–512, ‘‘Certifications Regarding is established and at least one payment DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE is received, or Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility (iii) Other arrangements satisfactory to and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier National Oceanic and Atmospheric DOC. Covered Transactions and Lobbying’’ Administration (6) Buy American-Made Equipment or and disclosure form, SF–LLL, Products. Applicants who are ‘‘Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.’’ [I.D. 052799A] Form CD–512 is intended for the use of authorized to purchase equipment or Incidental Take of Marine Mammals; recipients and should not be transmitted products with funding provided under Bottlenose Dolphins and Spotted to DOC. SF–LLL submitted by any tier this program are encouraged to purchase Dolphins American-made equipment and recipient or subrecipient should be products to the maximum extent submitted to DOC in accordance with AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries feasible. the instructions contained in the award Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and (7) The total dollar amount of the document. If an application is selected Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), indirect costs proposed in an for funding, the DOC has no obligation Commerce. application under this program must not to provide any additional future funding ACTION: Notice of issuance of letters of exceed the indirect cost rate negotiated in connection with the award. Renewal authorization. and approved by a cognizant Federal of an award to increase funding or agency prior to the proposed effective extend the period of performance is at SUMMARY: In accordance with the date of the award. the total discretion of the DOC. Marine Mammal Protection Act (8) Federal Policies and Procedures. In accordance with Federal statutes (MMPA), as amended, and Recipients and subrecipients are subject and regulations, no person on grounds implementing regulations, notification

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.126 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31193 is hereby given that 1-year letters of impact on the bottlenose and spotted 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et authorization to take bottlenose and dolphin stocks of the Gulf of Mexico. seq.). spotted dolphins incidental to oil and Dated: June 3, 1999. Issuance of this permit, as required by gas structure removal activities were Hilda Diaz-Soltero, the ESA, was based on a finding that issued on May 4, 1999, to the Newfield such permit (1) was applied for in good Director, Office of Protected Resources, Exploration Company and to BP Amoco; National Marine Fisheries Service. faith, (2) will not operate to the on May 7, 1999, to the Amerada Hess disadvantage of the endangered species [FR Doc. 99–14786 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Corporation; and on June 3, 1999, to the which is the subject of this permit, and Shoreline Exploration Corporation and BILLING CODE 3510±22±P (3) is consistent with the purposes and the EEX Corporation, all from Houston, policies set forth in section 2 of the TX. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ESA. ADDRESSES: The applications and letters Dated: June 3, 1999. are available for review in the following National Oceanic and Atmospheric Jeannie Drevenak, offices: Office of Protected Resources, Administration Acting Chief, Permits and Documentation NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Division, Office of Protected Resources, Spring, MD 20910, and the Southeast [I.D. 051899A] National Marine Fisheries Service. Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center [FR Doc. 99–14787 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Marine Mammals; File No. 930±1486 Drive N, St. Petersburg, FL 33702. BILLING CODE 3510±22±F FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Kenneth R. Hollingshead, Office of Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713– Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 2055 or David Bernhart, Southeast Commerce. COMMISSION Region (727) 570–5312. ACTION: Issuance of permit. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section Chicago Board of Trade Petition for 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Exemption From the Statutory Dual 1361 et seq.) directs NMFS to allow, on U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Trading Prohibition in the Ten-Year request, the incidental, but not Resources Division, Western Ecological U.S. Treasury Note Futures Contract intentional, taking of small numbers of Research Center, 6924 Tremont Road, Traded on the Project A Electronic marine mammals by U.S. citizens who Dixon, CA 95620 (Principal Investigator: Trading System engage in a specified activity (other than Mr. Dennis Orthmeyer) has been issued commercial fishing) within a specified AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading a permit to inadvertently harass various Commission. geographical region, if certain findings cetacean and pinniped species during ACTION: are made and regulations are issued. aerial surveys for purposes of scientific Amended order. Under the MMPA, the term ‘‘taking’’ research. SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or ADDRESSES: The permit and related Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is to attempt to harass, hunt, capture or documents are available for review amending its February 26, 1999 Order kill marine mammals. upon written request or by appointment Permission may be granted for periods granting the Chicago Board of Trade in the following office(s): up to 5 years if NMFS finds, after (‘‘CBT’’) or ‘‘Exchange’’) an exemption Permits and Documentation Division, notification and opportunity for public from the statutory prohibition against Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, comment, that the taking will have a dual trading in the U.S. Treasury Bond 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, negligible impact on the species or futures contract (‘‘T-Bond’’) traded on Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713– stock(s) of marine mammals and will its Project A electronic trading system to 2289); and not have an unmitigable adverse impact include the Ten-Year U.S. Treasury Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West on the availability of the species or Note (‘‘Ten-Year T-Note’’) futures Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, stock(s) for subsistence uses. In contract traded on Project A. CA 90802–4213 (562–980–4001). addition, NMFS must prescribe DATES: This Order is to be effective June regulations that include permissible FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 4, 1999. methods of taking and other means Ruth Johnson or Sara Shapiro 301/713– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: effecting the least practicable adverse 2289. Rachel F. Berdansly, Special Counsel, impact on the species and its habitat, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March Division of Trading and Markets, and on the availability of the species for 29, 1999, notice was published in the Commodity Futures Trading subsistence uses, paying particular Federal Register (64 FR 14886) that a Commission, Three Lafayette Center, attention to rookeries, mating grounds, request for a scientific research permit 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC and areas of similar significance. The to take marine mammals had been 20581; telephone (202) 418–5490. regulations must include requirements submitted by the above-named SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On pertaining to the monitoring and organization. The requested permit has February 26, 1999, the Commission reporting of such taking. Regulations been issued under the authority of the issued an Order granting CBT an governing the taking of bottlenose and Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, exemption from the statutory dual spotted dolphins incidental to oil and as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the trading prohibition for its T-Bond gas structure removal activities in the Regulations Governing the Taking and futures contract as traded on the Gulf of Mexico were published on Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR Exchange’s electronic trading system, October 12, 1995 (60 FR 53139), and part 216), the Endangered Species Act of Project A.1 In issuing the Order, the remain in effect until November 13, 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 Commission found that CBT met the 2000. et seq.), the regulations governing the standards for granting a dual trading Issuance of these letters of taking, importing, and exporting of authorization are based on a finding that endangered fish and wildlife (50 CFR 1 64 FR 10450 (March 4, 1999). A copy of this the total takings will have a negligible parts 222–226), and the Fur Seal Act of Order is attached as Appendix A.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31194 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices exemption contained in section 4j(a) of updated petition that includes those Subject to CBT’s continuing ability to the Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘Act’’) contracts. demonstrate that it meets applicable and Commission Regulation 155.5 with It is so ordered. requirements, the Commission specifically finds that CBT maintains a trade monitoring regard to Project A T-Bond futures. Dated: June 4, 1999. By letter dated March 15, 1999, system for Project A which is capable of Jean A. Webb, detecting and deterring, and is used on a shortly after the Order was issued, CBT Secretary to the Commission. regular basis to detect and deter, all types of notified the Commission that its Ten- violations attributable to dual trading and, to Year T-Note futures contract traded on APPENDIX A—COMMODITY FUTURES the full extent feasible, other violations Project A had become an affected TRADING COMMISSION involving the making of trades and execution contract market as well, and Chicago Board of Trade Petition for of customer orders, as required by section supplemented its Petition for Exemption Exemption From the Dual Trading 5a(b) of the Act and Commission Regulation from the Dual Trading Prohibition to Prohibition in the U.S. Treasury Bond 155.5. The Commission further finds that include that contract.2 The Exchange Futures Contract Traded on the Project A CBT’s trade monitoring system for Project A Electronic Trading System T-Bonds includes audit trail and has represented by letter dated April 20, recordkeeping systems that satisfy sections 1999, that, with respect to the February AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 4j(a)(3) and 5a(b) of the Act and Commission 26, 1999 Order exempting Project A T- Commission. Regulations 1.35 and 155.5.3 Bond futures from the dual trading ACTION: Order. With respect to each required component prohibition, there have been no material of the trade monitoring system, the changes concerning the operation of the SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission finds as follows: Project A system or to CBT’s trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is granting the (a) Physical Observation of Trading monitoring system as applicable thereto. petition of the Chicago Board of Trade Areas—The requirements of section Therefore, the Commission finds that (‘‘CBT’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) for exemption from 5a(b)(1)(A) of the Act are not relevant to the prohibition against dual trading in the Project A trading, insofar as Project A is a CBT meets all relevant standards for computerized, screen-based system and granting a dual trading exemption for U.S. Treasury Bond futures contract traded on its Project A electronic trading system. therefore has no floor. the Ten-Year T-Note future contract as (b) Audit Trail and Recordkeeping DATES: This Order is to be effective February traded on Project A. Systems—The Exchange’s trade monitoring 26, 1999. Accordingly, on this date, the system for Project A T-Bonds satisfies the Commission hereby amends its FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew audit trail standards of section 5a(b)(1)(B) of February 26, 1999 Order granting CBT’s S. Baer, Attorney-Advisor, Division of the Act in that it is capable of capturing Petition for Exemption from the Dual Trading and Markets, Commodity Futures essential data on the terms, participants, and Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, Trading Prohibition for trading on 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC 20581; Project A of its electronically traded 3590 (1992). The FTPA’s legislative history makes telephone (202) 418–5490. clear that the burden to prove that the exemptions U.S. Treasury Bond futures contracts to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 31, standards are met rests upon the contract market. include an exemption for CBT’s 1998, the Chicago Board of Trade (‘‘CBT’’ or For instance, the 1992 House-Senate Conference electronically traded Ten-Year U.S. ‘‘Exchange’’) submitted a Petition for Committee stated that ‘‘a board of trade may satisfy Treasury Note futures contract. Exemption From the Dual Trading the initial burden of demonstrating that each of its For this exemption to remain in effect, Prohibition for its affected U.S. Treasury designated contract markets complies with trade monitoring system requirements of section 5a(b) of 1 CBT must demonstrate on a continuing Bond (‘‘T-Bond’’) futures contract as traded the Act, subject to requests for further information basis that it meets the relevant statutory on the Exchange’s electronic trading system, by the Commission, by showing that it has and regulatory requirements. The Project A. Upon consideration of this petition maintained an ongoing record of compliance with Commission will monitor continued and other matters of record, the Commission those requirements.’’ H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 102–978 hereby finds that CBT meets the standards for at 53 (1992). The Conference Committee adopted compliance through its rule the 1991 House Bill’s (H.R. 707) dual trading enforcement review program and any granting a dual trading exemption contained in section 4j(a) of the Act and Commission provisions, with amendments relating to other information it may obtain about Regulation 155.5 with regard to Project A T- exemptions. Id. at 50. The 1991 Senate Bill (S. 207) similarly placed on the exchange the burden to CBT’s program. Bond futures.2 The provisions of this Order shall be demonstrate the ability of its systems to meet the standards and reiterated the view, previously effective on the date on which it is 1 An ‘‘affected contract market’’ is a contract expressed in the 1989 Senate Bill (S. 1729), that an issued and shall remain in effect unless market with an average daily volume equal to or in exchange has the best access to its own records and and until its is revoked in accordance excess of 8,000 contracts for each of four quarters therefore is in the best position to show that its with section 8e(b)(3)(B) of the during the most recent volume year. Commission systems are effective and satisfactory. S. Rep. No. Regulation 155.5(a)(9). See section 4j(a)(4) of the 102–22 at 32 (1991); S. Rep. No. 101–191 at 39–40 Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘Act’’). Under section (1989). 12e(b)(3)(B). If other CBT contracts 4j(a) of the Act and Regulation 155.5(b), the dual 3 17 CFR 1.35, 155.5. Section 4j(a)(3) requires the electronically traded on Project A trading prohibition applies to each affected contract Commission to exempt a contract market from the become affected contracts after the date market. The Commission, therefore, must consider prohibition against dual trading upon finding that of this Order, the Commission may separately each affected contract market. As noted the monitoring system in place at the contract by the Commission in promulgating Regulation market satisfies the requirements of section 5a(b), expand this Order in response to an 155.5, a contract market trading on an exchange governing audit trails and trade monitoring systems, floor will be considered separate from a contract with regard to violations attributable to dual trading 2 An ‘‘affected contract market’’ is a contract market in the same commodity trading on a screen- at such contract market. If the trade monitoring market with an average daily volume equal to or in based system such as Project A. See 58 FR 40335 system does not satisfy the requirements, section excess of 8,000 contracts for each of four quarters (July 28, 1993). Therefore, Project A T-Bonds must 4j(a)(3) requires the Commission to deny the during the most recent volume year. Commission be considered independently of the CBT’s floor- exemption or in the alternative to exempt a contract Regulation 155.5(a)(9). See section 4j(a)(4) of the traded T-Bond contract market, which was included market from the prohibition against dual trading on Act. Under section 4(j(a) of the Act and Regulation in the Exchange’s exemption petition for its affected stated conditions upon finding that there is a 155.5(b), the dual trading prohibition applies to open outcry contract markets. substantial likelihood that a dual trading each affected contract market. The Commission, 2 The burden to prove that the exemption prohibition would harm the public interest in therefore, must consider separately each affected standards of the Act and Commission regulations hedging or price basing and that corrective actions contract market. As noted by the Commission in are met rests exclusively on the contract market. are sufficient and appropriate to bring the contract promulgating Regulation 155.5, a contract market The dual trading provisions set forth in section 4j market into compliance with the standards set forth trading on an exchange floor will be considered of the Act and the standards for trade monitoring in section 5a(b). Regulation 155.5(b) prohibits floor separate from a contract market in the same systems provided in section 5a(b) of the Act were brokers from dual trading in an affected contract commodity trading on a screen-based system such enacted as part of the Futures Trading Practices Act market unless that contract market is exempted as Project A. See 58 FR 40335 (July 28, 1993). of 1992 (‘‘FTPA’’). Pub. L. 102–546, 101, 106 Stat. under Regulation 155.5(d).

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.172 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31195 sequence of transactions. The requirements exception reports are designed to identify Dated: February 26, 1999. of that Section regarding the capture of such suspicious activity as trading ahead, Jean A. Webb, relevant data on unmatched trades and frontrunning, trading against, crossing orders, Secretary to the Commission. outtrades are not relevant to Project A and wash trading. Since the introduction of trading, as unmatched trades and outtrades side-by-side (simultaneous Project A and [FR Doc. 99–14712 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] cannot occur on the Project A system. The open outcry) trading of T-Bonds in BILLING CODE 6351±01±M Commission further finds that CBT September 1998, CBT has begun using a accurately and promptly records the essential specialized exception report designed to data on terms, participants, times (in identify certain trading ahead violations that COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING increments of no more than one minute in use both the Project A and open outcry COMMISSION length), and the sequence of Project A trades markets. The CBT has stated that it intends through a means that is unalterable, to develop systems and programs that Alternative Executive, or Block continual, independent, reliable, and precise, integrate survelliance of its Project A and Trading, Procedures for the Futures as required by section 5a(b)(3) of the Act. open outcry markets. The Exchange should Industry This includes the real-time submission of be diligent in pursuing this process. trades to clearing as they are matched by the From January, 1997 through December, AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading system. Consistent with the guidelines to 1998, the Exchange initiated 21 Commission. Commission Regulation 155.5, the investigations into all types of possible Commission also finds that CBT has abuses on Project A, nine of which had been ACTION: Advisory. demonstrated the use of Project A T-Bond closed as of December, 1998. One of those trade timing data in its surveillance systems nine was closed within the four-month SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures for dual trading-related and other abuses. objective set forth in Commission Regulation Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’) The audit trail produced by Project A for 8.06, and another three were closed within will consider contract market proposals T-Bond futures includes trade execution four to six months. Thus, only 44 percent of times that are presumptively 100 percent to adopt alternative executive execution, those Project A investigations opened and accurate (barring computer malfunction) and or block trading, procedures for large closed during 1997–98 were closed within precise to within 1⁄100th of a second. All size or other types of orders on a case- six months. If CBT cannot complete its trades are also recorded in the exact sequence by-case basis under a flexible approach Project A investigations within the objective of occurrence. Among other things, the order to the requirements of the Commodity set by Regulation 8.06, it should provide the ticket timestamps required by Regulation reasons why such investigations require more Exchange Act (‘‘Act’’) and the 1.35(a–1) are automatically furnished by the Commission’s regulations. The system, independent of the person making than four months to complete. Based on examination of its computerized surveillance Commission continues to be open to the trade, as is the order number. Project A further comments on the various issues also automatically records the time at which reports, CBT initiated four dual trading- a terminal operator enters an order, the time related investigations during that period, one surrounding potential alternative when an order is matched to make a trade, of which resulted in referral to a disciplinary execution procedures from industry the time the system generates a confirmation committee. As of December 1998 that case participants. message to a terminal operator, and the time was still pending. In other Project A-related disciplinary actions, the Exchange levied EFFECTIVE DATE: This Advisory is of any changes to an order. Once entered, effective upon issuance. orders and records of changes to orders are $20,000 in fines, imposed one ten-day unalterable and cannot be deleted. If an order suspension, and issued four reprimands. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (d) Commitment of Resources—The cannot be entered immediately upon its Rebecca L. Creed, Attorney, Division of receipt by a terminal operator, the order is Commission finds that CBT meets the requirements of section 5a(b)(1)(E) by Trading and Markets, Commodity recorded on a written order ticket, Futures Trading Commission, Three timestamped, and then entered when committing sufficient resources for its trade possible. For every Project A order, either monitoring system relating to Project A, Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, this order ticket timestamp or the order entry including automating elements of such trade Washington, DC 20581. Telephone: time recorded by the system acts as the surveillance system, to be effective in (202) 418–5430. detecting and deterring violations. CBT also broker receipt time required by section SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5a(b)(3)(B) of the Act. maintains an adequate staff to investigate and CBT satisfies the requirements of section to prosecute disciplinary actions. I. Introduction 5a(b)(1)(B) of the Act by maintaining an Accordingly, on this date, the Commission adequate recordkeeping system that is able to hereby grants CBT’s Petition for exemption After careful consideration of public capture essential data on the terms, from the dual trading prohibition for trading comments and interviews with participants, and sequence of transactions on Project A of its electronically traded U.S. interested securities and futures executed on Project A. The Exchange uses Treasury Bond futures contracts. industry participants, the Commission such data as well as information on For this exemption to remain in effect, CBT has decided to evaluate contract market violations of such requirements on a must demonstrate on a continuing basis that proposals to adopt alternative consistent basis to bring appropriate it meets the relevant statutory and regulatory execution, or block trading, procedures requirements. The Commission will monitor disciplinary actions relating to Project A for large size or other types of orders on trading. continued compliance through its rule (c) Surveillance Systems and Disciplinary enforcement review program and any other a case-by-case basis. As discussed Action—As required by sections 5a(b)(1)(C), information it may obtain about CBT’s below, the Commission believes that the (D), and (F) of the Act, CBT uses information program. appropriate terms and conditions generated by its trade monitoring and audit The provisions of this Order shall be governing such execution procedures trail systems on a consistent basis to bring effective on the date on which it is issued are best addressed in the context of appropriate disciplinary action for violations and shall remain in effect unless and until it specific proposals. The Commission relating to the making of trades and is revoked in accordance with section stands ready to consider any rule execution of customer orders on Project A. In 8e(b)(3)(B) of the Commodity Exchange Act, proposal submitted by a contract market addition, CBT assesses meaningful penalties 7 U.S.C. 12e(b)(3)(B). If other CBT contracts that expressly allows such transactions against violators. electronically traded on Project A become On a daily basis, CBT reviews affected contracts after the date of this Order, to be executed using any combination of computerized surveillance exception reports the Commission may expand this Order in competitive and noncompetitive to detect dual trading-related and other response to an updated petition that includes execution procedures. The Commission trading abuses on Project A. All relevant those contracts. plans to take a flexible approach in trade data are included in these reports. The It is so ordered. considering such proposals.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31196 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

II. The Commission Solicited Comments could be developed to satisfy the needs A. Current Contract Market Large Order on Alternative Execution, or Block of market participants while furthering Execution Procedures Trading Procedures in its Concept the policies and purposes of the Act and Under the Act and the Commission’s Release Concerning the Regulation of the Commission’s regulations. Through regulations, all futures and option Noncompetitive Transactions Executed the questions posed in the Concept transactions generally must be executed on or Subject to the Rules of a Contract Release, commenters were asked openly and competitively by open Market whether the Commission should permit outcry, by posting of bids and offers, or On January 26, 1998, the Commission alternative execution procedures by equally open and competitive published a Concept Release in the pursuant to the rules of a contract methods in the trading pit or ring or Federal Register for public comment market; what general qualifying similar place provided by a designated concerning the regulation of standards should govern a proposal’s contract market.5 As noted in the noncompetitive transactions executed eligibility for approval by the Concept Release, the Commission has on or subject to the rules of a contract Commission; and whether additional approved or allowed into effect various market.1 Among other things, the regulatory requirements should be contract market rules which establish Concept release discussed a wide range imposed on these procedures to procedures for the execution of large of issues concerning alternative maintain integrity and to provide orders.6 These procedures generally execution procedures.2 Specifically, the guidance to self-regulatory entities.3 Of preserve the competitive forces Commission wished to explore whether the sixty-four comment letters the available on a centralized market and certain alternative execution procedures Commission received in response to the thereby comply with the open and for large size or other types of orders Concept Release, fifty-seven specifically competitive execution requirement. The addressed such execution procedures.4 Commission also has taken steps to 1 63 FR 3708 (January 26, 1998). streamline its own regulations to These comment letters revealed two Throughout the Concept Release and in this facilitate the adoption of large order Advisory, the Commission uses the term divergent viewpoints concerning the execution (‘‘LOX’’) procedures by ‘‘noncompetitive transaction’’ to refer to those adoption of alternative execution transactions that are negotiated and executed by contract markets.7 counterparties other than through open outcry or procedures by contract markets. Eleven other competitive means, but in accordance with commenters generally supported such 5 See sections 4(a) and 4b of the Act; Commission the written rules of a contract market that have been procedures, while forty-nine Regulation 1.38(a). There are, however, certain submitted to and approved by the Commission. The limited exceptions to this requirement. Section noncompetitive transactions discussed in the commenters generally opposed them. The supporting comment letters 4c(a) of the Act prohibits certain types of Concept Release are distinguishable from those noncompetitive or otherwise abusive trading abusive trading practices prohibited by section 4c(a) indicated that alternative execution practices, such as wash sales, cross trades, of the Act, such as wash sales, cross trades, procedures should be implemented in accommodations trades, and fictitious sales, but accommodation trades, and fictitious sales. provides an exception for EFPs that are executed in Moreover, as noted by many of the commenters order to alleviate the current difficulties accordance with contract market rules that have responding to the Concept Release, these faced by institutional market been approved by the Commission. An EFP noncompetitive transactions might be structured in participants in executing large futures involves simultaneous transactions in the futures such a manner that promotes competitive pricing, and cash commodity markets. One party buys the transparency, or other beneficial goals. and option orders. These commenters stated that execution procedures could physical commodity and simultaneously sells (or The Commission recognizes, however, that new gives up long) futures contracts while the other execution procedures for large size or other types be structured in such a way as to party sells the physical commodity and of orders might utilize a combination of competitive minimize any negative impact on simultaneously buys (or receives long) futures and noncompetitive trading practices. The term contracts. Subject to applicable contract market ‘‘alternative execution procedures’’ is intended to market volume, liquidity, price rules, the futures transaction is negotiated privately embrace the entire range of potential execution discovery, transparency, or customer by the parties rather than being executed openly procedures that might be proposed by a contract protection. Conversely, the opposing and competitively on a centralized market. All market including those referred to in the Concept comment letters generally stated that domestic contract markets permit EFPs, although Release and comments thereon as block trading there is some variation among the specific contract procedures. This includes those procedures that alternative execution procedures would market rule which govern these transactions. provide some degree of exposure of large size orders divert order flow away from the 6 to the competitive pressures of the centralized centralized, competitive marketplace, See, e.g., Chicago Mercantile Exchange (‘‘CME’’) futures marketplace as well as those that are purely Rule 521 (‘‘All-Or-None Transactions’’); New York noncompetitive. thereby reducing liquidity and Cotton Exchange (‘‘NYCE’’) Rule 1.10–B (‘‘Block Order Execution’’); New York Futures Exchange 2 The Release also included questions concerning jeopardizing the price discovery and the oversight of: (1) Exchanges of futures contracts hedging functions of the futures (‘‘NYFE’’) Rule 312 (‘‘Block Order Execution’’). for physicals (‘‘EFPs’’), which are authorized under markets. These commenters stated that CME also has developed request for quote the Act and the Commission’s regulations; (2) other (‘‘RFQ’’) procedures which allow market potential noncompetitive transactions, including such execution procedures would participants to solicit transactions of a particular exchanges of futures contracts for qualifying swap prevent floor traders and certain other size for any of the contracts traded through agreements (‘‘EFS transaction’’) and exchanges of entities from participating in large Globex2, its electronic trading system. In addition, option contracts for physicals (‘‘EOPs’’); and (3) the transactions between institutions and CMD allows firms to engage in pre-execution use of execution facilities for noncompetitive discussions regarding Globex2 trades as long as the transactions. The overall purpose of the Concept that customers ultimately would be solicited counterparty waits a reasonable period of Release was to solicit comments on the current harmed by the lack of transparency the time before entering an order opposite that of regulatory structure governing noncompetitive associated with these procedures. the initiating party. transactions and whether this approach should be 7 Commission Regulation 1.39 generally sets forth modified in light of recent developments in the the conditions and requirements governing the marketplace. 3 The comment period on the Concept Release crossing of simultaneous buying and selling orders On January 7, 1999, the Commission approved originally was scheduled to run from January 26, of different principals. Under Regulation 1.39(a), the New York Mercantile Exchange’s (‘‘NYMEX’’) 1998, through March 27, 1998, but was extended by when trading is conducted in a pit or ring, a proposal to adopt new Rule 6.21A, which authorize the Commission until April 27, 1998. 63 FR 13640 contract market member may execute buying and EFS transactions pursuant to the terms and (March 20, 1998). At the request of the Futures selling orders from different principals for the same conditions of a three-year pilot program. See Industry Association, the Commission further commodity directly between such principals at the Commission Press Release No. 4228–99. Any extended the comment period on those parts of the market price, pursuant to the written rules of such contract market which is interested in allowing EFS Release that related to alternative execution contract market which have been approved by the transactions in their designated markets may submit procedures until September 1, 1998. 63 FR 24164 Commission, provided that the member first offers a proposal to the Commission for its consideration, (May 1, 1998). both orders to the pit. In 1991, the Commission pursuant to Section 5a(a)(12)(A) of the Act and 4 Several comments submitted multiple and/or amended Regulation 1.39 to allow a contract market Commission Regulation 1.41. joint comment letters. member to follow alternative procedures for the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31197

There is some debate, however, as to in various degrees. Certain examples specialist, the firm can determine the whether the existing procedures meet envisioned market participants being prevailing price of the stock and as well the needs of futures market participants. allowed to alert potential counterparties as the needs of the specialist. If the Several commenters responding to the of their general interest in trading a specialist is interested in taking the Concept Release stated that the particular contract at a particular time, opposite side of the entire block at a availability of alternative execution to divulge specific information about mutually agreeable price, there is no procedures is crucial to attracting and quantity and price to potential need to utilize the block trading retaining institutional participation in counterparties, or to negotiate the procedures. the futures markets: These participants specific terms of futures and option If block trading procedures are increasingly need to trade large transactions. Another variation would necessary, the brokerage firm must then quantities of futures contracts in adjust execution procedures to confer a decide whether to ‘‘position’’ the block connection with their securities degree of priority on particular orders, for its house account, to ‘‘shop the activities. According to commenters, such as market maker orders, that they block’’ by contacting potential such transactions would severely tax the might not attain in the open and customers to take the opposite side of available liquidity of the centralized competitive trading environment.9 the transaction, or to combine these futures marketplace. These commenters Finally, the Release noted that market strategies. Upon agreement to a price for stated that alternative execution participants might be permitted to the block,12 the customer’s order is procedures would allow large futures execute certain transactions bilaterally, transmitted to the floor where it is transactions, which require size and away from the centralized marketplace, crossed against the firm’s house account price certainty, to be implemented in an and to report them to the relevant and/or against other customer orders, efficient and cost effective manner. contract market and clearing subject to applicable exchange rules.13 organization in a manner similar to the B. Potential Alternative Execution way EFPs are handled currently. These significant impact on price. Unless professional Procedures Discussed in the Concept judgment dictates otherwise, this research should examples, while not exhaustive, were Release include contacting the specialist to ascertain the intended to illustrate a range of possible extent of the specialist’s interest in participating in Pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act and execution procedures that could be the block at a specific price or prices. Commission Regulation 1.38(a), the adopted by contract markets. Each stock listed on the NYSE is allocated to a specialist. The specialist, through his or her many Commission has broad authority to The Concept Release also discussed roles, is responsible for maintaining the market’s approve contract market rules which how block trading procedures operate in fairness, competitiveness and efficiency. At the allow futures and option transactions to the securities markets.10 Generally beginning of each trading day, the specialist be executed in the noncompetitive speaking, with respect to securities establishes a fair market price for each of his or her 8 assigned stocks. The specialist also provides current manner. The text of these provision exchanges, the specific terms of a block market quotations to other brokers throughout the does not limit the types of transaction are negotiated ‘‘upstairs’’ day. The specialist executes limit and stop orders noncompetitive transactions that may be away from the exchange floor. Exchange for other brokers on a commission basis and approved by the Commission. In light of rules govern the manner in which such maintains the limit order book. Moreover, the specialist is obligated to maintain ‘‘orderly this authority, the Concept Release transactions ultimately are brought to markets’’ in his or her assigned stocks by making sought to identify new execution the floor for execution. Typically, a sure that trading occurs throughout the day with procedures that go beyond those that brokerage firm will arrange the block minimal price fluctuations. Finally, the specialist already exist in the futures industry and transaction for its customer. After acts as a dealer by buying stocks from the trading crowd when other bids are available or selling to encourage debate on such procedures. receiving a customer’s order to purchase stocks to the trading crowd when other offers are The Release described several scenarios or sell a block of securities, the firm not made. The specialist’s goal is to minimize the which departed from the usual open must decide whether to contact the temporary imbalance between public supply and and competitive execution requirement exchange specialist.11 By contacting the demand. 12 When positioning a block, the brokerage firm quotes a tentative price for the stock. Barring an crossing of orders if these procedures comply with 9 The Commission already has approved several extreme and unexpected movement in the price of contract market LOX rules that have been approved contract market proposals establishing market the stock, the customer may be reasonably assured by the Commission. 56 FR 12336 (March 25, 1991). maker programs. These programs, which aim to of execution at the quoted price. In ‘‘shopping the CME adopted, and the Commission approved, encourage market participation in specified new or block,’’ the firm contacts potential customers to take Rule 549 which established LOX procedures for low volume contracts, often provide market makers the opposite side at a specified price. The firm transactions involving 300 or more futures contracts with certain trading priorities that they would not might be willing to negotiate this price depending in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Price Index or otherwise obtain under traditional open and on how interested other investors are in the Nikkei Stock Average. Despite allowing the pre- competitive execution methods. See, e.g., Coffee, participating in the transaction. The firm continues execution solicitation of interest and discussion of Sugar & Cocoa Exchange (‘‘CSCE’’) Registered to contact potential customers until there is a price, these LOX procedures were used by market Market Maker Program (approved by the sufficient quantity of orders for the opposite side at participants on only one occasion in the several Commission on April 30, 1991); Chicago Board of a single price. At this point, the firm returns to its years they were available. Ultimately, CME Trade (‘‘CBOT’’) Modified Market Maker Program original customer to confirm his or her interest in terminated these procedures in April 1998. for the Wilshire Small Cap Index Future Contract the block transaction at the negotiated price, also 8 Section 4(a) makes it unlawful for any person to (allowed into effect without prior Commission known as the ‘‘clean-up price. enter into a contract for the purchase or sale of a approval on June 18, 1993); CME Principal Market 13 A block transaction that is proposed to be commodity for future delivery ‘‘unless such Maker Program (approved by the Commission on priced within the current market bid-ask spread is transaction is conducted on or subject to the rules April 10, 1995); NYMEX Specialist Market Maker subject to NYSE Rule 76, which governs cross of board of trade which has been designated by the Program (approved by the Commission on July 8, trades. Under this rule, when the floor broker has Commission as a contract market for such 1998). an order to buy and an order to sell in the same commodity.’’ Commission Regulation 1.38(a) 10 In the securities industry, a block trade is security, the broker must ‘‘publicly offer such provides that the open and competitive execution commonly defined as a transaction involving security at a price which is higher than his bid by requirement ‘‘shall not apply to transaction which 10,000 or more shares. Blocks may be traded on the minimum variation permitted in such security are executed noncompetitively in accordance with securities exchanges, in over-the-counter markets, before making a transaction with himself.’’ All such written rules of the contract market which have or through ‘‘principal-to-principal’’ trade execution bids and offers must be clearly announced to the been submitted to and approved by the venues. 63 FR 3708, 3717–3718 (January 26, 1998). trading crowd before the floor broker can proceed Commission, specifically providing for the 11 Under New York Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’) with the cross transaction. noncompetitive execution of such transactions.’’ As Rule 127(a), a member organization that receives an A block transaction that is proposed to be priced noted previously, the Commission exercised this order for the purchase or sale of a block of stock outside of the current market quotation is subject authority in approving NYMEX’s proposal of EFS is obligated to explore the market to determine to NYSE Rule 127. Under this rule, the floor broker transactions. whether ti can absorb the order without a Continued

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31198 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

The success of the block trading Concept Release and among industry Issued in Washington, DC on June 4, 1999. procedures described above is participants regarding the appropriate Jean A. Webb, dependent upon the particular market terms and conditions which should Secretary of the Commission. structure of the securities industry. As govern alternative execution procedures [FR Doc. 99–14713 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] noted above, the specialist plays an for large size or other types of orders, BILLING CODE 6351±01±M extremely important role in managing the Commission has decided to evaluate the entire process. Moreover, the trading such procedures on a case-by-case basis. crowd for a particular stock may be Under this approach, each contract DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE substantially smaller than the floor market would, of course, retain the population surrounding a designated discretion whether to permit alternative Department of the Army contract market. Over the years, as well execution procedures. Additionally, as in response to the Commission’s each contract market would have the Reserve Officers' Training Corps Concept Release, certain market ability to develop procedures that reflect (ROTC) Program Subcommittee participants have suggested that the the particular characteristics and needs open and competitive execution AGENCY: U.S. Army Cadet Command, requirement be relaxed to permit block of its individual markets and market DOT. trading procedures similar to those participants. For example, a contract ACTION: Notice of meeting. found in the securities industry. These market might decide to employ different SUMMARY: In accordance with section commenters assert that such procedures execution procedures for each of the 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory can be adopted by contract markets with individual contracts for which it is Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), minimal adverse effects on market designated. announcement is made of the following volume, liquidity, transparency, or The Commission will consider customer protection. However, given the committee meeting: proposals from contract markets to Name of Committee: Reserve Officers’ significant differences in market permit alternative execution procedures. Training Corps (ROTC) Program structure that exist between the The Commission encourages contract Subcommittee. securities and futures markets, it is markets to solicit the input of, and Dates of Meeting: July 12, 1999 thru questionable whether securities block coordinate with, various interested July 13, 1999. trading procedures could be easily parties in the development of such Place of Meeting: Executive Inn West, transferred to contract markets. execution procedures for large orders, 830 Phillips Lane, Louisville, Kentucky Although the supporting comment including its membership, futures 40209–1387. letters generally urged the Commission commission merchants, end-users, and Time of Meeting: 0830 to 1100 on July to allow block trading procedures, they industry associations. The Commission 12, 1999 and 0830–1430 on July 13, did not specify how these procedures also notes that the ideas discussed in 1999. should be implemented, whether the and the specific questions asked by the Proposed Agenda: Review and specialist’s role should be replicated on Concept Release provide general discussion of the status of Army ROTC the futures side, or the extent to which guidance as to the various issues that since the February 1999 meeting at the the trading crowd should be allowed to Pentagon, Washington, DC. participate in a block transaction. should be addressed by a contract market seeking Commission approval of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. III. The Commission’s Approach to particular alternative execution Roger Spadafora, U.S. Army Cadet Alternative Execution Procedures procedures. For example, a contract Command, ATCC–TE, Fort Monroe, Given the lack of consensus among market should discuss the impact of its Virginia 23651–5000; phone (757) 727– the commenters responding to the proposal on the usefulness of the 4595. contract market as a vehicle for price SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. The must: (1) Inform the specialist of his or her discovery and risk transfer, whether its Subcommittee will review the intention to cross the block orders at a specific proposal represents the least significant changes in ROTC price; (2) probe the market to determine whether more stock would be lost to orders in the trading anticompetitive means of achieving its scholarships, missioning, advertising crowd than is reasonable under the circumstances; objective,14 whether the proposed strategy, marketing, camps and on- (3) fill at least a portion of the limit orders transactions fulfill some need of market campus training, the Junior High School previously entered at the trading post from the Program and ROTC Nursing. block orders; and (4) cross the remaining block participants that traditional open outcry orders at the negotiated clean-up price. NYSE Rule cannot fulfill as well, and whether the 2. Meeting of the Advisory Committee 127 sets forth the broker’s obligation to fill the limit transaction are structured in such a way is open to the public. Due to space orders of the specialist and the trading crowd. Such as to complement the competitive limitations, attendance may be limited obligations depend, in part, on whether the broker to those persons who have notified the is handling agency orders for both sides of the block market. transaction or whether all or a part of one side of Advisory Committee Management office Based on its experience in reviewing in writing at least five days prior to the the block is for the brokerage firm’s house account. contract market proposals for alternative The Chicago Board Options Exchange (‘‘CBOE’’) meeting of their intent to attend the also has procedures which allow potential execution procedures, the Commission meeting. counterparties to negotiate the terms and conditions will determine whether any further 3. Any members of the public may file of certain complex and large size option orders Commission action is appropriate. As prior to the time such orders are brought down to a written statement with the Committee the trading floor. Under CBOE Rule 6.9, a member stated above, the Commission remains before, during or after the meeting. To or member organization representing an order for an open to further written comments on the the extent that time permits, the option traded on CBOE (‘‘original order’’), including various topics surrounding potential spread, combination, straddle, or stock-option Committee Chairman may allow public orders, may solicit a member, member organization, alternative execution procedures. presentations of oral statements at the customer, or broker-dealer to transact in person or Moreover, Commission staff stands meeting. by order (‘‘solicited order’’) with the original order. ready to discuss these issues with 4. All communications regarding the The priority of the solicited order is dependent industry representatives. upon the degree of disclosure of the original order July 1999 meeting of the ROTC Program to the trading crowd and upon whether the solicited Subcommittee should be addressed to order improves the market price. 14 See section 15 of the Act. Mr. Roger Spadafora, U.S. Army Cadet

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.170 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31199

Command, ATCC–TE, Fort Monroe, DATES: Interested persons are invited to Dated: June 4, 1999. Virginia 23651–5000, telephone number submit comments on or before July 12, William E. Burrow, (757) 727–4595. 1999. Acting Leader, Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer. Gregory D. Showalter, ADDRESSES: Written comments should Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. be addressed to the Office of Office of Educational Research and [FR Doc. 99–14776 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Information and Regulatory Affairs, Improvement BILLING CODE 3710±08±M Attention: Danny Werfel, Desk Officer, Type of Review: Reinstatement. Department of Education, Office of Title: 1999–2000 Private School Management and Budget, 725 17th DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Survey. Street, NW, Room 10235, New Frequency: On occasion. Executive Office Building, Washington, Department of the Navy Affected Public: Business or other for- DC 20503 or should be electronically profit; Not-for-profit institutions. Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive mailed to the internet address Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Patent License; ECR Technology [email protected]. Requests Burden: Limited for copies of the proposed information Responses: 45,000. collection requests should be addressed Burden Hours: 16,667. AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. to Patrick J. Sherrill, Department of Abstract: The National Center for ACTION: Notice. Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Education Statistics (NCES) collects Room 5624, Regional Office Building 3, information on private schools, both SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy Washington, DC 20202–4651, or should religious-affiliated and independent, hereby gives notice of its intent to grant be electronically mailed to the internet every two years in order to maintain a l to ECR Technology Limited, a revocable, address Pat [email protected], or should universe frame of private schools that is nonassignable, exclusive license in the be faxed to 202–708–9346. of sufficient accuracy and completeness United States, to practice the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to serve as a sampling frame for NCES Government-Owned invention Patrick J. Sherrill (202) 708–8196. surveys of private schools and to described in U.S. Patent No. 5,651,976 Individuals who use a generate biennial data on the total entitled ‘‘Controlled Release of Active telecommunications device for the deaf number of private schools, teachers, and Agents Using Inorganic Tubules’’ issued (TDD) may call the Federal Information students. Since 1980, this Elementary/ July 29, 1997. Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 Secondary data collection has formed DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, the basis for national statistical data on grant of this license must file written Monday through Friday. private schools. objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than August SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section [FR Doc. 99–14687 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] 9, 1999. 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of BILLING CODE 4000±01±P 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be that the Office of Management and filed with the Naval Research Budget (OMB) provide interested DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Federal agencies and the public an early Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20375– Waivers Granted of Certain Federal opportunity to comment on information 5320. Program Requirements collection requests. OMB may amend or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: waive the requirement for public ACTION: Notice of waivers granted by the Catherine M. Cotell, Ph.D., Head, consultation to the extent that public U.S. Secretary of Education under the Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code participation in the approval process waiver authority in the Elementary and 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW, would defeat the purpose of the Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC 20375–5320, telephone information collection, violate State or (202) 767–7230. Federal law, or substantially interfere SUMMARY: The Elementary and (Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404). with any agency’s ability to perform its Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as Dated: May 26, 1999. statutory obligations. The Acting reauthorized by the Improving Ralph W. Corey, Leader, Information Management America’s Schools Act (Pub. L. 103– 382) permits the Secretary of Education Commander, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, Group, Office of the Chief Information U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, publishes that notice containing to grant waivers of certain Federal Officer. proposed information collection program requirements in order to [FR Doc. 99–14664 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] requests prior to submission of these further effective innovation and improvements in teaching and learning BILLING CODE 3810±FF±U requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by in accordance with specific local needs. office, contains the following: (1) Type As of December 31, 1998, the U.S. Department of Education had approved DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) 355 requests for waivers. This notice, Submission for OMB Review; Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) published as provided for in section Comment Request Description of the need for, and 14401(g) of the ESEA, identifies the 115 proposed use of, the information; (5) waivers approved by the Department of AGENCY: Department of Education. Respondents and frequency of Education from January 1, 1998 through SUMMARY: The Acting Leader, collection; and (6) Reporting and/or December 31, 1998. Information Management Group, Office Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites (A) Waivers Approved Under the of the Chief Information Officer invites public comment at the address specified General Waiver Authority in Section comments on the submission for OMB above. Copies of the requests are 14401 of the ESEA: review as required by the Paperwork available from Patrick J. Sherrill at the (1) Applicant: New York State Reduction Act of 1995. address specified above. Education Department, Albany, NY.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.175 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31200 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Requirement Waived: Section ESEA. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. 14201(a) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: April 17, 1998. Date Granted: June 22, 1998. Date Granted: January 8, 1998. (12) Applicant: Utah State Office of (22) Applicant: Hawaii Department of (2) Applicant: District of Columbia Education, Salt Lake City, UT. Education on behalf of Salt Lake Public Schools, Washington D.C. Requirement Waived: Section Elementary School, Honolulu, HI. Requirement Waived: Section 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Through July 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Through 1999. Duration of Waiver: Three years. September 1998. Date Granted: April 17, 1998. Date Granted: June 22, 1998. Date Granted: February 2, 1998. (13) Applicant: Washington State (23) Applicant: Hawaii Department of (3) Applicant: Florida Department of Department of Education, Olympia, Education on behalf of Kipapa Education, Tallahassee, FL. WA. Elementary School, Honolulu, HI. Requirement Waived: Section Requirement Waived: Section Requirement Waived: Section 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Through May Duration of Waiver: Through Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1999. September 1999. Date Granted: June 22, 1998. Date Granted: February 2, 1998. Date Granted: May 2, 1998. (24) Applicant: El Centro School District (4) Applicant: Mississippi Department (14) Applicant: Bellevue School District, on behalf of Margaret Hedrick of Education, Jackson, MS. Bellevue, WA. School District, El Centro, CA. Requirement Waived: Section Requirement Waived: Section Requirement Waived: Section 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Through August Duration of Waiver: Three years. Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1998. Date Granted: May 13, 1998. Date Granted: June 22, 1998. Date Granted: February 2, 1998. (15) Applicant: Minot Public School (25) Applicant: Hawaii Department of (5) Applicant: New York State District No. 1, Minot, ND. Education on behalf of Waihe’e Education Department, Albany, NY. Requirement Waived: Section Elementary School, Honolulu, HI. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(c)(2) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Through May Date Granted: May 13, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1998. (16) Applicant: Seminole County Public Date Granted: June 24, 1998. Date Granted: February 2, 1998. Schools, Sanford, FL. (26) Applicant: Hawaii Department of (6) Applicant: West Virginia Department Requirement Waived: Section Education on behalf of Pearl City of Education, Charleston, WV. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Elementary School, Honolulu, HI. Requirement Waived: Section Duration of Waiver: Three years. Requirement Waived: Section 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Date Granted: May 13, 1998. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Through June (17) Applicant: California Department of Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1999. Education, Sacramento, CA. Date Granted: June 24, 1998. Date Granted: February 2, 1998. Requirement Waived: Section (27) Applicant: Hawaii Department of (7) Applicant: Seminole County Public 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Education on behalf of Hale Kula Schools, Sanford, FL. Duration of Waiver: Through August Elementary School, Honolulu, HI. Requirement Waived: Section 1998. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(c)(2) of the ESEA. Date Granted: June 10, 1998. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. (18) Applicant: Nebraska Department of Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: February 3, 1998. Education, Lincoln, NE. Date Granted: June 24, 1998. (8) Applicant: Tucson Unified School Requirement Waived: Section (28) Applicant: Sweetwater Union High District, Tuscon, AZ. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. School District, Chula Vista, CA. Requirement Waived: Sections Duration of Waiver: Through August Requirement Waived: Section 1113(a)(4) of the ESEA. 1998. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: June 10, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: February 9, 1998. (19) Applicant: Hawaii Department of Date Granted: June 24, 1998. (9) Applicant: Alabama Department of Education on behalf of Sunset (29) Applicant: Buncombe County Education, Montgomery, AL. Beach Elementary School, Schools, Weaverville, NC. Requirement Waived: Section Honolulu, HI. Requirement Waived: Section 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Through 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. September 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: June 30, 1998. Date Granted: April 17, 1998. Date Granted: June 22, 1998. (30) Applicant: Northeast Bradford (10) Applicant: Fleetwood Area School (20) Applicant: Hawaii Department of School District on behalf of District, Blandon, PA. Education on behalf of Kihei Northeast Bradford Elementary Requirement Waived: Section Elementary School, Honolulu, HI. School, Rome, PA. 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section Requirement Waived: Section Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Date Granted: April 17, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Duration of Waiver: Three years. (11) Applicant: Miles City Elementary Date Granted: June 22, 1998. Date Granted: June 30, 1998. School District No. 1, Miles City, (21) Applicant: Hawaii Department of (31) Applicant: Warwick School MT. Education on behalf of Makalapa District, Lititz, PA. Requirement Waived: Sections Elementary School, Honolulu, HI. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(b)(1)(A) and 1113(c)(2) of the Requirement Waived: Section 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31201

Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: July 14, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: June 30, 1998. (43) Applicant: San Bernardino City Date Granted: August 2, 1998. (32) Applicant: Belle Vernon Area Unified School District on behalf of (54) Applicant: Puerto Rico Department School District, Belle Vernon, PA. Palm Avenue Elementary School, of Education, San Juan, PR. Requirement Waived: Sections San Bernardino, CA. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(a)(2)(B) and 1113(c)(2) of the Requirement Waived: Section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA. ESEA. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Through June Duration of Waiver: Three years. Duration of Waiver: Three years. 2001. Date Granted: July 10, 1998. Date Granted: July 14, 1998. Date Granted: August 2, 1998. (33) Applicant: Decatur Township (44) Applicant: Taylor County (55) Applicant: Middletown Area School District, Indianapolis, IN. Elementary School, Campbelleville, School District, Middletown, PA. Requirement Waived: Sections KY. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(a) and 1113(c) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: July 10, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: August 4, 1998. (34) Applicant: Laurel Highlands School Date Granted: July 14, 1998. (56) Applicant: Owensboro Independent District, Uniontown, PA. (45) Applicant: South Eastern School School District, Owensboro, KY. Requirement Waived: Section District, Fawn Grove, PA. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: July 10, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: August 4, 1998. (35) Applicant: Meriwether County Date Granted: July 18, 1998. (57) Applicant: Port Angeles School School District, Greenville, GA. (46) Applicant: Clay County District District, Port Angeles, WA. Requirement Waived: Section Schools, Green Cove Springs, FL. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(c)(1) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: One year. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: July 10, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: August 4, 1998. (36) Applicant: Trinity Area School Date Granted: July 24, 1998. (58) Applicant: Keene School District, District, Washington, PA. (47) Applicant: DuBois Area School Keene, NH. Requirement Waived: Section District, DuBois, PA. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: July 10, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: August 6, 1998. (37) Applicant: Brevard County Public Date Granted: July 24, 1998. (59) Applicant: Northampton Area Schools, Viera, FL. (48) Applicant: McKeesport Area School School District, Northampton, PA. Requirement Waived: Section District, McKeesport, PA. Requirement Waived: Section 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: July 12, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: August 6, 1998. (38) Applicant: Madison Metropolitan Date Granted: July 24, 1998. (60) Applicant: White Plains Public School District, Madison,WI. (49) Applicant: Northern Lehigh School Schools, White Plains, NY. Requirement Waived: Section District, Slatington, PA. Requirement Waived: Sections 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(a)(2)(B) and 1113(c)(2) of the Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. ESEA. Date Granted: July 12, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Duration of Waiver: Three years. (39) Applicant: Oak Harbor School Date Granted: July 24, 1998. Date Granted: August 6, 1998. District, Oak Harbor, WA. (50) Applicant: Amherst County (61) Applicant: Conestoga Valley School Requirement Waived: Sections Schools, Amherst, VA. District, Lancaster, PA. 1113(a)(2)(B) and 1113(c)(2) of the Requirement Waived: Sections Requirement Waived: Sections ESEA. 1113(c)(1) and 1113(c)(2) of the 1113(a)(2)(B) and 1113 (c)(2) of the Duration of Waiver: Three years. ESEA. ESEA. Date Granted: July 12, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Duration of Waiver: Three years. (40) Applicant: West Chester Area Date Granted: August 2, 1998. Date Granted: August 8, 1998. School District, Chester, PA. (51) Applicant: Clay County District (62) Applicant: Hempfield School Requirement Waived: Section Schools, Green Cove Springs, FL. District, Landisville, PA. 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section Requirement Waived: Section Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Date Granted: July 12, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Duration of Waiver: Three years. (41) Applicant: Carteret County Schools, Date Granted: August 2, 1998. Date Granted: August 8, 1998. Beaufort, NC. (52) Applicant: Huntingdon Area School (63) Applicant: Highlands School Requirement Waived: Section District, Huntingdon, PA. District, Natrona Heights, PA. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section Requirement Waived: Section Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Date Granted: July 14, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Duration of Waiver: Three years. (42) Applicant: Okaloosa County School Date Granted: August 2, 1998. Date Granted: August 8, 1998. District, Fort Walton Beach, FL. (53) Applicant: Maine School Union (64) Applicant: Juniata County School Requirement Waived: Section 122, Caribou, ME. District, Miffintown, PA. 1113(a)(4) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section Requirement Waived: Sections Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. 1113(a)(2)(B) and 1113(c)(1) of the

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.134 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31202 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section (85) Applicant: North Dakota Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Department of Public Instruction, Date Granted: August 8, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Through June Bismarck, ND. (65) Applicant: Kentucky Department of 1999. Requirement Waived: Section Education on behalf of Pikeville Date Granted: August 26, 1998. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Elementary School, Frankfort, KY. (76) Applicant: Arkansas Department of Duration of Waiver: Through May Requirement Waived: Section Education, Little Rock, AR. 1999. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section Date Granted: August 26, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. (86) Applicant: Tennessee Department Date Granted: August 8, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Through of Education, Nashville, TN. (66) Applicant: Franklin Area School September 1999. Requirement Waived: Section District, Harrisburg, PA. Date Granted: August 26, 1998. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section (77) Applicant: Delaware Department of Duration of Waiver: Through May 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Education, Dover, DE. 1999. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Requirement Waived: Section Date Granted: August 26, 1998. Date Granted: August 10, 1998. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. (87) Applicant: Virginia Department of (67) Applicant: Minnesota Department Duration of Waiver: Through October Education, Richmond, VA. of Education, Saint Paul, MN. 1999. Requirement Waived: Section Requirement Waived: Sections 7302 Date Granted: August 26, 1998. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. and 7134(c) of the ESEA. (78) Applicant: Hawaii Department of Duration of Waiver: Through May Duration of Waiver: Three years. Education, Honolulu, HI. 1999. Date Granted: August 10, 1998. Requirement Waived: Section Date Granted: August 26, 1998. (68) Applicant: Cumberland County 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. (88) Applicant: Eau Claire Area School Schools, Fayetteville, NC. Duration of Waiver: Through May District, Eau Claire, WI. Requirement Waived: Section 1999. Requirement Waived: Section 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Date Granted: August 26, 1998. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. (79) Applicant: Iowa Department of Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: August 12, 1998. Education, Des Moines, IA. Date Granted: August 28, 1998. (69) Applicant: Henderson County Requirement Waived: Section (89) Applicant: Kansas State Department Public Schools, Hendersonville, 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. of Education, Topeka, KS. Requirement Waived: Section 1003(a) NC. Duration of Waiver: Through May of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section 1999. Duration of Waiver: One year. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Date Granted: August 26, 1998. Date Granted: August 31, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. (80) Applicant: Louisiana Department of (90) Applicant: Maine Department of Date Granted: August 12, 1998. Education, Baton Rouge, LA. Education, Augusta, ME. (70) Applicant: Edgecombe County Requirement Waived: 1111(b)(6) of Requirement Waived: Comprehensive Schools, Tarboro, NC. the ESEA. School Reform Demonstration Requirement Waived: Section Duration of Waiver: Through May Program—eligible grade spans. 1113(c)(1) of the ESEA. 1999. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: August 26, 1998. Date Granted: August 31, 1998. Date Granted: August 16, 1998. (81) Applicant: Massachusetts (91) Applicant: Virginia Department of (71) Applicant: Millcreek School Department of Education, Malden, Education, Richmond, VA. District, Edinboro, PA. MA. Requirement Waived: Comprehensive Requirement Waived: Section Requirement Waived: Section School Reform Demonstration 1113(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Program—eligible grade spans. Duration of Waiver: One year. Duration of Waiver: Through May Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: August 16, 1998. 1999. Date Granted: September 1, 1998. (72) Applicant: Mount Pleasant Area Date Granted: August 26, 1998. (92) Applicant: Alaska Department of School District, Mount Pleasant, (82) Applicant: Minnesota Department Education, Juneau, AK. PA. of Education, Saint Paul, MN. Requirement Waived: Section Requirement Waived: Section Requirement Waived: Section 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Through May Duration of Waiver: Three years. Duration of Waiver: Through May 1999. Date Granted: August 16, 1998. 1999. Date Granted: September 23, 1998. (73) Applicant: Scranton School Date Granted: August 26, 1998. (93) Applicant: Carlynton School District, Scranton, PA. (83) Applicant: Montana Office of District, Carnegie, PA. Requirement Waived: Section Public Instruction, Helena, MT. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Date Granted: August 16, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Through May Date Granted: September 23, 1998. (74) Applicant: Los Angeles Unified 1999. (94) Applicant: Georgia Department of School District, Los Angeles, CA. Date Granted: August 26, 1998. Education, Atlanta, GA. Requirement Waived: Section 421(b) (84) Applicant: New York State Requirement Waived: Section of the General Education Provisions Education Department, Albany, NY. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Act. Requirement Waived: Section Duration of Waiver: Through May Duration of Waiver: One year. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. 1999. Date Granted: August 22, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Through May Date Granted: September 23, 1998. (75) Applicant: Arizona Department of 1999. (95) Applicant: Florida Department of Education, Phoenix, AZ. Date Granted: August 26, 1998. Education, Tallahassee, FL.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.137 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31203

Requirement Waived: Section 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Date Granted: July 9, 1998. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Through June APPLYING FOR A WAIVER: Requests Duration of Waiver: Through May 1999. 1999. Date Granted: November 2, 1998. for waivers that would be implemented Date Granted: September 24, 1998. (106) Applicant: Utah State Office of and affect school-level activities (96) Applicant: Kutztown Area School Education, Salt Lake City, UT. beginning with the semester District, Kutztown, PA. Requirement Waived: Section immediately following January 1, 2000 Requirement Waived: Section 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. must be submitted to the Department in 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Through July substantially approvable form no later Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1999. than October 1, 1999. Request for Date Granted: October 1, 1998. Date Granted: November 5, 1998. waivers that would be implemented and (97) Applicant: Southern York County (107) Applicant: New Jersey Department affect school-level activities beginning School District, Glen Rock, PA. of Education, Trenton, NJ. with the 2000–2001 school year must be Requirement Waived: Sections Requirement Waived: Section submitted to the Department of 1113(a)(2)(B) and 1113(c)(1) of the 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Education in substantially approvable ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Through form no later than April 1, 2000. Duration of Waiver: Three years. December 1999. Date Granted: October 1, 1998. Date Granted: November 10, 1998. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (98) Applicant: Valley Grove School (108) Applicant: Mississippi Carla Kirksey at the Department’s District, Franklin, PA. Department of Education, Jackson, Waiver Assistance Line, (202) 401–7801. Requirement Waived: Section MI. The Department’s Waiver Guidance, 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Requirement Waived: Section which provides examples of waivers, Duration of Waiver: Three years. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. explains the waiver authorities in detail, Date Granted: October 1, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Through and describes how to apply for a waiver, (99) Applicant: District of Columbia December 1999. is also available at this number. The Public Schools, Washington D.C. Date Granted: November 12, 1998. Guidance and other information on Requirement Waived: Section (109) Applicant: School District of Fort flexibility are available at the 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. Atkinson, Fort Atkinson, WI. Department’s World Wide Web site at Duration of Waiver: Through May Requirement Waived: Section http://www.ed.gov/flexibility. 1999. 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Date Granted: November 2, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. Individuals who use a (100) Applicant: Kentucky Department Date Granted: December 1, 1998. telecommunications device for the deaf of Education, Frankfort, KY. (110) Applicant: Crawford School (TDD) may call the Federal Information Requirement Waived: Section District, Meadville, PA. Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– 1116(c)(1)(C) and 1116(d)(3)(A)(ii) Requirement Waived: Section 1113 8339. of the ESEA. (a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Individuals with disabilities may Duration of Waiver: Two years. Duration of Waiver: Three years. obtain this document in an alternate Date Granted: November 2, 1998. Date Granted: December 9, 1998. format (e.g., Braille, large print, (101) Applicant: Nevada Department of (111) Applicant: Laurel Public Schools, audiotape, or computer diskette) on Education, Carson City, NV. Laurel, MT. request to the contact person listed in Requirement Waived: Section Requirement Waived: Section the preceding paragraph. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. Duration of Waiver: Through May Duration of Waiver: Three years. Electronic Access to This Document 1999. Date Granted: December 9, 1998. Date Granted: November 2, 1998. (112) Applicant: School District of Anyone may view this document, as (102) Applicant: School District of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. well as all other Department of Eduction Haverford Township, Havertown, Requirement Waived: Section 5108 documents published in the Federal PA. and 7307 of the ESEA. Register, in text or portable document Requirement Waived: Section Duration of Waiver: Three years. format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Date Granted: December 9, 1998. either of the following sites: Duration of Waiver: Three years. (113) Applicant: Orange County Public Date Granted: November 2, 1998. Schools, Orange, VA. http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.hmt (103) Applicant: Upper Dublin School Requirement Waived: Sections http://www.ed.gov/news.html District, Dresher, PA. 1114(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA. To use the pdf you must have the Adobe Requirement Waived: Section Duration of Waiver: Three years. Acrobat Reader Program with Search, 1113(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA. Date Granted: December 14, 1998. Duration of Waiver: Three years. (114) Applicant: Owens Valley Career which is available free at either of the Date Granted: November 2, 1998. Development Center, Bishop, CA. previous sites. If you have questions (104) Applicant: Idaho Department of Requirement Waived: 34 CFR 75.533. about using the pdf, call the U.S. Education, Boise, ID. Duration of Waiver: One year. Government Printing Office toll free at Requirement Waived: Section Date Granted: December 14, 1998. 1–888–293–6498. 1111(b)(6) of the ESEA. (B) Waivers Approved Under the Dated: June 3, 1999. Waiver Authority in Section 1113(a)(7) Duration of Waiver: Through Judith Johnson, December 1999. of the ESEA: Date Granted: November 2, 1998. (1) Applicant: San Diego City Schools, Acting Assistant Secretary, Elementary and (105) Applicant: West Virginia San Diego, CA. Secondary Education. Department of Education, Requirement Waived: Sections [FR Doc. 99–14661 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Charleston, WV. 1113(a) and (c) of the ESEA. BILLING CODE 4000±01±U Requirement Waived: Section Duration of Waiver: Three years.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.141 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31204 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 1. June 29, 1999, 1 to 3 P.M., Desert before electric transmission facilities Hills Social Center, 2980 S. Camino del may be constructed, connected, [FE Docket No. PP±197, DOE/EIS±0307] Sol, Green Valley, Arizona. operated, or maintained at the U.S. 2. June 29, 1999, 6 to 8 P.M., St. Ann’s international border. The Executive Notice of Reopening Scoping Period Hall, 18 Baca, Tubac, Arizona. Order provides that a Presidential and Schedule for Public Scoping 3. June 30, 1999, 10 to 12 P.M., permit may be issued after a finding that Meetings; Public Service Company of Meeting Room, Buenos Aries National the proposed project is consistent with New Mexico Wildlife Refuge, Sasabe, Arizona. the public interest. In determining (Directions: From Tucson, take I–19 S to consistency with the public interest, AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE). Ajo Way/Highway 86, go W on Ajo Way DOE considers the impacts of the ACTION: Notice. 20 miles to Three Points/Robles project on the reliability of the U.S. Junction. Proceed S on Route 286 electric power system and on the SUMMARY: DOE announces that it is approximately 37 miles. Follow signs to environment. The regulations reopening the scoping period and will headquarters 3 miles E.) implementing the Executive Order have hold additional public scoping meetings 4. June 30, 1999, 3 to 5 P.M., Mary E. been codified at 10 CFR 205.320– for the environmental impact statement Dill Primary School, Multi Purpose 205.329. Issuance of the permit (DOE/EIS–0307) that is being prepared Room 10451 South Sasabe, Three Points indicates that there is no Federal in connection with an application for a (Robles Junction), Arizona. objection to the project, but does not Presidential permit filed by Public 5. June 30, 1999, 7 to 9 P.M., Plaza Service Company of New Mexico Hotel and Conference Center (Wildcat I mandate that the project be completed. (PNM). An EIS is being prepared and II), 1900 E. Speedway Boulevard, On December 28, 1998, PNM, a because DOE has determined that the Tucson, Arizona. regulated public utility, filed an issuance of the Presidential permit Requests to speak at a public scoping application for a Presidential permit would constitute a major Federal action meeting(s) should be received by Mrs. with the Office of Fossil Energy of DOE. that may have a significant impact upon Russell, the NEPA Document Manager, PNM proposes to construct two the environment within the meaning of at the address indicated below on or transmission lines on a single right-of- the National Environmental Policy Act before June 25, 1999. Requests to speak way extending approximately 140 to of 1969 (NEPA). PNM has applied for a may also be made at the time of 230 miles from the electric switchyard Presidential permit to construct electric registration for the scoping meeting(s). near the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating transmission lines across the U.S.- However, persons who submitted Station (PVNGS), located approximately Mexican border. The previous public advance requests to speak will be given 30 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona, to scoping period extended from February priority if time should be limited during the U.S.-Mexico border in the vicinity of 12, 1999, to April 14, 1999, during the meeting. Nogales or Sasabe, Arizona. South of the which time DOE conducted seven ADDRESSES: Written comments or border, PNM would extend the lines public meetings to obtain comments on suggestions on the scope of the EIS and approximately 60 to 120 miles to the the three alternative transmission requests to speak at the scoping Santa Ana Substation, located in the corridors that were proposed in PNM’s meeting(s) should be addressed to: Mrs. City of Santa Ana, Sonora, Mexico, and Presidential permit application. The Ellen Russell, NEPA Document owned by the Comision Federal de purpose of this notice is to open a new Manager, Office of Fossil Energy (FE– Electricidad (CFE), the national electric scoping period to obtain additional 27), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 utility of Mexico. In its application for comments, particularly on three Independence Avenue, S.W., a Presidential permit, PNM identified additional alternative transmission Washington DC 20585–0350; phone three alternative corridors for corridors that have been identified 202–586–9624, facsimile: 202–287– construction of the cross-border subsequent to the original scoping 5736, or electronic mail at period. transmission lines. These corridors, [email protected]. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 below, were the DATES: DOE invites interested agencies, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For subject of public meetings conducted in organizations, and members of the information on the proposed project or Nogales, Tucson, Patagonia, Sells, Ajo, public to submit comments or to receive a copy of the Draft EIS when Gila Bend, and Casa Grande, Arizona, in suggestions to assist in identifying it is issued, contact Mrs. Russell at the March 1999. significant environmental issues and in address listed in the ADDRESSES section During these meetings, residents and determining the appropriate scope of of this notice. the EIS. The second scoping period For general information on the DOE interested groups provided comments starts with the publication of this notice NEPA review process, contact: Carol M. that have led to the identification of in the Federal Register and will Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA three additional alternative corridors continue until July 14, 1999. Written Policy and Assistance (EH–42), U.S. (Alternatives 4, 5, and 6) that will be and oral comments will be given equal Department of Energy 1000 studied in the EIS. The purpose of this weight, and DOE will consider all Independence Avenue, SW, notice is to reopen the scoping period comments received or postmarked by Washington, DC 20585–0119; Phone: for the EIS and to announce additional July 14, 1999, in defining the scope of 202–586–4600 or leave a message at public scoping meetings to collect the EIS. Comments received or 800–472–2756; Facsimile: 202–586– additional comments, particularly on postmarked after that date will be 7031. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6. To assist the considered to the extent possible. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: first time reader, a description of each Additional information on the scoping of the corridors follows. Oral and process is available in the scoping Background and Need for Agency written comments previously submitted notice published in the Federal Register Action on Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 have been on February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7173). Executive Order 10485, as amended entered in the official record of this Dates, times, and locations for the by Executive Order 12038, requires that proceeding and need not be public scoping meetings are: a Presidential permit be issued by DOE resubmitted.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 19:13 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31205

Alternative 1 Alternative 5 ACTION: Issuance of financial assistance solicitation. This alternative corridor begins at the This alternative corridor extends electrical switchyard near the Palo southeasterly from the electrical SUMMARY: The U. S. Department of Verde Nuclear Generating Station switchyard near the PVNGS to I–10, Energy’s (DOE) National Petroleum (PVNGS), continues south, following approximately three miles north of Red Technology Office (NPTO) through the existing transmission lines, past Gila Rock. The corridor continues in a Federal Energy Technology Center Bend and across the Barry M. Goldwater southeasterly direction, following I–10 (FETC) announces that it intends to Air Force Range to Ajo where it turns and existing transmission lines, through issue a competitive Program Solicitation southeast to the vicinity of Why and Tucson. Near the intersection of I–10 (PS), No. DE-PS26–99BC15184 for the continues across the western boundary and Business Route 19, the corridor program entitled ‘‘Applications of turns south, paralleling Business Route of the Tohono O’odham Nation and then Petroleum Technologies on Non-allotted 19 and I-19, passing Sahuarita and southeast to the international border Native American Lands’’. Through this Green Valley. The corridor remains well (145 miles in the U.S., 264 miles total). solicitation, NPTO seeks to support east of I–19, gradually approaching I–19 applications conducting applied Alternative 2 near Amado and Tubac, and continuing research for development, exploration south crossing the border in Nogales and environmental solutions for This alternative corridor proceeds (216 miles in the U.S., 283 miles total). south and east from the electrical problems on Native American and switchyard near the PVNGS to the Alternative 6 Alaskan Native Corporation lands vicinity of Mobile where it turns south This alternative corridor is the same whose mineral rights are held in crossing the middle to eastern area of as Alternate 4 from the electrical common for the benefit of the tribe. the Tohono O’odham Nation and then switchyard near the PVNGS to an area Applications will be subjected to a proceeds southeast to the international north of three Points (Robles Junction.). comparative merit review by a DOE border in the vicinity of San Miguel From Three Points, this alternative technical panel, and awards will be (158 miles in the U.S., 240 miles total). corridor would turn southeast, made to a limited number of applicants following an existing powerline corridor on the basis of the scientific merit, Alternative 3 across the southwestern corner of the application of relevant program policy This alternative corridor extends San Xavier District of the Tohono factors, and the availability of funds. southeasterly from the electrical O’odham Nation and then east, across DATES: The solicitation is expected to be switchyard near the PVNGS to Interstate an area south of ASARCO’s Mission ready for release by June 17, 1999 and 10, approximately three miles north of Complex Mine Area. This alternative will have two (2) separate closing dates Red Rock. From this point, the corridor corridor continues east, following an for submission of applications. The first continues in a southeasterly direction, existing transmission corridor, across I– closing date will be on or about August following I–10 and existing 19 and Business Route 19 to a point east 17, 1999 and the second closing date on transmission lines, through Tucson, to of Sahuarita. This corridor then turns or about October 19, 1999. It should be Arizona Highway 83. East of Highway south following the same route as noted that applications will only be 83 the corridor turns south, following a Alternative 4, crossing the border in considered for the closing date for designated utility corridor (that does not Nogales (229 miles in the U.S., 296 which they are submitted. Applications contain transmission lines) to Sonoita, miles total). must be prepared and submitted in then southwest to Patagonia, crossing Battelle Memorial Institute is assisting accordance with the instructions and the border in the vicinity of Nogales DOE in preparation of the EIS. Battelle forms in the Program Solicitation and (234 miles in the U.S., 301 miles total). is also maintaining an EIS web site for prior to submitting applications, check DOE at: www.battelle.org/projects/ for any changes (i.e. closing date of Alternative 4 pnmeis. From this site, the PNM solicitation) and/or amendments, if any Presidential permit application can be This alternative corridor extends through the Internet at FETC’s Home downloaded, as well as the project fact southeasterly from the electrical Page . March 1999 public scoping meetings, approximately three miles north of Red FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. and other project-related information. Rock. From this point, the line Larry D. Gillham, U.S. Department of continues in a southeasterly direction, Issued in Washington, DC, on June 4, 1999. Energy, Federal Energy Technology following I–10 and existing Anthony J. Como, Center, Acquisition and Assistance transmission lines to Marana. At Manager, Electric Power Regulation, Office Division, P.O. Box 3628, Tulsa, OK Marana, this alternative corridor turns of Coal and Power Im/Ex, Office of Coal and 74101–3628; (Telephone: (918) 699– south, following an existing powerline Power Systems, Office of Fossil Energy. 2034, FAX: (918) 699–2038, E-mail: corridor west of the Saguaro National [FR Doc. 99–14658 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] [email protected]). Park, across the eastern edge of the BILLING CODE 6450±01±P ADDRESSES: The solicitation will be Tohono O’odham Nation Schuk Toak available through the Internet at FETC’s District (known as the Garcia Strip) to Home Page . TELEPHONE REQUESTS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR ANY (Robles Junction). From Three Points, Notice of Availability of Solicitation for this alternative corridor heads FORMAT VERSION OF THE Applications of Petroleum SOLICITATION. southwest toward the Baboquivari Technologies on Non-Allotted Native SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mountains on new right-of-way. This American Lands Through alternative corridor remains west of the Program Solicitation No. DE-PS26– Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge AGENCY: National Petroleum Technology 99BC15184, the Department of Energy and east of the Baboquivari Mountains, Office through the Federal Energy seeks applications for innovative crossing into Mexico near Sasabe (209 Technology Center, Pittsburgh, technical approaches to apply research miles in the U.S., 288 miles total). Department of Energy. for development, exploration and

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.177 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31206 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices environmental solutions for problems appropriations. DOE anticipates Public Comments on non-allotted Native American lands. multiple awards (i.e., between three (3) 3:00 p.m. In cooperation with the Tribal and six (6)) with a project duration of 3 FESAC Business management, proposed efforts must be years or less. A minimum 20% non- 5:00 p.m. economically and environmentally federal cost-share is required for all Adjourn viable. This solicitation will have three applications. Collaboration between Public Participation: The meeting is categories of grant awards and they are industry, university, and DOE National open to the public. If you would like to described below: Laboratories is strongly encouraged. file a written statement with the The Development program is directed Issued in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on June Committee, you may do so either before toward technologies to improve the 2, 1999. or after the meeting. If you would like development of a known oil field on Dale A. Siciliano, to make oral statements regarding any of Native American and Alaskan Native the items on the agenda, you should Corporation lands. Contracting Officer, Acquisition and Assistance Division. contact Albert L. Opdenaker at 301– The Exploration program is directed 903–8584 (fax) or toward technologies to promote the [FR Doc. 99–14778 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450±01±P [email protected] exploration of undiscovered oil reserves (email). You must make your request for on Native American and Alaskan Native an oral statement at least 5 business Corporation lands. days before the meeting. Reasonable The Environmental program is DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY directed toward technologies to reduce provision will be made to include the Office of Science; Fusion Energy the cost of effective environmental oil scheduled oral statements on the Sciences Advisory Committee field compliance. agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to Eligibility: Eligibility for participation AGENCY: Department of Energy. facilitate the orderly conduct of in this Program Solicitation is ACTION: Notice of open meeting. considered to be full and open and all business. Public comment will follow interested parties may apply. However, SUMMARY: This notice announces a the 10-minute rule. to be considered for evaluation, each meeting of the Fusion Energy Sciences Minutes: The minutes of this meeting applicant must provide written proof Advisory Committee. The Federal will be available for public review and that the applicant has both access to and Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– copying within 30 days at the Freedom the permission of the tribe to perform on 463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public of Information Public Reading Room; non-allotted Native American or notice of these meetings be announced 1E–190; Forrestal Building; 1000 Alaskan Native Corporation lands. The in the Federal Register. Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 tribe must also agree that data and DATES: Thursday, June 24, 1999, 8:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except information generated during the a.m. to 5 p.m. performance of the project will be Federal holidays. ADDRESSES: Massachusetts Institute of transferred to the public. The Technology; Plasma Science and Fusion Issued at Washington, DC, on June 3, 1999. solicitation will contain a complete Center (Room NW17–213); 77 James N. Solit, description of the technical evaluation Massachusetts Avenue; Cambridge, MA Advisory Committee Management Officer. factors and relative importance of each 02139. [FR Doc. 99–14660 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] factor. While national laboratories may BILLING CODE 6450±01±P not participate as a prime they may FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate as a sub-contractor. Albert L. Opdenaker, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences; U.S. Department of Areas of Interest: A variety of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY approaches is sought: (1) For the Energy; 19901 Germantown Road; Development program, the types of Germantown, MD 20874–1290; Office of Fossil Energy technologies to be considered are not Telephone: 301–903–4927. limited to but may include reservoir SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of [Docket No. 98±33±NG; et al.] characterization, completion or the Meeting: The Committee will hear Avista Corporation (Formerly the stimulation, secondary or tertiary oil presentations on fusion research at the Washington Power Company); et al.; recovery, artificial lift, well workovers, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Orders Granting, Amending, and well drilling, field studies and and tour the facilities there. Vacating Authorizations To Import and production management; (2) for the Tentative Agenda Export Natural Gas, Including Exploration program, the types of Liquefied Natural Gas technologies to be considered are not Thursday, June 24, 1999 limited to but may include non-invasive 8:45 a.m. AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE. exploration techniques, computer-based MIT/Plasma Science Fusion Center ACTION: Notice of orders. modeling for exploration and well Overview drilling and evaluation; and (3) for the 9:15 a.m. SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy Environmental program, the types of C-Mod Program (FE) of the Department of Energy gives technologies to be considered are not Lower Hybrid Current Drive Upgrades notice that it has issued Orders granting, limited to but may include soil 9:45 a.m. amending, and vacating natural gas, remediation and remediation due to Levitated Dipole Experiment including liquefied natural gas, import past operational practices or problems, 11:00 and export authorizations. These Orders air emissions, innovative waste and Technology Programs are summarized in the attached produced water management. 11:50 a.m. appendix. Awards: DOE currently has available Spin-Offs from Fusion These Orders may be found on the FE $2.0 million for this solicitation. Out- 1:30 p.m. web site at http://www.fe.doe.gov., or year funding shall depend upon Tour of Laboratories on the electronic bulletin board at (202) availability of future year 2:30 p.m. 586–7853.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.178 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31207

They are also available for inspection SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586– Issued in Washington, D.C., on June 2, and copying in the Office of Natural Gas 9478. The Docket Room is open between 1999. & Petroleum Import & Export Activities, the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., John W. Glynn, Docket Room 3E–033, Forrestal Monday through Friday, except Federal Manager, Natural Gas Regulation, Office of Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, holidays. Natural Gas and Petroleum Import and Export Activities, Office of Fossil Energy.

APPENDIX.ÐORDERS GRANTING, AMENDING AND VACATING IMPORT/EXPORT AUTHORIZATIONS [DOE/FE Authority]

Export Order No. Date issued Importer/exporter FE Docket No. Import volume volume Comments

1381±A ...... 05±11±99 Avista Corporation (Formerly The ...... Name change. Washington Power Company) 98± 33±NG. 1480 ...... 05±19±99 Cascade Natural Gas Corporation 99± 100 Bcf ...... Import from Canada beginning July 1, 29±NG. 1999, and extending through June 30, 2001. 754±A ...... 05±19±99 Kamine/Besicorp Natural Dam L.P...... Vacate long-term import authority. 92±04±NG. 1481 ...... 05±19±99 Pawtucket Power Associates Limited 10.584 Bcf ...... Import from Canada beginning on May Partnership 99±31±NG. 31, 1999, and extending through May 30, 2001. 1482 ...... 05±19±99 Dartmouth Power Associates Limited 11.68 Bcf ...... Import from Canada beginning on May Partnership 99±32±NG. 7, 1999, and extending through May 6, 2001. 1483 ...... 05±20±99 AEC Marketing (USA) Inc. 99±30±NG 200 Bcf ...... Import from Canada beginning on June 30, 1999, and extending through June 29, 2001. 745±A ...... 05±20±99 Kamine/Besicorp Syracuse L.P. 92± ...... Vacate long-term import authority. 90±NG. 377±A ...... 05±20±99 Kamine/Besicorp Syracuse L.P. 89± ...... Vacate long-term import authority. 47±NG. 389±B ...... 05±20±99 Kamine/Besicorp Syracuse L.P. 89± ...... Vacate long-term import authority. 48±NG. 1485 ...... 05±24±99 Enron International Gas Sales Com- 600 Bcf ...... Import of liquefied natural gas from pany 99±33±LNG. various sources beginning on the date of first import over a two-year term.

[FR Doc. 99–14659 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Gasification Company (Dakota). ANR be considered by the Commission in BILLING CODE 6450±01±P proposes a reservation surcharge determining the appropriate action to be applicable to its Part 284 firm taken, but will not serve to make transportation customers to collect Protestants parties to the proceedings. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ninety percent (90%) of the Dakota Any person wishing to become a party costs, and an adjustment to the must file a motion to intervene. Copies Federal Energy Regulatory maximum base tariff of Rate Schedule Commission of this filing are on file with the ITS and overrun rates applicable to Rate Commission and are available for public [Docket No. RP99±319±000] Schedule FTS–2, so as to recover the inspection in the Public Reference remaining ten percent (10%). ANR Room. this filing may be viewed on the ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of advises that this filing also includes the web at http://www.ferc.us/online/ Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff annual restatement of the ‘‘Eligible rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for MDQ’’ used to design the reservation assistance). June 4, 1999. surcharge. ANR also advises that the Take notice that on May 28, 1999, proposed changes would decrease Linwood A. Watson, Jr., ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) tendered current quarterly Above-Market Dakota Acting Secretary. for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Cost recoveries from $2.5 million to $2.4 [FR Doc. 99–14672 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Second Revised Volume No. 1, the million. BILLING CODE 6717±01±M following tariff sheets with an effective Any person desiring to be heard or to date of June 1, 1999: protest said filing should file a motion Thirty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 8 to intervene or a protest with the Thirty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 9 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Thirty-Sixth Revised Sheet No. 13 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Forty-Fourth Revised Sheet No. 18 20426, in accordance with sections ANR states that the above-referenced 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s tariff sheets are being filed to implement Rules and Regulations. All such motions recovery of approximately $2.4 million or protests must be filed in accordance of above-market costs that are associated with section 154.210 of the with its obligations to Dakota Commission’s Regulations. Protests will

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.005 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31208 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY It is indicated that the KBP extends from an interconnection with Northwest in Federal Energy Regulatory Federal Energy Regulatory Kelso, Washington, to a delivery point Commission Commission at PGE’s Beaver Generating Station in [Docket No. CP99±538±000] Columbia County, Oregon and to an [Docket No. RP99±320±000] interconnection with KB’s local B±R Pipeline Company Portland distribution affiliate and only customer, ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of General Company; Notice of Northwest Natural Gas Company Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff Application (Northwest Natural). Applicants further state that neither PGE nor KB was June 4, 1999. June 4, 1999. required to offer open access Take notice that on May 28, 1999, B– transportation for third parties or to file Take notice that on May 28, 1999, R Pipeline Company (B–R), P.O. Box ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) tendered open access tariffs. 806278, 125 South Franklin Street, Applicants request authority for PGE for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Chicago, Illinois 60680–4124, and to abandon by sale to B–R its right, title, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the Portland General Electric Company and interest in and to a 10.5 per cent following tariff sheets proposed to be (PGE), One World Trade Center, Suite tenancy-in-common of the KBP, and effective June 1, 1999: 1300, Portland, Oregon 97204 (jointly Applicants request corresponding Forty-Fifth Revised Sheet No. 18 referred to as Applicants), filed in certificate authority for B–R to acquire Docket No. CP99–538–000 an this 10.5 per cent interest as tenant-in- ANR states that the above-referenced application pursuant to Sections 7(b) common so the B–R may transport and tariff sheet is being filed by ANR to and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, deliver natural gas belonging to Gypsum reflect the impact of the annual update requesting the following authorizations: for use at a new Gypsum wallboard of the Eligible MDQ that is used to (1) permission and approval to abandon plant in Rainier, Oregon. Applicants calculate its currently effective Gas by sale to B–R a 10. per cent tenancy- assert that as part of that sale, PGE will Realignment (GSR) Reservation in-common share (12 per cent of PGE’s assign to Gypsum and B–R, with respect Surcharges, as required by and interest) of a pipeline known as the to such 10.5 per cent interest, all consistent with ANR’s transition cost ‘‘Kelso-Beaver Pipeline’’ (KBP); (2) transportation and other rights, and recovery mechanism set forth in its certificate authority for B–R to acquire, Gypsum and B–R will assume all own, and operate this 10.5 percent tariff. ANR advises that the Eligible obligations that accompany such an tenancy-in-common interest in the KBP; MDQ has increased by approximately ownership share under the original joint (3) certificate authority for B–R to eleven percent (11%), thereby reducing ownership agreement. Applicants construct, own, and operate, at B–R’s further assert that B–R’s ownership of the level of the GSR surcharges. expense, a delivery point for interstate 10.5 per cent tenancy-in-common will Any person desiring to be heard or to transportation service consisting of a not alter the total capacity or the protest said filing should file a motion tap, meter, appurtenant facilities maximum allowable operating pressure to intervene or a protest with the (collectively the Delivery Point) located that applies currently to the KBP. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, near the terminus of the KBP in In addition to the proposed purchase 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. Columbia County, Oregon, which will and ownership of the 10.5 per cent 20426, in accordance with Sections connect with a non-jurisdictional interest in the KBP, B–R seeks certificate 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s pipeline to be built and owned by authority to construct, own, and operate Rules and Regulations. All such motions United States Gypsum Company for the purpose of transporting natural or protests must be filed in accordance (Gypsum) as an extension of Gypsum’s gas to Gypsum a Delivery Point, which with Section 154.210 of the new wallboard manufacturing plant in will be located near the terminus of the Commission’s Regulations. Protests will Rainier, Oregon; (4) certificate authority existing KBP within existing rights-of- for B–R to transport natural gas on be considered by the Commission in way. Applicants assert that B–R would behalf of Gypsum from the existing build no other facilities; rather, determining the appropriate action to be KBP’s interconnect with Northwest Gypsum, an affiliate of B–R, plans to taken, but will not serve to make Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) in extend an eight-inch pipeline from its protestants parties to the proceedings. Kelso, Washington, to the interconnect new plant in Rainier, Oregon to the Any person wishing to become a party with Gypsum’s facilities extending from Delivery Point. Applicants further assert must file a motion to intervene. Copies Gypsum’s new plant; and (5) waiver of that Gypsum’s pipeline will be built and of this filing are on file with the the Commission’s requirements to file operated as an extension of Gypsum’s Commission and are available for public annual reports, rates, tariffs, and new plant and will not be subject to the inspection in the Public Reference contracts involving service by B–R for Commission’s jurisdiction under either Room. This filing may be viewed on the Gypsum, all as more fully set forth in the NGA or NGPA. Applicants indicate web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ the application which is on file with the that apart from the $2.5 million to be rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for Commission and open to public paid to PGE to purchase a share of the assistance). inspection. this filing may be viewed on KBP, the cost of B–R’s new Delivery Linwood A. Watson, Jr., the web at: http:///www.ferc.fed.us/ Point is estimated to be $65,000. Any person desiring to be heard or to Acting Secretary. online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for assistance). make any protest with reference to said [FR Doc. 99–14673 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Applicants state that on October 24, application should on or before June 25, BILLING CODE 6717±01±M 1991, the Commission issued a 1999, file with the Federal Energy certificate authorizing PGE and KB Regulatory Commission, 888 First Pipeline Company (KB) to construct and Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, a operate 17 miles of twenty-inch petition to intervene or a protest in diameter pipeline with a capacity of 193 accordance with the requirements of the MMcf/day (the KBP) and other facilities. Commission’s Rules of Practice and

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.095 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31209

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 and September 30, 1999 Stipulation and CIG states that copies of this filing 385.211) and the regulations under the Agreement in Docket Nos. RP97–406– have been served on CIG’s jurisdictional Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All 000, et al., determined the currently- customers and public bodies. protests filed with the Commission will effective level of this surcharge (as Any person desiring to be heard or to be considered by it in determining the detailed in Appendix C of the protest said filing should file a motion appropriate action to be taken, but will Stipulation and Agreement), and to intervene or a protest with the not serve to make protestants parties to established that CNG would continue its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the proceeding. collection of this surcharge through and 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC Any person wishing to become a party including June 30, 1999. The 20426, in accordance with Sections to the proceeding or to participate as a Commission approved the Stipulation 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s party in any hearing therein must file a and Agreement by order dated Rules and Regulations. All such motions petition to intervene in accordance with November 24, 1998. 85 FERC ¶61,261 or protests must be filed in accordance the Commission’s Rules. (1998). with Section 154.210 of the Take further notice that, pursuant to CNG states that copies of this letter of Commission’s Regulations. Protests will the authority contained in and subject to transmittal and enclosures are being be considered by the Commission in the jurisdiction conferred upon the mailed to CNG’s customers and determining the appropriate action to be Federal Energy Regulatory Commission interested state commissions. taken, but will not serve to make by Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person desiring to be heard or to Act and the Commission’s Rules of Any person wishing to become a party protest said filing should file a motion Practice and Procedure, a hearing will must file a motion to intervene. Copies to intervene or a protest with the be held without further notice before the of this filing are on file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Commission on this application if no Commission and are available for public 888 First Street, NE. Washington, DC petition to intervene is filed within the inspection in the Public Reference 20426, in accordance with Sections time required herein, and if the Room. This filing may be viewed on the 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s Commission on its own review of the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ Rules and Regulations. All such motions matter finds that the abandonment is rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for or protests must be filed in accordance required by the public convenience and assistance). with Section 154.210 of the necessity. If a petition for leave to Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Commission’s Regulations. Protests will intervene is timely filed, or if the Acting Secretary. be considered by the Commission in Commission on its motion believes that determining the appropriate action to be [FR Doc. 99–14677 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] a formal hearing is required, further taken, but will not serve to make BILLING CODE 6717±01±M notice of such hearing will be duly protestants parties to the proceedings. given. Any person wishing to become a party Under the procedure herein provide DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY must file a motion to intervene. Copies for, unless otherwise advised, it will be of this filing are on file with the unnecessary for Applicants to appear or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and are available for public be represented at the hearing. Commission inspection in the Public Reference Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Room. This filing may be viewed on the [Docket No. PR99±16±000] Acting Secretary. web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ Dow Interstate Gas Company; Petition [FR Doc. 99–14668 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for for Rate Approval BILLING CODE 6717±01±M assistance). Linwood A. Watson, Jr., June 4, 1999. Take notice that on June 1, 1999, Dow DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 99–14674 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Intrastate Gas Company (DIGCO), Federal Energy Regulatory BILLING CODE 6717±01±M tendered for filing pursuant to Section Commission 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission’s Regulations, a petition for rate approval [Docket No. RP99±321±000] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY for interruptible transportation service performed under Section 311(a)(2) of CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice Federal Energy Regulatory the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Commission (NGPA). The petition is filed to comply Tariff with a Commission letter order dated June 4, 1999. [Docket No. TM99±6±32±000] March 12, 1997, in Docket No. PR96– Take notice that on May 28, 1999, 10–000, which approved DIGCO’s CNG Transmission Corporation (CNG) Colorado Interstate Gas Company; current rates, and required a filing on or tendered for filing as part of its FERC Notice of Tariff Filing before June 1, 1999, to justify such rates or establish new system rates. DIGCO is Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. June 4, 1999. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an an intrastate pipeline organized and Take notice that on May 28, 1999, effective date of July 1, 1999: operating solely within Louisiana. Its Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) mailing address is c/o The Dow Twenty-Second Revised Sheet No. 31 tendered for filing to become part of its Chemical Company, 400 W. Sam Forty-Eighth Revised Sheet No. 32 FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume Houston Pkwy. S., Houston, TX 77042– CNG states that the purpose of this No. 1, Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 1299. filing is to terminate the surcharge 11A, reflecting an increase in its fuel DIGCO proposes, as fair and established under Section 18.2.A of the reimbursement percentage for Lost, equitable, a maximum system-wide General Terms and Conditions of CNG’s Unaccounted-For and Other Fuel Gas interruptible transportation rate of FERC Gas Tariff, effective as of July 1, from 1.32% to 1.53% effective July 1, $.0615 per MMBtu, plus 0.3% in-kind 1999. Article III, Section F of the 1999. fuel reimbursement.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.091 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31210 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Any person desiring to protest this Copies of this filing are on file with the to intervene or a protest with the filing should file a protest with the Commission and are available for public Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, inspection in the Public Reference 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. Room. This filing may be viewed on the 20426, in accordance with Sections 20426, in accordance with Section web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for Rules and Regulations. All such motions Regulations. All such protests must be assistance). or protests must be filed in accordance filed as provided in Section 154.210 of Linwood A. Watson, Jr., with Section 154.210 of the the Commission’s Regulations. Protests Acting Secretary. Commission’s Regulations. Protests will will be considered by the Commission [FR Doc. 99–14671 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] be considered by the Commission in in determining the appropriate action to BILLING CODE 6717±01±M determining the appropriate action to be be taken, but will not serve to make taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Any person wishing to become a party Commission and are available for public must file a motion to intervene. Copies inspection in the Public Reference Federal Energy Regulatory of this filing are on file with the Room. This filing may be viewed on the Commission Commission and are available for public web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ inspection in the Public Reference [Docket No. TM99±5±4±000] rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for Room. This filing may be viewed on the assistance). Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.; web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for Acting Secretary. Gas Tariff assistance). [FR Doc. 99–14679 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Linwood A. Watson, Jr., June 4, 1999. BILLING CODE 6717±01±M Acting Secretary. Take notice that on May 28, 1999, [FR Doc. 99–14676 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. BILLING CODE 6717±01±M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (Granite State) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Federal Energy Regulatory Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Commission listed below for effectiveness on July 1, [Docket No. RP97±287±033] 1999: Federal Energy Regulatory Twentieth Revised Sheet No. 21 Commission El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice Twenty-first Revised Sheet No. 22 [Docket No. GT99±17±001] of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas According to Granite State, the Tariff foregoing tariff sheets propose a revised High Island Offshore System, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance Filing June 4, 1999. Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) surcharge Take notice that on June 1, 1999, El applicable to its firm transportation June 4, 1999. Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) services during the third quarter of 1999 Take notice that on June 2, 1999 High tendered for filing as part of its FERC to reimburse Granite State for certain Island Offshore System, L.L.C. (HIOS), Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. electric power costs that it is obligated tendered for filing as part of its FERC 1–A, the following tariff sheet, to to pay Portland Pipe Line Corporation Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, become effective June 1, 1999: pursuant to the terms of a lease of a the following tariff sheets to be effective pipeline from Portland Pipe Line. April 7, 1999: Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 31 Granite State further states that the El Paso states that the above tariff total surcharge of $1.3318 consists of the Original Sheet No. 22 sheet is being filed to implement one sum of two components: the Quarterly Original Sheet No. 60 negotiated rate contract pursuant to the Original Sheet No. 71 Forecast PCA factor of $1.7294 which is Original Sheet No. 72 Commission’s Statement of Policy on based on projected incremental electric Original Sheet No. 73 Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of- power costs to be billed to Granite State Original Sheet No. 75 Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas during the third quarter of 1999 and the Original Sheet No. 176 Pipelines and Regulation of Negotiated Reconcilable PCA factor of $<0.3976> Original Sheet No. 177 Transportation Services of Natural Gas which reconciles the accumulated over/ Original Sheet No. 179 Pipelines issued January 31, 1996 at under past surcharge collections in the Original Sheet No. 192 Docket Nos. RM95–6–000 and RM96–7– Deferred Account on a quarterly basis. Original Sheet No. 195 000. The method for developing the HIOS asserts that the purpose of the Any person desiring to protest this surcharge in the foregoing manner was filing is to comply with the filing should file a protest with the approved by the Commission in orders Commission’s May 3, 1999 letter order Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, issued in Docket Nos. RP98–155–003 in the captioned proceeding in regard 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC and TM98–4–4–001, according to that a Delaware LLC has members, not 20426, in accordance with section Granite State. partners. 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and Granite State further states that copies Any person desiring to protest this Regulations. All such protests must be of its filing have been served on its firm filing should file a protest with the filed as provided in section 154.210 of transportation customers and on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Commission’s Regulations. Protests regulatory agencies of the states of 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC will be considered by the Commission Maine, Massachusetts and New 20426, in accordance with Section in determining the appropriate action to Hampshire. 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and be taken, but will not serve to make Any person desiring to be heard or to Regulations. All such protests must be protestants parties to the proceedings. protest said filing should file a motion filed as provided in Section 154.210 of

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.184 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31211 the Commission’s Regulations. Protests First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., revenue and cost analyses, Northern will be considered by the Commission 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 or Border additionally supports the in determining the appropriate action to 214 of the Commission’s Rules of conclusion that the at-risk conditions be taken, but will not serve to make Practice and Procedure (18 C.F.R. contained in the certificates for facilities protestants parties to the proceedings. 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions to placed in-service during 1991 and 1992 Copies of this filing are on file with the intervene or protest should be filed on at Docket Nos. CP89–576 and CP91– Commission and are available for public or before June 21, 1999. Protests will be 967–002 should not be triggered. inspection in the Public Reference considered by the Commission in Any person desiring to be heard or to Room. determining the appropriate action to be protest said filing should file a motion This filing may be viewed on the web taken but will not serve to make at http://www.ferc.fed.us.online/ to intervene or a protest with the protestants parties to the proceedings. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, rims.htm (call 202–298–2222 for Any person wishing to become a party assistance). 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC must file a motion to intervene. Copies 20426, in accordance with Sections Linwood A. Watson, Jr., of this filing are on file with the 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s Acting Secretary. Commission and are available for public Rules and Regulations. All such motions inspection. This filing may be viewed [FR Doc. 99–14669 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] or protests must be filed in accordance on the web at ttp://www.ferc.fed.us/ BILLING CODE 6717±01±M with section 154.210 of the online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for Commission’s Regulations. Protests will assistance). DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY be considered by the Commission in Linwood A. Watson, Jr., determining the appropriate action to be Acting Secretary. Federal Energy Regulatory taken, but will not serve to make Commission [FR Doc. 99–14678 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] protestants parties to the proceedings. BILLING CODE 6717±01±M Any person wishing to become a party [Docket No. MG99±22±000] must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Filing Commission and are available for public Federal Energy Regulatory inspection in the Public Reference June 4, 1999. Commission Room. This filing may be viewed on the Take notice that on May 28, 1999, web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/ Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C. filed [Docket No. RP99±322±000] rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for standards of conduct under Order Nos. assistance). 1 2 3 Northern Border Pipeline Company; 497 et al. 566 et al. and 599. Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Any person desiring to be heard or to Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Acting Secretary. protest the filing should file a motion to Gas Tariff [FR Doc. 99–14675 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] intervene or protest with the Federal June 4, 1999. BILLING CODE 6717±01±M Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Take notice that on May 28, 1999, Northern Border Pipeline Company 1 Order No. 497, 53 FR 22139 (June 14, 1988), (Northern Border), tendered for filing as FERC Stats. & Regs. 1986–1990 ¶ 30,820 (1988); DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Order No. 497–A, order on rehearing, 54 FR 52781 part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised (December 22, 1989), FERC Stats. & Regs. 1986– Volume No. 1, the following tariff Federal Energy Regulatory 1990 ¶ 30,868 (1989); Order No. 497–B, order sheets, to become effective on July 1, Commission extending sunset date, 55 FR 53291 (December 28, 1999: 1990), FERC Stats. & Regs. 1986–1990 ¶ 30,908 (1990); Order No. 497–C, order extending sunset Fifth Revised Sheet Number 108 [Docket No. EC99±76±000, et al.] date, 57 FR 9 (January 2, 1992), FERC Stats. & Regs. Fifth Revised Sheet Number 117 1991–1996 ¶ 30,934 (1991), rehearing denied, 57 FR 5815 (February 18, 1992), 58 FERC ¶ 61,139 (1992); The proposed changes would, on an Phibro Inc., et al.; Electric Rate and Tenneco Gas v. FERC (affirmed in part and illustrative basis, increase revenues Corporate Regulation Filings remanded in part), 969 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1992(; from jurisdictional service by $30 Order No. 497–D, order on remand and extending June 3, 1999. sunset date, 57 FR 58978 (December 14, 1992), million during the first year that such FERC Stats. & Regs. 1991–1996 ¶ 30,958 (December changes are in effect. Take notice that the following filings 4, 1992); Order No. 497–E, order on rehearing and By this filing, Northern Border is have been made with the Commission: extending sunset date, 59 FR 243 (January 4, 1994), proposing a return on equity of 15.25 FERC Stats. & Regs. 1991–1996 ¶ 30,987 (December 1. Phibro Inc. 23, 1993); Order No. 497–F, order denying percent. For the twelve months ending rehearing and granting clarification, 59 FR 15336 June 30, 2000, this request equates to a [Docket No. EC99–76–000] (April 1, 1994), 66 FERC ¶ 61,347 (March 24, 1994); pre-tax return on total capital of and Order No. 497–G, order extending sunset date, approximately 13.5 percent. Northern Take notice that on May 28, 1999, 59 FR 32884 (June 27, 1994), FERC Stats. & Regs. Border is also proposing to increase the Phibro Inc. (Phibro) tendered for filing 1991–1996 ¶ 30,996 (June 17, 1994). an application for authorization under 2 provision in 426.1, Donations, not to Standards of Conduct and Reporting section 203 of the Federal Power Act to Requirement for Transportation and Affiliate exceed $200,000 a year. Northern Transactions. Order No. 566, 59 FR 32885 (June 27, Border’s filing also reflects an transfer its Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 1994), FERC Stats. & Regs. 1991–1996 ¶ 30,997 amortization period of 60 months for a and associated active contracts and (June 17, 1994); Order No. 566–A, order on regulatory asset resulting from Docket other jurisdictional facilities to its rehearing, 59 FR 52896 (October 20, 1994), 69 FERC affiliate Phibro Power LLC. Phibro ¶ 61,044 (October 14, 1994); Order No. 566–B, order No. FA93–45. In Pro Forma Sheet on rehearing, 59 FR 65707, (December 21, 1994), 69 Number 118, Northern Border proposes requests expeditious approval of the FERC ¶ 61,334 (December 14, 1994). to modify the number of months application. 3 Reporting Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Marketing Affiliates on the Internet, Order No. 599, between the mandatory periodic review Comment date: June 25, 1999, in 63 FR 43075 (August 12, 1998), FERC Stats. & Regs. of its equity rate of return from 36 accordance with Standard Paragraph E 31,064 (1998). months to 60 months. Based upon at the end of this notice.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.027 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31212 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

2. El Segundo Power, LLC, Long Beach in effect under the laws of any State of 6. Delmarva Power & Light Company Generation LLC, Cabrillo Power I LLC, the United States on October 24, 1992. [Docket No. ER99–3075–000] and Cabrillo Power II LLC Copies of this application have been Take notice that on May 28, 1999, [Docket No. EC99–77–000] served upon the Colorado Public Utility Delmarva Power & Light Company Take notice that on May 28, 1999, Commission and the Securities and (Delmarva), tendered for filing an pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Exchange Commission. executed umbrella service agreement Power Act, El Segundo Power, LLC (El Comment date: June 24, 1999, in with Avista Energy, Inc., under Segundo), Long Beach Generation LLC accordance with Standard Paragraph E Delmarva’s market rate sales tariff. (Long Beach), Cabrillo Power I LLC at the end of this notice. The Comment date: June 17, 1999, in (Cabrillo I) and Cabrillo Power II LLC Commission will limit its consideration accordance with Standard Paragraph E (Cabrillo II) (jointly, the Applicants) of comments to those that concern the at the end of this notice. filed a joint application for approval of adequacy or accuracy of the application. 7. PECO Energy Company a corporate reorganization. Each of the Applicants owns electric generation 4. Western Energy Marketers, Inc., [Docket No. ER99–3076–000] facilities located in the State of Environmental Resources Trust, Inc., Take notice that on May 28, 1999, California. The proposed corporate CET Marketing, L.P., Cogen Energy PECO Energy Company (PECO), reorganization will not change the Technologies, L.P. tendered for filing under Section 205 of ultimate ownership or control of the [Docket No. ER98–537–002, Docket No. the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. S 792 facilities. ER98–3233–003, Docket Nos. ER98–4412– et seq., a Transaction Letter dated May A copy of the application has been 001, and ER98–4412–002, Docket Nos. ER98– 26, 1999 with Horizon Energy Company served on the California Public Utilities 4423–001, and ER98–4423–002] d/b/a Exelon Energy (EXELON) under PECO’s FERC Electric Tariff Original Commission. Take notice that on May 28, 1999 the The Applicants have requested Volume No. 1 (Tariff). above-mentioned power marketers filed PECO requests an effective date of waivers of the Commission’s regulations quarterly reports with the Commission so that the filing may become effective June 1, 1999, for the Transaction Letter. in the above-mentioned proceedings for PECO states that copies of this filing at the earliest possible date, but no later information only. These filings are have been supplied to EXELON and to than June 25, 1999. available for public inspection and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Comment date: June 25, 1999, in copying in the Public Reference Room Commission. accordance with Standard Paragraph E or on the web at www.ferc.fed.us/ Comment date: June 17, 1999, in at the end of this notice. online/rims.htm for viewing and accordance with Standard Paragraph E 3. Colorado Power Partners downloading (call 202–208–2222 for at the end of this notice. assistance). [Docket No. EG99–152–000] 8. New England Power Pool 5. Northern States Power Company Take notice that on May 28, 1999, [Docket No. ER99–3079–000] (Minnesota), Northern States Power Colorado Power Partners (CPP), 1001 Company (Wisconsin) Take notice that on May 28, 1999, the Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, New England Power Pool (NEPOOL or (Applicant) filed with the Federal [Docket No. ER99–1981–000, Docket No. Pool), Executive Committee tendered for Energy Regulatory Commission ER99–2013–000] filing a request for termination of (Commission) an Application for Take notice that on May 28, 1999, membership in NEPOOL, with an Determination of Exempt Wholesale Northern States Power Company effective date of June 1, 1999, of LG&E Generator Status pursuant to part 365 of (Minnesota) and Northern States Power Energy Marketing Inc. (LEM). Such the commission’s regulations and Company (Wisconsin) (jointly NSP termination is pursuant to the terms of section 32 of the Public Utility Holding Companies), tendered for filing a the NEPOOL Agreement dated Company Act, as amended. response to the April 30, 1999, September 1, 1971, as amended, and Colorado Power Partners is a Colorado deficiency letter in the above-captioned previously signed by LEM. The New general partnership which owns the dockets. The response constitutes an England Power Pool Agreement, as Brush Cogeneration Facility consisting amendment to the NSP Companies’ amended (the NEPOOL Agreement), has of Brush 1 and Brush 3 (Facility), filings, which were submitted in been designated NEPOOL FPC No. 2. located in Brush, Colorado and is compliance with ordering paragraphs The Executive Committee states that engaged exclusively in the generation of (D) and (E) of the Commission’s Order termination of LEM with an effective electric energy for sale at wholesale. The on Petition for Declaratory Order issued date of June 1, 1999, would relieve this Facility is a topping cycle cogeneration December 16, 1998 in North American entity, at LEM’s request, of the facility consisting of two gas turbines, a Electric Reliability Council, 85 FERC obligations and responsibilities of Pool heat recovery steam generator, an ¶ 61,353 (1998). membership and would not change the extraction-condensing steam turbine, a NEPOOL Agreement in any manner, waste-heat steam boiler, a steam-heat The NSP Companies state they have other than to remove LEM from exchanger and waste-heat hot water served a copy of the filing on the utility membership in the Pool. boilers. The Facility is operated by commissions in Minnesota, Michigan, Comment date: June 17, 1999, in Colorado Cogen Operators Limited North Dakota, South Dakota and accordance with Standard Paragraph E Liability Company pursuant to an Wisconsin and all parties to the at the end of this notice. operation and maintenance agreement. underlying proceedings. NSP also states 9. New England Power Pool No rate or charge for, or in connection it has served a courtesy copy on NERC with, the construction of the Facility, or and the Mid-Continent Area Power [Docket No. ER99–3080–000] for electric energy produced thereby Pool. Take notice that on May 28, 1999, the (other than any portion of a rate or Comment date: June 17, 1999, in New England Power Pool Executive charge which represents recovery of the accordance with Standard Paragraph E Committee for filing for acceptance a cost of a wholesale rate or charge), was at the end of this notice. signature page to the New England

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.179 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31213

Power Pool (NEPOOL) Agreement dated 12. American Atlas #1, Ltd., L.L.L.P. 15. Maine Electric Power Company September 1, 1971, as amended, signed [Docket No. ER99–3086–000] [Docket No. ER99–3089–000] by Providence Energy Services, Inc., Take notice that on May 28, 1999, (Providence Energy). The NEPOOL Take notice that on May 28, 1999, Maine Electric Power Company Agreement has been designated American Atlas #1, Ltd., L.L.L.P. (MEPCO), tendered for filing a service NEPOOL FPC No. 2. (American Atlas), tendered for filing agreement for Non-Firm Point-to-Point The Executive Committee states that pursuant to Rules 205 and 207 an transmission service entered into with the Commission’s acceptance of application for waivers and blanket PG&E Energy Trading-Power, L.P. Providence Energy’s signature page approvals under various regulations of Service will be provided pursuant to would permit NEPOOL to expand its the Commission and for an order MEPCO’s Open Access Transmission membership to include Providence accepting its FERC Electric Rate Tariff, designated rate schedule Energy. NEPOOL further states that the Schedule No. 1, to be effective June 1, MEPCO—FERC Electric Tariff, Original filed signature page does not change the 1999, and accepting its power purchase agreement with Tri-State Generation Volume No. 1, as supplemented. NEPOOL Agreement in any manner, Comment date: June 17, 1999, in other than to make Providence Energy a and Transmission Association, Inc., to be effective the same date. accordance with Standard Paragraph E member in NEPOOL. at the end of this notice. NEPOOL requests an effective date of In transactions where American Atlas June 1, 1999, for commencement of will sell electric energy and/or capacity 16. Maine Electric Power Company participation in NEPOOL by Providence at wholesale, it proposes to make such [Docket No. ER99–3090–000] Energy. sales on rates, terms and conditions to Take notice that on May 28, 1999, Comment date: June 17, 1999, in be mutually agreed with the purchasing Maine Electric Power Company accordance with Standard Paragraph E party. (MEPCO), tendered for filing a service at the end of this notice. Comment date: June 17, 1999, in agreement for Non-Firm Point-to-Point 10. Entergy Services, Inc. accordance with Standard Paragraph E transmission service entered into with at the end of this notice. PP&L EnergyPlus Co. Service will be [Docket No. ER99–3084–000] 13. Commonwealth Edison Company provided pursuant to MEPCO’s Open Take notice that on May 28, 1999, Access Transmission Tariff, designated Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of [Docket No. ER99–3087–000] rate schedule MEPCO—FERC Electric Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, as Mississippi, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Take notice that on May 28, 1999, Commonwealth Edison Company supplemented. Inc., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., and Entergy Comment date: June 17, 1999, in New Orleans, Inc., tendered for filing (ComEd), tendered for filing a revised Firm Service Agreement with Alliant accordance with Standard Paragraph E changes to Interconnection Agreements at the end of this notice. with Georgia Gulf Corporation; Bulk Power under the terms of ComEd’s Huntsman Petrochemical Corporation; Open Access Transmission Tariff 17. Maine Electric Power Company (OATT). Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd.; LSP [Docket No. ER99–3091–000] ComEd requests an effective date of Energy Limited Partnership; Tennessee Take notice that on May 28, 1999, May 1, 1999, for the revised service Valley Authority; Union Carbide Maine Electric Power Company agreement, and accordingly, seeks Corporation; PPG Industries, Inc.; CII (MEPCO), tendered for filing a service waiver of the Commission’s notice Carbon, L.L.C.; PanEnergy Lake Charles agreement for Non-Firm Point-to-Point requirements. Generation; South Mississippi Electric transmission service entered into with Power Authority; Louisiana Energy and Copies of this filing were served on Select Energy, Inc. Service will be Power Authority; and Sam Rayburn Alliant. provided pursuant to MEPCO’s Open Dam Electric Cooperative, Inc., Sam Comment date: June 17, 1999, in Access Transmission Tariff, designated Rayburn G & T, Inc., and Sam Rayburn accordance with Standard Paragraph E rate schedule MEPCO—FERC Electric Municipal Power Agency. at the end of this notice. Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, as Comment date: June 17, 1999, in supplemented. accordance with Standard Paragraph E 14. Carolina Power & Light Company Comment date: June 17, 1999, in at the end of this notice. [Docket No. ER99–3088–000] accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice. 11. Avista Corp. Take notice that on May 28, 1999, [Docket No. ER99–3085–000] Carolina Power & Light Company 18. Central Maine Power Company (CP&L), tendered for filing an executed Take notice that on May 28, 1999, [Docket No. ER99–3092–000] Service Agreement with PECO Energy Avista Corp. (AVA), tendered for filing Company under the provisions of Take notice that on May 28, 1999, with the Federal Energy Regulatory CP&L’s Market-Based Rates Tariff, FERC Central Maine Power Company (CMP), Commission an executed Service Electric Tariff No. 4. This Service tendered for filing pursuant to Section Agreement for Short-Term Firm and Agreement supersedes the un-executed 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Agreement originally filed in Docket No. U.S.C. § 824d, and Part 35 of the Federal Service under AVA’s Open Access ER98–3385–000 and approved effective Energy Regulatory Commission’s Transmission Tariff—FERC Electric May 18, 1998. regulations, 18 CFR Part 35, a Service Tariff, Volume No. 8 with PP&L Agreement for Local Network EnergyPlus Co. Copies of the filing were served upon Transmission Service by and between AVA requests the Service Agreement the North Carolina Utilities Commission CMP and Fox Islands Electric be given the respective effective date of and the South Carolina Public Service Cooperative, Inc. (the Service May 24, 1999. Commission. Agreement). Comment date: June 17, 1999, in Comment date: June 17, 1999, in CMP has requested that the Service accordance with Standard Paragraph E accordance with Standard Paragraph E Agreement become effective on May 1, at the end of this notice. at the end of this notice. 1999.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.180 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31214 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Copies of this filing have been served Avista Corporation requests waiver of Comment date: June 17, 1999, in upon the Maine Public Utilities the prior notice requirements and accordance with Standard Paragraph E Commission and Fox Islands Electric requests an effective date of April 30, at the end of this notice. Cooperative, Inc. 1999. 25. Ameren Services Company Comment date: June 17, 1999, in Comment date: June 17, 1999, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E accordance with Standard Paragraph E [Docket No. ER99–3100–000] at the end of this notice. at the end of this notice. Take notice that on May 28, 1999, Ameren Services Company (ASC), 19. Entergy Services, Inc. 22. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. tendered for filing Service Agreements [Docket No. ER99–3093–000] [Docket No. ER99–3097–000] for Non-Firm Point-to-Point Take notice that on May 28, 1999, Take notice that on May 28, 1999, Transmission Services between ASC Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), and Dayton Power and Light Company, Services), on behalf of Entergy tendered for filing an unexecuted The Energy Authority, Public Service Louisiana, Inc. (ELI), Entergy interconnection service agreement Company of Colorado, and Utilicorp Mississippi, Inc. (EMI), and Entergy between PJM and Statoil Energy/Paxton, United, Inc., (the parties). ASC asserts Gulf States, Inc. (EGSI), tendered for L.P. that the purpose of the Agreements is to filing Generator Imbalance Agreements PJM requests a waiver of the permit ASC to provide transmission with South Mississippi Electric service to the parties pursuant to Association, Tennessee Valley Commission’s 60-day notice requirement and an effective date of Ameren’s Open Access Transmission Authority, LSP Energy Limited Tariff filed in Docket No. ER96–677– Partnership, CII Carbon, L.L.C., Union May 1, 1999. Copies of this filing were served upon 004. Carbide Corporation, Georgia Gulf Comment date: June 17, 1999, in Corporation, Louisiana Energy and Statoil Energy/Paxton, L.P., and the Pennsylvania Public Utility accordance with Standard Paragraph E Power Authority, Huntsman at the end of this notice. Petrochemical Corporation, Tenaska Commission. Frontiers Partners, Ltd., PPG Industries, Comment date: June 17, 1999, in 26. Wisconsin Electric Power Company Inc., PanEnergy Lake Charles, and Sam accordance with Standard Paragraph E [Docket No. ER99–3101–000] Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative, Inc., at the end of this notice. Take notice that on May 28, 1999, Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency, 23. EGC 1999 Holding Company, L.P. Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Sam Rayburn G&T, Inc. Comment date: June 17, 1999, in [Docket No. ER99–3098–000] (Wisconsin Electric), tendered for filing a short-term firm Transmission Service accordance with Standard Paragraph E Take notice that on May 28, 1999, at the end of this notice. Agreement and a non-firm Transmission EGC 1999 Holding Company, L.P. (1999 Service Agreement between itself and 20. Central Maine Power Company Holdco), tendered for filing an FirstEnergy Corporation (FirstEnergy). application for waivers and blanket [Docket No. ER99–3094–000] The Transmission Service Agreements approvals under various regulations of allow FirstEnergy to receive Take notice that Central Maine Power the Commission and for an order Company (CMP), on May 28, 1999, transmission services under Wisconsin accepting 1999 Holdco’s FERC Electric Energy Corporation Operating tendered for filing pursuant to Section Rate Schedule No. 1 to be effective on 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 Companies’ FERC Electric Tariff, July 1, 1999. Volume No. 1. U.S.C. § 824d, and Part 35 of the Federal 1999 Holdco intends to engage in Energy Regulatory Commission’s Wisconsin Electric requests an electric power and energy transactions effective date coincident with its filing regulations, 18 CFR Part 35, a Service as a marketer and a broker. In Agreement for Local Network and waiver of the Commission’s notice transactions where 1999 Holdco sells requirements in order to allow for Transmission Service by and between electric energy, it proposes to make such CMP and Kennebunk Light & Power economic transactions as they appear. sales on rates, terms and conditions to Copies of the filing have been served District (the Service Agreement). be mutually agreed to with the CMP has requested that the Service on FirstEnergy, the Public Service purchasing party. Agreement become effective on May 1, Commission of Wisconsin and the 1999. Comment date: June 17, 1999, in Michigan Public Service Commission. Copies of this filing have been served accordance with Standard Paragraph E Comment date: June 17, 1999, in upon the Maine Public Utilities at the end of this notice. accordance with Standard Paragraph E Commission and Kennebunk Light & 24. Ameren Services Company at the end of this notice. Power District. 27. Prairieland Energy, Inc. Comment date: June 17, 1999, in [Docket No. ER99–3099–000] accordance with Standard Paragraph E Take notice that on May 28, 1999, [Docket No. TX99–2–000] at the end of this notice. Ameren Services Company (ASC), Take notice that on May 21, 1999, tendered for filing Service Agreements Prairieland Energy, Inc. (Prairieland), 21. Avista Corporation for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission tendered for filing an application with [Docket No. ER99–3095–000] Services between ASC and Dayton the Federal Energy Regulatory Take notice that on May 28, 1999, Power and Light Company, The Energy Commission requesting the Commission Avista Corporation, tendered for filing Authority, Public Service Company of to order Commonwealth Edison with the Federal Energy Regulatory Colorado, and Utilicorp United, Inc. (the Company (Edison) to provide Commission pursuant to 18 CFR Section parties). ASC asserts that the purpose of transmission service pursuant to Section 35.13, an executed Service Agreement the Agreements is to permit ASC to 211 of the Federal Power Act. under Avista Corporation’s FERC provide transmission service to the Prairieland had requested 12 Electric Tariff First Revised Volume No. parties pursuant to Ameren’s Open Megawatts (MW) of firm point-to-point 10, with Cogentrix Energy Power Access Transmission Tariff filed in transmission service for a term of five Marketing, Inc. Docket No. ER96–677–004. years commencing October 1, 1998.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.182 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31215

Copies of Prairieland’s application shoreline. Further, the permittee DATES: Comments must be submitted on were served upon representatives of proposes to replace four existing boat or before August 9, 1999. Edison and the Illinois Commerce slips with a building containing a ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an Commission. business office, bathhouse, and original and two copies of their Comment date: July 2, 1999, in laundromat. The Pensacola Project is on comments referencing docket number accordance with Standard Paragraph E the Grand River, in Craig, Delaware, F–99–FC2P–FFFFF to: RCRA Docket at the end of this notice. Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma. Information Center, Office of Solid Standard Paragraphs The DEA was written by staff in the Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental Office of Hydropower Licensing, Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, E. Any person desiring to be heard or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. HQ), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC to protest such filing should file a Copies of the DEA and be obtained by 20460. Hand deliveries of comments motion to intervene or protest with the calling the Commission’s Public should be made to the Arlington, VA, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Reference Room at (202) 208–1371. In address below. Comments may also be 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. the DEA, staff concludes that approval submitted electronically through the 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 of the proposed action, alternative Internet to: and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of actions, or the no-action alternative [email protected]. Comments Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 would not constitute a major Federal and 385.214). All such motions or in electronic format should also be action significantly affecting the quality identified by the docket number F–99– protests should be filed on or before the of the human environment. comment date. Protests will be FC2P–FFFFF. All electronic comments Please submit any comments within must be submitted as an ASCII file considered by the Commission in 30 days from the date of this notice. determining the appropriate action to be avoiding the use of special characters Comments should be addressed to: Mr. and any form of encryption. taken, but will not serve to make David P. Boergers, Acting Secretary, protestants parties to the proceeding. Commenters should not submit Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, electronically any confidential business Any person wishing to become a party 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC must file a motion to intervene. Copies information (CBI). An original and two 20426. Please affix Project No. 1494–160 of these filings are on file with the copies of CBI must be submitted under to all comments. For further Commission and are available for public separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document information, please contact the project inspection. This filing may also be Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste manager, Jon Cofrancesco at (202) 219– viewed on the Internet at http:// (5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, 0079. www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call Washington, DC 20460. 202–208–2222 for assistance). Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Acting Secretary. the RCRA Information Center (RIC), Acting Secretary [FR Doc. 99–14670 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717±01±M located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, [FR Doc. 99–14667 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, BILLING CODE 6717±01±P Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AGENCY docket materials, it is recommended [FRL±6356±9] Federal Energy Regulatory that the public make an appointment by Commission calling 703–603–9230. The public may Agency Information Collection copy a maximum of 100 pages from any [Project No. 1494±171 Oklahoma] Activities: Proposed Collection; regulatory docket at no charge. Comment Request; Criteria for Additional copies cost $0.15 per page. Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Classification of Solid Waste Disposal The index and some supporting Availability of Draft Environmental Facilities and Practices, materials are available electronically. Assessment Recordkeeping and Reporting The ICR is available on the Internet. Requirements `` (Renewal) June 4, 1999. Follow these instructions to access the In accordance with the National AGENCY: Environmental Protection information electronically: Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Agency (EPA). WWW: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/ the Federal Energy Regulatory ACTION: Notice of request for renewal. XXXX.htm Commission’s regulations, 18 CFR Part FTP: ftp.epa.gov 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47910), the SUMMARY: In compliance with the Login: anonymous Office of Hydropower Licensing (OHL) Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Password: your Internet address has reviewed an application for 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that Files are located in/pub/epaoswer approval of additional marina facilities. EPA is planning to submit the following The official record for this action will Grand River Dam Authority proposes to continuing Information Collection be kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA permit Dennis Blakemore, d/b/ a Honey Request (ICR) to the Office of will transfer all comments received Creek Landing, Ltd. (permittee), to Management and Budget (OMB) for electronically into paper form and place modify an existing commercial marina renewal: Criteria for Classification of them in the official record, which will facility located on Grand Lake’s Honey Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and also include all comments submitted Creek adjacent to the Honey Creek Practices—40 CFR Part 258, OMB No. directly in writing. Bridge (US Highway 59). The proposed 2050–0122, current expiration date is EPA responses to comments, whether modifications include the relocation of January 31, 2000. Before submitting the the comments are written or electronic, a fuel dock from its approved location, ICR to OMB for review and approval, will be in a notice in the Federal about 845 feet from the northern EPA is soliciting comments on specific Register. EPA will not immediately shoreline to a new (present) location, aspects of the proposed information reply to commenters electronically other about 130 feet from the northern collection described below. than to seek clarification of electronic

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.183 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31216 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices comments that may be garbled in permitting electronic submission of The Agency is requesting that OMB transmission or during conversion to responses. renew for 3 years the existing approval paper form, as discussed above. Burden Statement: The burden to for this ICR, which is scheduled to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For respondents for complying with the Part expire on July 31, 1999. A Federal general information, contact the RCRA 258 information collection requirements Register document announcing the Hotline at 800 424–9346 or TDD 800 is approximately 222,680 hours per Agency’s intent to seek the renewal of 553–7672 (hearing impaired). In the year, with an annual cost of $8,034,720. this ICR and the 60-day public comment Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call The estimated number of respondents is opportunity, requesting comments on 703 412–9810 or TDD 703 412–3323. 2300 with an average annual burden of the request and the contents of the ICR, For more detailed information on approximately 97 hours per respondent. was issued on January 14, 1999 (64 FR specific aspects of this rulemaking Burden means the total time, effort, or 2488). EPA did not receive any contact Dwight Hlustick, EPA, Office of financial resources expended by persons comments on this ICR during the Solid Waste (5306W), Municipal and to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose comment period. Industrial Solid Waste Division, 401 M or provide information to or for a DATES: Additional comments may be Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460, Federal agency. This includes the time submitted on or before July 12, 1999. phone 703 308–8647, e-mail address needed to review instructions; develop, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [email protected]. acquire, install, and utilize technology Sandy Farmer at EPA by phone on (202) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and systems for the purposes of 260–2740, by e-mail: Title: Criteria for Classification of collecting, validating, and verifying ‘‘[email protected],’’ or Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and information, precessing and maintaining download a copy of the ICR off the Practices, 40 CFR Part 258. information, and disclosing and Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr/ OMB No.: 2050–0122. providing information; adjust the icr.htm and refer to EPA ICR No. Current expiration date: January 31, existing ways to comply with any 0575.08. 2000. previously applicable instructions and Affected entities: Owners or operators ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing requirements; train personnel to be able EPA ICR No. 0575.08 and OMB Control of new MSWLFs, existing MSWLFs, and to respond to a collection of lateral expansions of existing MSWLFs. No. 2070–0004, to the following information; search data sources; addresses: These owners or operators could complete and review the collection of include Federal, State, and local information; and transmit or otherwise Ms. Sandy Farmer, governments, and private waste disclose the information. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, management companies. Facilities in Regulatory Information Division (Mail SIC codes 922, 495, 282, 281, and 287 Dated: June 2, 1999. Code: 2137), may be affected by this rule. Elizabeth Cotsworth, 401 M Street, S.W., Abstract: Under statutory authority Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC 20460; found in RCRA, EPA established [FR Doc. 99–14766 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] And to: mandatory regulations (See 40 CFR Part BILLING CODE 6560±50±U Office of Information and Regulatory 258) that established the Criteria for Affairs, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Office of Management and Budget (MSWLFs) for landfills that co-dispose ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (OMB), of household waste with sewage sludge AGENCY Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, and that receive ash from municipal 725 17th Street, N.W., waste combustion (MWC) facilities [FRL±6357±1 ] Washington, DC 20503. (including ash monofills). EPA believes SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: these requirements mitigate potential Agency Information Collection Activities; Health and Safety Data Review Requested: This is a request to hazards to human health and the renew a currently approved information environment from the potential Reporting; Submission of ICR No. 0575.08 to OMB collection pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. mismanagement by owners or operators ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 0575.08; of MSWLFs. This information will be AGENCY: Environmental Protection OMB Control No. 2070–0004. used by the State Director to confirm Agency (EPA). Current Expiration Date: Current owner or operator compliance with the ACTION: Notice of submission to OMB. OMB approval expires on July 31, 1999. regulations under Part 258. The EPA Title: TSCA Section 8(d) Health and would like to solicit comments to: SUMMARY: In compliance with the Safety Data Reporting, Submission of (i) Evaluate whether the proposed Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Lists and Copies of Health and Safety collection of information is necessary for the 3501 et seq.), this document announces Studies. proper performance of the functions of the that the Information Collection Request Abstract: Section 8(d) of the Toxic agency, including whether the information (ICR) entitled: ‘‘TSCA Section 8(d) Substances Control Act (TSCA) and will have practical utility; (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s Health and Safety Data Reporting, regulations at 40 CFR part 716 requires estimate of the burden of the proposed Submission of Lists and Copies of manufacturers and processors of collection of information, including the Health and Safety Studies,’’ [EPA ICR chemicals to submit lists and copies of validity of the methodology and assumptions No. 0575.08; OMB Control No. 2070– health and safety studies relating to the used; 0004] has been forwarded to the Office health and/or environmental effects of (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and the of Management and Budget (OMB) for certain chemical substances and clarity of the information to be collected; and review and approval pursuant to the mixtures. In order to comply with the (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection OMB procedures in 5 CFR 1320.12. The reporting requirements of section 8(d), of information on those who are to respond including through the use of appropriate ICR, which is abstracted below, respondents must search their records to automated electronic, mechanical, or other describes the nature of the information identify any health and safety studies in technological collection techniques of other collection and its estimated cost and their possession, copy and process forms of information technology, e.g., burden. relevant studies, list studies that are

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31217 currently in progress, and submit this commerce chemical substances or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information to EPA. mixtures. Regarding this notice or future EPA uses this information to Estimated No. of Respondents: 1,203. guidance: Laura Voss, U.S. EPA, 2000 construct a complete picture of the Estimated Total Annual Burden on Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI known effects of the chemicals in Respondents: 4,542 hours. 48105. [email protected] (734) 214– question, leading to determinations by Frequency of Collection: On occasion. 4858. EPA of whether additional testing of the Changes in Burden Estimates: There Regarding specific areas listed in the chemicals is required. The information is a decrease (from 9,668 hours to 4,542 table: see the EPA Regional contact enables EPA to base its testing decisions hours) in the total estimated respondent person listed in the table. on the most complete information burden as compared with that identified SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: available and to avoid demands for in the information collection request testing that may be duplicative. EPA most recently approved by OMB. This Background will use information obtained via this decrease reflects updated analyses of Transportation conformity is required collection to support its investigation of information related to the historical by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. the risks posed by chemicals and, in reporting patterns and the numbers of EPA’s conformity rule requires that particular, to support its decisions on chemicals listed on the TSCA section transportation plans, programs, and whether to require industry to test 8(d) reporting rule, and EPA’s revisions projects conform to state air quality chemicals under section 4 of TSCA. to section 8(d) reporting requirements. According to the procedures implementation plans (SIPs) and Responses to the collection of prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12, EPA has establishes the criteria and procedures information are mandatory (see 40 CFR submitted this ICR to OMB for review for determining whether or not they do. part 716). Respondents may claim all or and approval. Any comments related to Conformity to a SIP means that part of a notice confidential. EPA will the renewal of this ICR should be transportation activities will not disclose information that is covered by submitted within 30 days of this produce new air quality violations, a claim of confidentiality only to the document, as described above. worsen existing violations, or delay extent permitted by, and in accordance Dated: June 4, 1999. timely attainment of the national with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 ambient air quality standards. Joseph Retzer, and 40 CFR part 2. The criteria by which we determine Director, Regulatory Information Division. Burden Statement: The annual public whether a SIP’s motor vehicle emission reporting burden for this collection of [FR Doc. 99–14764 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] budgets are adequate for conformity information is estimated to range BILLING CODE 6560±50±U purposes are outlined in 40 CFR between 2 hours and 32 hours per 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an response, depending upon the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION adequacy review is separate from EPA’s requirements that the collection places AGENCY completeness review, and it also should on each respondent, for an estimated not be used to prejudge EPA’s ultimate 1,203 respondents making one or more [FRL±6357±8] approval of the SIP. Even if we find a submissions of information annually. budget adequate, the SIP could later be These estimates include the time Adequacy Status of Submitted State disapproved when reviewed with the needed to review instructions; develop, Implementation Plans for entire SIP submission. acquire, install and utilize technology Transportation Conformity Purposes The list in this notice is not a and systems for the purposes of AGENCY: Environmental Protection complete list of all SIPs that have been collecting, validating and verifying Agency (EPA). submitted to EPA. This is merely a list information, processing and of those pending SIP submissions that ACTION: Notice of Adequacy Status. maintaining information, and disclosing we have found adequate or inadequate and providing information; adjust the SUMMARY: In this notice, we are to date. We have approved some SIPs, existing ways to comply with any publicizing the list of submitted state and we are still reviewing the adequacy previously applicable instructions and implementation plans (SIPs) with motor of others. We’ve described our future requirements; train personnel to be able vehicle emissions budgets that we have process for determining the adequacy of to respond to a collection of found adequate or inadequate for submitted SIP budgets in guidance (May information; search data sources; transportation conformity purposes. On 14, 1999 memo titled ‘‘Conformity complete and review the collection of March 2, 1999, the D.C. Circuit Court Guidance on Implementation of March information; and transmit or otherwise ruled that submitted SIPs cannot be 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision’’). disclose the information. No person is used for conformity determinations We will be revising our conformity rules required to respond to a collection of until EPA has affirmatively found them shortly to codify this guidance. You can information unless it displays a adequate. obtain a copy of this guidance from currently valid OMB control number. Areas can use the SIPs that we have EPA’s conformity website: http:// The OMB control numbers for these found adequate in conformity www.epa.gov/oms/transp.htm, or by regulations are displayed in 40 CFR Part determinations, and any conformity calling the contact name listed in FOR 9. determination already made using a SIP FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Respondents/Affected Entities: that is adequate will remain valid. SIPs Future adequacy determinations will Entities potentially affected by this that we have found inadequate cannot also be announced in the Federal action are companies that manufacture, be used for further conformity Register. process, import, or distribute in determinations. Status of Submitted Budgets:

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31218 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Adequate/in- State Pollutant Area Submitted SIP Date of finding adequate

Region 1: Contact Donald Cooke, U.S. EPA Region 1, Suite 1100 (CAQ), One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02114±2023, [email protected] (617) 918±1668

ME ...... Ozone ...... Portland Area ...... 15% ...... April 28, 1999 ...... Adequate. NH ...... Ozone ...... Boston-Lawrence-Worcester Area ...... Post-96 rate of April 29, 1999 ...... Adequate. progress. August 19, 1998 ...... Adequate. Attainment demonstration. NH ...... Ozone ...... Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester Area ...... Post-96 rate of April 29, 1999 ...... Adequate. progress. August 19, 1998 ...... Adequate. Attainment demonstration. MA ...... Ozone ...... Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. Mass) Area 15% ...... June 5, 1997 ...... Adequate. Post-96 rate of June 5, 1997 ...... Adequate. progress. MA ...... Ozone ...... Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. Mass) Area Attainment demonstra- February 19, 1999 ...... Adequate. tion. MA ...... Ozone ...... Springfield (W. Mass) Area ...... Attainment demonstra- February 19, 1999 ...... Adequate. tion.

Region 2: Contact Rudolph Kapichak, U.S. EPA Region 2, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007, [email protected] (212) 637±3804

NY ...... Ozone ...... New York Portion of the NY±NJ±CT severe Post-96 rate of September 17, 1997 .. Adequate. ozone nonattainment area. progress.

Region 3: Contact Paul Wentworth (Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. areas); Larry Budney (Delaware areas); U.S. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, [email protected] (215) 814±2183; [email protected] (215) 814±2184

DC ...... Ozone ...... Washington DC ...... Post-96 rate of December 31, 1997 ... Adequate. progress. MD ...... Ozone ...... Maryland portion of DC area ...... Post-96 rate of February 27, 1998 ...... Adequate. progress. VA ...... Ozone ...... Northern Virginia portion of DC area ...... Post-96 rate of February 27, 1998 ...... Adequate. progress. MD ...... Ozone ...... Baltimore ...... Post-96 rate of April 28, 1999 ...... Adequate. progress. MD ...... Ozone ...... Cecil County ...... Post-96 rate of April 28, 1999 ...... Adequate. progress. DE ...... Ozone ...... New Castle County ...... Post-96 rate of April 29, 1999 ...... Adequate. progress. DE ...... Ozone ...... Kent County ...... Post-96 rate of April 29, 1999 ...... Adequate. progress.

Region 4: Contact Kay Prince, U.S. EPA Region 4, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303, [email protected] (404) 562±9026

KY ...... Ozone ...... Louisville ...... 15% ...... April 29, 1999 ...... Adequate. TN ...... Ozone ...... Memphis ...... Maintenance plan ...... August 7, 1998 ...... Adequate.

Region 5: Contact Ryan Bahr, U.S. EPA Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, AR±18J, Chicago, IL 60604± 3590, [email protected] (312) 353±4366

IN ...... Ozone ...... Lake and Porter County ...... Post-96 rate of February 2, 1998 ...... Adequate. progress. IL ...... Ozone ...... Chicago area ...... Post-96 rate of February 3, 1998 ...... Adequate. progress.

Region 6: Contact Jahan Behnam, U.S. EPA Region 6, Fountain Place 12th Floor Suite 1200, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202±2733, [email protected] (214) 665±7247

LA ...... Ozone ...... Baton Rouge ...... Attainment demonstra- April 28, 1999 ...... Adequate. tion. TX ...... Ozone ...... El Paso ...... Section 179B inter- January 12, 1998 ...... Adequate. national border plan.

Region 8: Contact Jeff Houk, U.S. EPA Region 8, 999 18th Street Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202±2466, [email protected] (303) 312±6446

CO ...... Carbon mon- Colorado Springs ...... Maintenance plan ...... April 29, 1999 ...... oxide. 1998Ð2009 budgets .. Inadequate. 2010 budget and be- Adequate. yond.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.187 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31219

Adequate/in- State Pollutant Area Submitted SIP Date of finding adequate

CO ...... Carbon mon- Longmont ...... Maintenance plan ...... May 14, 1999 ...... Inadequate. oxide. UT ...... Carbon mon- Ogden ...... Maintenance plan ...... April 29, 1999 ...... Adequate. oxide. UT ...... Carbon mon- Provo ...... Attainment demonstra- May 14, 1999 ...... Inadequate. oxide. tion.

Region 9: Contact Karina O'Connor, U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, [email protected] (415) 744±1247.

AZ ...... Carbon mon- Phoenix ...... Attainment demonstra- May 5, 1999 ...... Inadequate. oxide. tion. AZ ...... Ozone ...... Phoenix ...... Attainment demonstra- May 5, 1999 ...... Inadequate. tion and 15%. CA ...... PM 10 ...... San Joaquin Valley ...... Attainment demonstra- May 5, 1999 ...... Inadequate. tion. NV ...... Carbon mon- Las Vegas ...... Attainment demonstra- May 5, 1999 ...... Inadequate. oxide. tion.

Region 10: Contact Wayne Elson, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, [email protected] (206) 553±1463.

AK ...... Carbon mon- Anchorage ...... Attainment demonstra- May 14, 1999 ...... Inadequate. oxide. tion. AK ...... Carbon mon- Fairbanks ...... Attainment demonstra- May 14, 1999 ...... Inadequate. oxide. tion. WA ...... Carbon mon- Spokane ...... Attainment demonstra- May 14, 1999 ...... Inadequate. oxide. tion.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. industrial storm water runoff, combined Topics for discussion will include at Dated: June 3, 1999. sewer overflows, and sanitary sewer a minimum reporting on the status of Robert Perciasepe, overflows. It is determined that the ELAB’s previous recommendations, a Assistant Administrator for Office of Air and Urban Wet Weather Flows Federal review of activities by the Third Party Radiation. Advisory Committee is in the public Assessors Workgroup, proposed changes [FR Doc. 99–14769 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] interest in connection with the to the National Environmental BILLING CODE 6560±50±P performance of duties imposed on the Laboratory Accreditation Conference Agency by law. standards, and the findings of the Scope FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact of Accreditation Workgroup. The public ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Kevin Weiss, Office of Wastewater is encouraged to attend. Time will be AGENCY Management, USEPA, at (202) 260– allotted for public comment. 9524, or Internet: [email protected] Written comments on the meeting [FRL±6356±8] Dated: May 18, 1999. agenda should be directed to Ms. Elizabeth Dutrow; Designated Federal Urban Wet Weather Flows Advisory Michael B. Cook, Committee, the Storm Water Phase II Officer; USEPA; 401 M Street, SW Director, Office of Wastewater Management, (8724R); Washington, DC 20460. If Advisory Subcommittee, and the Designated Federal Official. questions arise, please contact Ms. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Advisory [FR Doc. 99–14767 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Subcommittee Dutrow by phone at (202) 564–9061, by BILLING CODE 6560±50±U facsimile at (202) 565–2441 or by email AGENCY: Environmental Protection at [email protected]. Agency. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Dated: May 18, 1999. ACTION: Notice of charter renewal. AGENCY Nancy W. Wentworth, Director, Quality Assurance Division. SUMMARY: Notice is given that the [FRL±6358±1] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [FR Doc. 99–14758 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] is renewing the Charter for the Urban Environmental Laboratory Advisory BILLING CODE 6560±50±M Wet Weather (UWW) Flows Advisory Board, Meeting Date and Agenda Committee (and its two subcommittees) AGENCY: Environmental Protection ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for an additional 2-year period. This Agency. AGENCY Committee serves the public interest, in ACTION: Notice of open meeting. accordance with the provisions of the [FRL±6356±7] Federal Advisory Committee Act SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection (FACA), 5 U.S.C. appl. 2 section 9(c). Agency (EPA) will convene an open National Drinking Water Advisory The purpose of the Urban Wet Weather meeting of the Environmental Council; Small Systems Flows Federal Advisory Committee is to Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB) on Implementation Working Group; Open provide advice and counsel to the June 30, 1999, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 Meeting Administrator of EPA on issues p.m. to be held at the Sheraton Hotel associated with urban wet weather located at 534 Broadway, Saratoga AGENCY: Environmental Protection discharges, including municipal and Springs, New York. Agency (EPA).

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.187 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31220 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

ACTION: Notice. Note: Any matters not discussed or ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Les concluded may be carried over to a later Smith, Federal Communications SUMMARY: Under Section 10(a)(2) of meeting. (In addition to published notices on Commissions, 445 12th Street, S.W., Public Law 92–423, ‘‘The Federal EEOC Commission meetings in the Federal Room 1–A804, Washington, DC 20554 Advisory Committee Act,’’ notice is Register, the Commission also provides a recorded announcement a full week in or via the Internet to [email protected]. hereby given that a meeting of the Small FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Systems Implementation Working advance on future Commission meetings). Please telephone (202) 663–7100 (voice) and additional information or copies of the Group of the National Drinking Water (202) 663–4074 (TDD) at any time for information collections contact Les Advisory Council established under the information on these meetings. Smith at (202) 418–0217 or via the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended Internet at [email protected]. (42 U.S.C. S300f et seq.), will be held on CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: June 23 and June 24, 1999 at the Hyatt Frances M. Hart, Executive Officer on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (202) 663–4070. on Printer’s Row, 500 S. Dearborn, OMB Control Number: 3060–0718. Chicago, Illinois. The meeting will begin Dated: June 8, 1999. Title: Part 101 governing the at 1:00 p.m. and conclude at 5:00 p.m. Frances M. Hart, Terrestrial Microwave Fixed Radio on June 23, and will begin at 8:30 a.m. Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat. Services. and conclude at 4:00 p.m. on June 24. [FR Doc. 99–14927 Filed 6–8–99; 3:29 pm] Form Number: Not applicable. The meeting is open to the public to BILLING CODE 6750±06±M Type of Review: Extension of existing observe, but seating will be limited. collection. The purpose of this meeting is to Respondents: Businesses; not-for- analyze relevant issues and facts related profit institutions; state, local or tribal to small systems. Working group FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS government. members will begin to propose stategic COMMISSION Number of Respondents: 1,025 options for U.S. EPA and States to respondents and 19,000 recordkeepers. Notice of Public Information consider in assisting small systems in Estimated Time Per Response: 1.77 Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the meeting the public health objectives of hours per response and 120 hours per Federal Communications Commission the Safe Drinking Water Act. Statements recordkeepers. This reflects an annual will be taken from the public at this June 3, 1999. estimate of 1,025 respondents making various filings and an estimated 19,000 meeting, as time allows. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications For more information, please contact licensees maintaining records. Commission, as part of its continuing Frequency of Response: Peter E. Shanaghan, Designated Federal effort to reduce paperwork burden Officer, Small Systems Implementation Recordkeeping Reporting, on occasion. invites the general public and other Total Annual Burden: 1489 hours. Working Group, U.S. EPA, Office of Federal agencies to take this Ground Water and Drinking Water Total Annual Cost: $90,624. opportunity to comment on the Needs and Uses: The information (4606), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, following information collection, as requirements are used to determine D.C. 20460. The telephone number is required by the Paperwork Reduction technical, legal, and other qualifications 202–260–5813 and the email address is Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An of applicants to operate a station in the [email protected]. agency may not conduct or sponsor a public and private operational fixed Dated: May 26, 1999. collection of information unless it services. The information is also used to Elizabeth Fellows, displays a currently valid control ensure the applicants and licensees Acting Designated Federal Officer, National number. No person shall be subject to comply with the ownership and transfer Drinking Water Advisory Council. any penalty for failing to comply with restrictions imposed by Section 310 of [FR Doc. 99–14765 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] a collection of information subject to the the Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 310. Without BILLING CODE 6560±50±U Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that this information, the Commission would does not display a valid control number. not be able to carry out its statutory Comments are requested concerning (a) responsibilities. whether the proposed collection of EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY information is necessary for the proper Federal Communications Commission. COMMISSION performance of the functions of the Magalie Roman Salas, Commission, including whether the Secretary. Sunshine Act Meeting information shall have practical utility; [FR Doc. 99–14720 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712±01±P AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Equal (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s Employment Opportunity Commission. burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 information collected; and (d) ways to FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS (1st Session 10:00 a.m., 2nd Session minimize the burden of the collection of COMMISSION 2:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time). information on the respondents, Notice of Public Information PLACE: Thurgood Marshall School of including the use of automated Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Law, Texas Southern University, 3100 collection techniques or other forms of Federal Communications Commission Cleburne Street, Houston, Texas 77004. information technology. STATUS: The meeting will be open to the DATES: Written comments should be June 4, 1999. public. submitted on or before August 9, 1999. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: If you anticipate that you will be Commission, as part of its continuing 1. Announcement of Notation Votes, submitting comments, but find it effort to reduce paperwork burden and difficult to do so within the period of invites the general public and other 2. Panels on Employment time allowed by this notice, you should Federal agencies to take this Discrimination as it Affects Low Wage advise the contact listed below as soon opportunity to comment on the Earners. as possible. following information collection, as

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.148 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31221 required by the Paperwork Reduction testing of all Emergency Alert System communications. Form can be filed Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An (EAS) by broadcasting stations electronically. agency may not conduct or sponsor a including cable television across the Federal Communications Commission. collection of information unless it United States. Records of this Magalie Roman Salas, displays a currently valid control information is necessary to document Secretary. number. No person shall be subject to compliance with this Rule and to any penalty for failing to comply with enhance awareness and participation in [FR Doc. 99–14721 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] a collection of information subject to the the national, state and local EAS. BILLING CODE 6712±01±P Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that Accurate recordkeeping of this data is does not display a valid control number. vital in determining the location and FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Comments are requested concerning (a) nature of possible equipment failure on COMMISSION whether the proposed collection of the part of the transmitting or receiving information is necessary for the proper entity. Furthermore, since the national Notice of Public Information performance of the functions of the level EAS is solely for the use of the Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Commission, including whether the President of the United States, its proper Federal Communications Commission information shall have practical utility; operation must be assured. (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s The purpose of the information is to June 3, 1999. burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance ensure that the emergency alert systems SUMMARY: The Federal Communications the quality, utility, and clarity of the throughout the United States are in good Commission, as part of its continuing information collected; and (d) ways to working condition thus ensuring that effort to reduce paperwork burden minimize the burden of the collection of communities will have access to invites the general public and other information on the respondents, communications systems in time of Federal agencies to take this including the use of automated national emergency and/or local opportunity to comment on the collection techniques or other forms of weather related or man made disasters. following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction information technology. OMB Control Number: 3060–0059. Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An DATES: Written comments should be Title: Statement Regarding the agency may not conduct or sponsor a submitted on or before August 9, 1999. Importation of Radio Frequency Devices collection of information unless it If you anticipate that you will be Capable of Causing Harmful displays a currently valid control submitting comments, but find it Interference. number. No person shall be subject to difficult to do so within the period of Type of Review: Revision of a any penalty for failing to comply with time allowed by this notice, you should currently approved collection. a collection of information subject to the advise the contact listed below as soon Respondents: Business or other for- Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that as possible. profit entities; Individuals or does not display a valid control number. ADDRESSES: households; Not-for-profit institutions; Direct all comments to Les Comments are requested concerning (a) State, Local, or Tribal Government. Smith, Federal Communications whether the proposed collection of Number of Respondents: 5,077. Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., information is necessary for the proper Estimate Time Per Response: 1 to 5 Room 1–A804, Washington, DC 20554 performance of the functions of the mins. (330 responses annually/ or via the Internet to [email protected]. Commission, including whether the respondent) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information shall have practical utility; Frequency of Response: On occasion additional information or copies of the (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s reporting requirements. information collections contact Les burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance Total Annual Burden: 28,030 hours. Smith at (202) 418–0217 or via the the quality, utility, and clarity of the Total Annual Costs: None. Internet at [email protected]. information collected; and (d) ways to Needs and Uses: Radio frequency (RF) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: minimize the burden of the collection of devices (examples: microwaves, OMB Control Number: 3060–0207. information on the respondents, computer microprocessor, computers, Title: Section 11.35, Equipment including the use of automated computer peripherals, telephones with Operational Readiness; Section 11.51 collection techniques or other forms of memory or other advanced features, EAS Code and Attention Signal information technology. Transmission Requirements; Section video cameras, recorders, transmitters, electronic musical instruments, video DATES: Written comments should be 11.52, EAS Code and Attention Signal submitted on or before August 9, 1999. Monitoring Requirements; Section games and radio remote control toys.) imported into the United States are If you anticipate that you will be 11.61, Participating Broadcasting submitting comments, but find it Stations to Test EAS Equipment capable of causing harmful interference (safety of life) to radio systems. The FCC difficult to do so within the period of Requirement. time allowed by this notice, you should Type of Review: Revision of a working in conjunction with U.S. Customs is responsible for the advise the contact listed below as soon currently approved collection. as possible. Respondents: Business or other for- regulations of both authorized radio ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Les profit entities. services and devices that can cause Number of Respondents: 15,000. interference. FCC Form 740 must be Smith, Federal Communications Estimate Time Per Response: 10 sec. completed for each radio frequency Commissions, 445 12th Street, S.W., (156 responses annually/respondent) device as defined in 47 U.S.C. 302 and Room 1–A804, Washington, DC 20554 Frequency of Response: D.F.R. 2.802, which is imported into the or via the Internet to [email protected]. Recordkeeping; On occasion reporting Customs territory of the United States. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For requirements. Purpose of this information is to keep additional information or copies of the Total Annual Burden: 6,500 hours. non-compliant devices from being information collections contact Les Total Annual Costs: None. distributed to the general public thereby Smith at (202) 418–0217 or via the Needs and Uses: The Commission reducing the potential for harmful Internet at [email protected]. adopted Rules that require the weekly interference being caused to authorized SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.151 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31222 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

OMB Control Number: 3060–0009. Street, SW, Washington, DC or may be AGI Logistics (Los Angeles) Inc., 754 S. Title: Application for Consent to purchased from the Commission’s copy Glasgow Avenue, Inglewood, CA Assignment of Broadcast Station contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857–3800. 90301, Officers: Chi-Wing Wong, Construction Permit or License or Oppositions to these petitions must be Chief Executive Officer (Qualifying Transfer of Control of Corporation filed by June 25, 1999. See § 1.4(b)(1) of Individual), Yung-Heung Wong, Holding Broadcast Station Construction the Commission’s rules (47 CFR Director, Jane T. Gee, Director Permit or License. 1.4(b)(1). Replies to an opposition must Amasia Group, Inc., 156–15 146TH Form Number: FCC 316. be filed within 10 days after the time for Avenue Room 214, Jamaica, NY Type of Review: Extension of filing oppositions has expired. 11434, Officer: Dick Mao, President currently approved collection. Subject: Cellular Telecommunications (Qualifying Individual) Respondents: Business or other for- Industry Association’s Petition for Amos Cargo Service, Inc., 901 W. profit. Forbearance From Commercial Mobile Victoria Street Unit B–2, Compton, Number of Respondents: 2700. Radio Services Number Portability CA 90220, Officer: Chong W. Kim, Estimated Time Per Response: 2.5 Obligations (WT Docket No. 98–229). President (Qualifying Individual) hours (1 hour respondent; 1.5 hours Number of Petitions Filed: 4 Delta Line International Inc., 9164 NW contract attorney). Subject: Streamlining of Radio 150 Terrace, Miami, FL 33018, Frequency of Response: Reporting, on Officer: Ana M. Vega, President occasion. Technical Rules in Part 73 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules (MM Docket No. (Qualifying Individual) Total Annual Burden: 2700. Edco Export & Ocean Freight Total Annual Cost: $1,054,000. 98–93). Numbers of Petitions Filed: 1. Corporation, 5220 NW, 163rd Street, Needs and Uses: Filing of the FCC Miami Lakes, FL 33014, Officers: Cory Subject: 1998 Biennial Regulatory Form 316 is required when applying for Diaz, President, (Qualifying Review—Review of International authority for assignment of a broadcast Individual), Edgar Callander, Vice Common Carrier Regulatory (IB Docket station construction permit or license, President No. 98–118). or for consent to transfer control of ENI Shipping Inc., 500 Carson Plaza Number of Petitions Filed: 1. corporation holding broadcast station Drive, #217, Carson, CA 90746, construction permit or license where Federal Communications Commission. Officer: Kevin Hangduck Lee, there is little change in the relative Magalie Roman Salas, President (Qualifying Individual) interest or disposition of its interests; Secretary. Everexcel International Freight where transfer of interest is not a [FR Doc. 99–14648 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Forwarding Co., 2075 S. Atlantic controlling one; where there is no # BILLING CODE 6712±01±M Blvd., C, Monterey Park, CA 91754, substantial change in the beneficial Officers: Bonnet Fan, Director ownership of the corporation; where the (Qualifying Individual), Ginette S.H. assignment is less than a controlling FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Fan, Secretary, Lian Hai Li, Chief interest in a partnership; and where Executive Officer there is an appointment of an entity Global Container Line, Inc., 10540 N.W. qualified to succeed to the interest of a Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants 26th Street, Suite G–150, Miami, FL deceased or legally incapacitated 33172, Officer: Alicia Arocha, individual permittee, licensee or Notice is hereby given that the President (Qualifying Individual) controlling stockholder. The data is following applicants have filed with the Global Shipping, Inc., Parlway One, used by FCC staff to determine if the Federal Maritime Commission Suite 201, 2697 International applicant is qualified to become a applications for licenses as Non-Vessel Parkway, Virginia Beach, VA 23452, Commission licensee or permittee of a Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Officers: R. Timothy Jones, Vice commercial or noncommercial Freight Forwarder—Ocean President (Qualifying Individual), J. broadcast station. Transportation Intermediaries pursuant Michael Gatchell, President Federal Communications Commission. to section 19 of the Shipping Act of Golden Gate Shipping, Inc., 405 North Magalie Roman Salas, 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 Oak Street, Inglewood, CA 90302, Secretary. and 46 CFR part 515). Officers: Julio Almario, Vice President [FR Doc. 99–14744 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Persons knowing of any reason why (Qualifying Individual), Wenceslao any of the following applicants should BILLING CODE 6712±01±P Villaluz, President, Isabel Villaluz, not receive a license are requested to Vice President Administration contact the Office of Freight Forwarders, Inter-Americas Transport Inc., 5647 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Federal Maritime Commission, Cartagena Street, Houston, TX 77035, COMMISSION Washington, DC 20573. Officers: Armando Miralles, President Non-Vessel-Operating Common (Qualifying Individual), Sharon L. [Report No. 2333] Carrier Ocean Transportation Gray, Officer, Board of Directors, Irene Intermediary Applicants: Petitions for Reconsideration and Sadkowski Cosme, Officer, Board of Clarification of Action in Rulemaking Transpac Services Inc., 360A West Directors Proceedings Merrick Road, 2/Fl., Valley Stream, Jecc Management, Inc., 22339 Harbor NY 11580, Officers: Samuel K. Ma, Ridge Lane, Unit 5, Torrance, CA June 3, 1999. President (Qualifying Individual), 90502, Officers: Jack C. Wu, President Petitions for Reconsideration have Josephine W. Ma, Vice President (Qualifying Individual), Ellen L. Wu, been filed in the Commission’s Admiral Overseas Shipping Company, Vice-President, Christina L. Wu, rulemaking proceedings listed in this Inc., 41 W. Yokuts Avenue Suite 233, Secretary Public Notice and published pursuant to Stockton, CA 95207, Officers: Romeo Neptune International Group, Inc., 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of these B. Dilla, Jr., President (Qualifying 17890 Castleton Street, #105, City of documents are available for viewing and Individual), Christen P. Della, Vice Industry, CA 91748, Officers: Ke copying in Room CY–A257, 445 12th President Finance Chang Tan, President (Qualifying

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.149 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31223

Individual), Min Yi Zhu, Financial Seajet Express Inc. d/b/a Seajet, 10 indicated or the offices of the Board of Officer, Hak Man Tam, Director Summit Avenue, Suite 3, Berkley Governors not later than July 6, 1999. North American Cargo Inc., 140–55 34th Heights, NJ 07922, Officers: Michael A. Federal Reserve Bank of Avenue, #4M, Flushing, NY 11354, Caseley, President (Qualifying Richmond (A. Linwood Gill III, Officers; Mohan Krishnamurti, Individual), Andreas Bauermeister, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd President (Qualifying Individual), Exec. Vice President Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528: Jacob T. Puthenparambil, Secretary ARO Cargo Services, Inc., 51–22 1. Cardinal Financial Corporation, Oconca Shipping (Lax) Inc., 229 S. Skillman Avenue, Suite 2R, Fairfax, Virginia; to acquire 100 percent Glasgow Avenue, Inglewood, CA Woodside, NY 11377, Officer: Olga of the voting shares of Cardinal Bank - 90301, Officers: Mimi Mak, President Hernandez, President (Qualifying Dulles, NA, Reston, Virginia. (Qualifying Individual), Michael Individual) 2. Cardinal Financial Corporation, Wong, Vice President RCL Agencies, Inc., 842 Clifton Avenue, Fairfax, Virginia; to acquire 100 percent Palumbo International Freight Suite #1, Clifton, NJ 07013, Officers: of the voting shares of Cardinal Bank - Forwarders, Inc., Calle Nebraska 2–8 Patrick Costin, President (Qualifying Manassas/Prince William, NA, Ext. Parkville, Guaynabo, PR 00969, Individual), Joseph Cuccurullo, Vice Manassas, Virginia. Officers: Margarota G. Casseres, President B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Secretary (Qualifying Individual), Trans AM Air and Sea Freight (ORD) (Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411 Filippo Palumbo, President, Mauro Inc., 755 Route 83, Suite 216, Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102- Moretti, Treasurer Bensenville, IL 60106, Officers: Lam 2034: Pan Star Express Corporation, 353 North Yuen Sum, President, Raymond Fok, 1. First Banks, Inc., Creve Coeur, Oak Street, Inglewood, CA 90302, Vice President (Qualifying Individual) Missouri; to acquire 100 percent of the Officers: Joe Pan, Chief Executive Dated: June 7, 1999. voting shares of Century Bank, Beverly Officer (Qualifying Individual), Ken Hills, California. Chen, Secretary, Ivy Wang, Chief Bryant L. VanBrakle, Financial Officer Secretary. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Sea Way International, Inc., 350 7th [FR Doc. 99–14718 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] System, June 7, 1999. Avenue, Suite 2202, New York, NY BILLING CODE 6730±01±M Robert deV. Frierson, 10001, Officers: C. Kim, President Associate Secretary of the Board. (Qualifying Individual), Jay Lee, [FR Doc. 99–14784 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Managing Director FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM BILLING CODE 6210±01±F Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder— Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Ocean Transportation Intermediary Mergers of Bank Holding Companies FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Applicants: The companies listed in this notice Notice of Proposals to Engage in Multitrans, Inc., 9024 N.W. 12th Street, have applied to the Board for approval, # Permissible Nonbanking Activities or Suite 1, Miami, FL 33172, Officers: pursuant to the Bank Holding Company to Acquire Companies that are Jairo A. Gomez, Jr., President, Luis F. Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Gomez, Vice President (Qualifying (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part Activities Individual) 225), and all other applicable statutes U.S. Intermodal Maritime Inc., 1330 and regulations to become a bank The companies listed in this notice Broadway, Suite 1054, Oakland, CA holding company and/or to acquire the have given notice under section 4 of the 94612, Officers: Dong Ho Lee, assets or the ownership of, control of, or Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. President, Sung Wook Lee, Treasurer the power to vote shares of a bank or 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 (Qualifying Individual) bank holding company and all of the CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to Pro Logistics, Inc., 736 N. Delphia, Park banks and nonbanking companies acquire or control voting securities or Ridge, IL 60068, Officer: Charles H. owned by the bank holding company, assets of a company, including the Trulls, President (Qualifying including the companies listed below. companies listed below, that engages Individual) The applications listed below, as well either directly or through a subsidiary or Ocean Freight Forwarders—Ocean as other related filings required by the other company, in a nonbanking activity Transportation Intermediary Applicants: Board, are available for immediate that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Narita Line, Inc., 24412 S. Main Street, inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has Suite 104, Carson, CA 90745, Officers: indicated. The application also will be determined by Order to be closely Matthew Leung, President (Qualifying available for inspection at the offices of related to banking and permissible for Individual), Herbert Lo, Vice the Board of Governors. Interested bank holding companies. Unless President persons may express their views in otherwise noted, these activities will be Global Access, 1510 Interstate 45 North, writing on the standards enumerated in conducted throughout the United States. Suite 200, Conroe, TX 77301, Lisa A. the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the Each notice is available for inspection Barragan, Sole Proprietor proposal also involves the acquisition of at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. John P. Coston & Company, Inc., 2425 a nonbanking company, the review also The notice also will be available for Brockton, Suite 103, San Antonio, TX includes whether the acquisition of the inspection at the offices of the Board of 78217, Officers: Patricia Ann Coston nonbanking company complies with the Governors. Interested persons may Spradling, President (Qualifying standards in section 4 of the BHC Act. express their views in writing on the Individual), Mary Kathryn Coston, Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking question whether the proposal complies Vice President activities will be conducted throughout with the standards of section 4 of the Shipping Solutions International, LLC, the United States. BHC Act. 12345 SW Spring Ct., Portland, OR Unless otherwise noted, comments Unless otherwise noted, comments 97225, Officer: Tamra Gay Keeler- regarding each of these applications regarding the applications must be Parr, Manager (Qualifying Individual) must be received at the Reserve Bank received at the Reserve Bank indicated

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.191 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31224 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices or the offices of the Board of Governors SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The treatment of viral hepatitis (focus on the not later than June 25, 1999. Federal Financial Management prevention of hepatitis A, B, and C virus A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996 infection including hepatitis B (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 mandated that agencies implement and vaccination) in correctional settings in North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201- maintain systems that comply the United States. Specifically, 2272: substantially with Federal financial applications are solicited for projects 1. Independent Bankers Financial management systems requirements, aimed at developing and distributing Corp., Irving, Texas, and Community applicable Federal accounting educational materials on viral hepatitis Financial Services, Inc., Atlanta, standards, and the U.S. Government to inmates, and correctional staff. Georgia; to engage de novo through their Standard General Ledger at the B. Eligible Applicants subsidiary, Internet Banking transaction level. The FFMIA statute Communications, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, codified the JFMIP financial systems Applications may be provided only to in the development and marketing of requirements documents as a key organizations currently providing health software products and related services benchmark that agency systems must education materials to correctional to financial institutions, § 225.28(b)(14) meet in order to be substantially in populations and health related training of Regulation Y. compliance with systems requirements materials to staff of correctional Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve provisions under FFMIA. To support institutions at a national or regional System, June 7, 1999. the requirements outlined in the level. Robert deV. Frierson, FFMIA, we are updating requirements Since the purpose of the program is to Associate Secretary of the Board. documents that are obsolete and provide assistance for the development of educational materials that address the [FR Doc. 99–14785 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] publishing additional requirements documents. prevention, testing, counseling, and BILLING CODE 6210±01±F Comments received will be reviewed treatment of viral hepatitis in and the exposure draft will be revised correctional settings in the United States, only applications from GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE as necessary. Publication of the final requirements will be mailed to agency organizations that develop and [Docket No. JFMIP±SR±99±7] senior financial officials and will be distribute educational materials on viral available on the JFMIP website. hepatitis to inmates and correctional Joint Financial Management Karen Cleary Alderman, staff are solicited. Improvement Program (JFMIP)±Federal Note: Public Law 104–65 states that an Financial Management System Executive Director, Joint Financial Management Improvement Program. organization described in section 501(c)(4) of Requirements (FFMSR) [FR Doc. 99–14652 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible AGENCY: Joint Financial Management BILLING CODE 1610±02±M Improvement Program (JFMIP). to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, cooperative agreement, ACTION: Notice of document availability. contract, loan, or any other form. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SUMMARY: The JFMIP is seeking public HUMAN SERVICES C. Availability of Funds comment on an exposure draft titled, Approximately $100,000 is available ‘‘Seized Property and Forfeited Assets Centers for Disease Control and in FY 1999 to fund up to 3 awards. It System Requirements’’ dated June 2, Prevention is expected that the average award will 1999. The draft is being issued to update [Program Announcement 99145] be $35,000, ranging from $25,000 to a May 1993 document. The draft $40,000. It is expected that the award(s) incorporates: (1) Statutory and Hepatitis Education for Inmates and will begin on or about September 30, regulatory changes; (2) technological Correctional Staff; Notice of 1999, and will be made for a 12-month changes; and (3) JFMIP documentation Availability of Funds budget period within a project period of changes. The document is designed to up to three years. Funding estimates A. Purpose provide financial managers with may change. Governmentwide mandatory The Centers for Disease Control and Continuation awards within an requirements for financial systems in Prevention (CDC) announces the approved project period will be made order to process and record financial availability of fiscal year (FY) 1999 on the basis of satisfactory progress as events effectively and efficiently, and to funds for a cooperative agreement with evidenced by required reports and the provide complete, timely, reliable, and one or more national voluntary availability of funds. consistent information for decision organizations involved with correctional makers and the public. facilities to develop and distribute Funding Preference DATES: Comments are due by August 13, materials to educate inmates and A preference will be given to 1999. correctional staff about the risks of applicants with access to inmates and ADDRESSES: Copies of the exposure draft transmission and acquisition of viral corrections staff at local, state, and/or have been mailed to agency senior hepatitis, as well as prevention, federal (public and private) corrections financial officials and are available on counseling, testing, and treatment of programs with a demonstrated high the JFMIP website: http:// viral hepatitis, with an emphasis on concentration of inmates and www.financenet.gov/financenet/fed/ hepatitis A, B, and C prevention and corrections staff at high risk for viral jfmip/jfmipexp.htm. counseling. This program addresses the hepatitis infection. Comments should be addressed to ‘‘Healthy People 2000’’ priority area of D. Program Requirements JFMIP, 441 G Street NW, Room 3111, Immunization and Infectious Diseases. Washington, DC 20548. The purpose of the program is to In conducting activities to achieve the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: provide assistance for the development purpose of this program, the recipient Doris Chew, 202–512–9216 or via of educational materials that address the will be responsible for the activities Internet: [email protected]. prevention, testing, counseling, and under 1. below, and CDC will be

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.029 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31225 responsible for the activities listed 1. Program objectives that respond to operation, if well executed, are capable under 2. below: the program requirements outlined in of attaining project objectives. The 1. Recipient Activities. this announcement. degree to which the applicant has met a. Conduct a needs assessment to 2. An operational plan that describes the CDC Policy requirements regarding demonstrate a genuine and compelling how the objectives will be achieved. the inclusion of women, ethnic, and need for educational materials for 3. An evaluation plan that includes racial groups in the proposed research. inmates and correctional staff. At the qualitative and quantitative measures to This includes: (a) The proposed plan for conclusion of the needs assessment, assess the effectiveness of the program the inclusion of both sexes and racial begin to develop appropriate in accomplishing your program and ethnic minority populations for educational materials. objectives. appropriate representation, (b) the 4. A projected time line for b. Develop educational materials on proposed justification when conducting the proposed program and representation is limited or absent, (c) a prevention, testing, counseling, and evaluation activities. treatment for inmates in all types of statement as to whether the design of 5. A description of personnel that the study is adequate to measure correctional settings. The applicant may includes current and proposed staff include formative research and focus differences when warranted, and (d) a with position titles, position statement as to whether the plans for group testing of materials. The central descriptions, and percentage of time recruitment and outreach for study focus of these educational materials staff person will devote to assigned participants include the process of should be the prevention of hepatitis A, project responsibilities. Also, include a establishing partnerships with B, and C virus infection including curriculum vitae of new staff. community(ies) and recognition of hepatitis B vaccination. 6. A detailed, line-item budget for the mutual benefits. (25 points) c. Develop appropriate materials project and a budget narrative that specific to the needs of this inmate and justifies each line-item. 3. Evaluation correctional staff population and F. Submission and Deadline The degree to which the proposed correlate with the needs assessment plan of evaluation will adequately done in the first year. Submit the original and two copies of measure the objectives. (10 points) d. Develop an inmate education PHS 5161–1 (OMB Number 0937–0189). curriculum emphasizing risk-reduction, Forms are available in the application 4. Staff specific to the prevention of viral kit. On or before July 23, 1999, submit The degree to which the current and hepatitis. the application to the Grants proposed staff are appropriate for e. Evaluate the program established to Management Specialist identified in the executing the project activities. (10 determine pre- and post-education ‘‘Where to Obtain Additional points) knowledge about the prevention of Information’’ section of this announcement. 5. Capacity hepatitis. Deadline: Applications shall be a. The degree to which organization 2. CDC Activities. considered as meeting the deadline if demonstrates expertise in representing a. Provide technical information for they are either: both the security and health aspects of all forms of viral hepatitis including (a) Received on or before the deadline a broad range of correctional facilities information about current testing, date; or and activities (e.g., pre-release). (15 modes of transmission, treatment, (b) Sent on or before the deadline date points) vaccinations, and complications. and received in time prior to the b. Evidence of experience/history b. Provide assistance in the submission to the review panel. working with corrections in health, development and distribution of the (Applicants must request a legibly dated security, education, and training of educational materials for both inmates U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain inmates and staff. (15 points) and correctional staff. a legibly dated receipt from a 6. Budget c. Provide the source of information commercial carrier or U.S. Postal for these educational materials. Service. Private metered postmarks shall The degree to which the budget is d. Assist in the development of a not be acceptable as proof of timely reasonable, clearly justified, and research protocol for IRB review by all mailing.) consistent with the intended use of cooperating institutions participating in Late Applications: Applications funds. (Not scored) the research project. The CDC IRB will which do not meet the criteria in (a) or 7 . Human Subjects review and approve the protocol (b) above are considered late Does the application adequately initially an or at least on an annual basis applications, will not be considered, and will be returned to the applicant. address the requirements of 45 CFR part until the research project is completed. 46 for the protection of human subjects? E. Application Content G. Evaluation Criteria (Not Scored) Each application will be evaluated ll YES ll NO Use the information in the Program individually against the following lllllllllllllll Requirements, Other Requirements, and Comments: criteria by an independent review group Evaluation Criteria sections to develop appointed by CDC. H. Other Requirements the application content. Your Technical Reporting Requirements application will be evaluated on the 1. Objectives Provide CDC with original plus two criteria listed, so it is important to The degree to which the project copies of follow them in laying out your program objectives are capable of achieving the 1. Quarterly Progress reports; plan. The narrative should be no more specific requirements defined in the 2. Financial status report, no more than 20 double-spaced pages, printed on program announcement. (25 points) than 90 days after the end of the budget one side, with one inch margins, and period; and unreduced 12 cpi font. 2. Plan 3. Final financial and performance Include the following in the narrative The degree to which the proposed reports, no more than 90 days after the section of your application: activities described in the plan of end of the project period.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.195 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31226 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Send all reports to the Grants instructed to identify the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Management Specialist identified in the Announcement number of interest. HUMAN SERVICES ‘‘Where to Obtain Additional If you have questions after reviewing Food and Drug Administration Information’’ section of this the contents of all the documents, announcement. business management technical [Docket No. 99N±1590] The following additional assistance may be obtained from: Locke requirements are applicable to this Thompson, Grants Management Merck & Co., Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of program. For a complete description of Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Approval of 32 New Drug Applications each, see Attachment I in the and 48 Abbreviated New Drug application kit. Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Applications AR–1 Human Subjects Requirement (CDC), Room 3000, 2920 Brandywine AR–2 Requirements for Inclusion of AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Road, Atlanta, GA 30341–4146, Women and Racial and Ethnic HHS. Telephone: (404) 842–2749, Email Minorities in Research ACTION: Notice. address: [email protected]. AR–7 Executive Order 12372 Review SUMMARY: The Food and Drug See also the CDC homepage on the AR–9 Paperwork Reduction Act Administration (FDA) is withdrawing Internet to obtain a copy of this Requirements approval of 32 new drug applications AR–10 Smoke-Free Workplace announcement: http://www.cdc.gov (NDA’s) and 48 abbreviated new drug Requirements For program technical assistance, applications (ANDA’s). The holders of AR–11 Healthy People 2000 contact: Linda Moyer, Centers for the applications notified the agency in AR–12 Lobbying Restrictions Disease Control and Prevention, writing that the drug products were no AR–15 Proof of Non-Profit Status National Center for Infectious Diseases, longer marketed and requested that the I. Authority and Catalog of Federal Division of Rickettsial Diseases, approval of the applications be Domestic Hepatitis Branch, 1600 Clifton Rd, NE., withdrawn. Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: (404) EFFECTIVE DATE: JULY 12, 1999. Assistance Number 639–2709, E-mail address: This program is authorized under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [email protected]. sections 301(a) and 317(k)(1)of the Olivia A. Pritzlaff, Center for Drug Public Health Service Act, (42 U.S.C. Dated: June 4, 1999. Evaluation and Research (HFD–7), Food sections 247b(k)(1) and 247b(k)(2)), as John L. Williams, and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers amended. The Catalog of Federal Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–594– Director, Procurement and Grants Office, 2041. Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 93.283. (CDC). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The [FR Doc. 99–14700 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] holders of the applications listed in the J. Where To Obtain Additional table in this document have informed Information BILLING CODE 4163±18±P FDA that these drug products are no To receive additional written longer marketed and have requested that information and to request an FDA withdraw approval of the application kit, call 1–888–GRANTS4 applications. The applicants have also, (1–888–472–6874). You will be asked to by their request, waived their leave you name and address and will be opportunity for a hearing.

Application No. Drug Applicant

NDA 5±620 Mannitol Injection Merck & Co., Inc., P.O. Box 4, BLA±20, West Point, PA 19486. NDA 6±903 Milibis (glycobiarsol) Tablets Sanofi Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 90 Park Ave., New York, NY 10016. NDA 7±542 Tromexan Tablets Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 59 Route 10, East Hanover, NJ 07936±1080. NDA 8±153 Dramamine (dimenhydrinate) Injection G.D. Searle & Co., 4901 Searle Pkwy., Skokie, IL 60077. NDA 8±843 Pro-Banthine (propantheline bromide) Injection Do. NDA 10±126 VapoSteam Richardson-Vicks, 1 Far Mill Crossing, Shelton, CT 06484. NDA 11±316 Temaril (trimeprazine tartrate) Tablets, Syrup, and Capsules Allergan, 2525 Dupont Dr., P.O. Box 19534, Irvine, CA 92623±9534. NDA 11±583 Hydeltrasol Injection Merck & Co., Inc. NDA 12±575 Actifed with Codeine (pseudoephedrine hydro-chloride, 30 Glaxo Wellcome Inc. 5 Moore Dr., P.O. Box 13398, Research milligrams (mg)/5 milliliters (mL), triprolidine hydrochloride, Triangle Park, NC 27709. 25 mg/5 mL, codeine phosphate, 10 mg/5 mL) NDA 13±553 Esimil (guanethidine monosulfate/hydro-chlorothiazide) Com- Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. bination Tablets NDA 15±865 Levoprome (methotrimeprazine) Injection Immunex Corp., 51 University St., Seattle, WA 98101±2936. NDA 16±349 10% Dextrose Injection Baxter Healthcare Corp., Rte. 120 and Wilson Rd., Round Lake, IL 60073±0490. NDA 16±717 10% Travert (invert sugar) Injection in PL 146 Container Do. NDA 16±938 Catarase (chymotrypsin intraocular solution) 1:5000 Oph- Ciba Vision Ophthalmics, 11460 John Creek Pkwy., Duluth, thalmic Intraocular Solution GA 30097±1556. NDA 17±796 Byrel (piperazine citrate) Syrup Sanofi Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.198 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31227

Application No. Drug Applicant

NDA 17±916 Stannous Macro-aggregated Albumin (SnMAA) Syncor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1313 Washington Ave., Gold- en, CO 80401. NDA 17±954 Bretylol (bretylium tosylate) Injection, 50 mg/mL Faulding Pharmaceutical Co., 200 Elmora Ave., Elizabeth, NJ 07207. NDA 18±115 Triaminic-12 (phenyl-propanolamine hydro-chloride 75 mg Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., 560 Morris Ave., Summit, NJ and chlorpheniramine maleate 12 mg) Sustained-release 07901±1312. Tablets NDA 18±193 Velosulin (Regular purified pork insulin) Injection Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Inc., 100 Overlook Ctr., suite 200, Princeton, NJ 08540±7810. NDA 18±194 Insulatard (NPH purified pork isophane insulin suspension) In- Do. jection NDA 18±195 Mixtard 70/30 (70% purified pork isophane suspension and Do. 30% purified pork insulin) Injection NDA 18±580 Yutopar (ritodrine hydrochloride) Injection Astra USA Inc., P.O. Box 4500, Westborough, MA 01581± 4500. NDA 18±698 Thallous Chloride TL±201 Injection Syncor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. NDA 18935 Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride 120 mg/Chlorpheniramine Schwarz Pharma, P.O. Box 2038, Milwaukee, WI 53201. Maleate 12 mg Extended-release Capsules NDA 19±381 Ten-K Tablets (Potassium Chloride Extended-release Tablets Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. USP) NDA 19±580 Osmovist (iotrolan) Injection Berlex Laboratories, Inc., 340 Changebridge Rd., P.O. Box 1000, Montville, NJ 07450±1000. NDA 19±585 Mixtard Human 70/30 (70% human insulin isophane suspen- Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Inc. sion and 30% human insulin (semisynthetic)) Injection NDA 20±755 Caverject (alprostadil injection) aqueous, 5 microgram (mcg)/ Pharmacia & Upjohn, 7000 Portage Rd., Kalamazoo, MI mL (only those portions of NDA that deal with 5 mcg/mL 49001±0199. strength) NDA 50±031 RONDOMYCIN (methacycline hydrochloride) Syrup Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42d St., New York, NY 10017±5755. NDA 50±073 Coly-Mycin M Diagnostic (sodium colistimethate for diagnostic Parke-Davis Pharmaceutical Research, 2800 Plymouth Rd., use) Ann Arbor, MI 48105. NDA 50±075 Polycillin (ampicillin trihydrate) Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., P.O. Box 4000, Princeton, NJ 08543±4000. NDA 50±287 TERRAMYCIN (oxytetra-cycline) Tablets Pfizer Inc. ANDA 40±097 Hydrocortisone and Acetic Acid Otic Solution USP, 1%/2% Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 8500 Hidden River Pkwy., Tampa, FL 33637. ANDA 63±163 Clindamycin Phosphate Injection USP, 150 mg/mL) Bedford Laboratories, Div. of Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 270 Northfield Rd., Bedford, OH 44146. ANDA 70±107 PROPACET 100 (Propoxyphene Napsylate and Acetamino- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, 1510 Delp Dr., Kulpsville, PA phen Tablets USP), 100 mg/650 mg 19443. ANDA 70±691 Methyldopate Hydrochloride Injection USP, 50 mg/mL Faulding Pharmaceutical Co., 11 Commerce Dr., Cranford, NJ 07016. ANDA 70±732 Propoxyphene Napsylate and Acetaminophen Tablets USP, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Do. 100 mg/650 mg ANDA 70±849 Methyldopate Hydrochloride Injection USP, 50 mg/mL Faulding Pharmaceutical Co. ANDA 70±969 Thiothixene Hydrochloride Oral Solution USP (Concentrate) 5 Alpharma, U.S. Pharmaceuticals Div., 333 Cassell Dr., suite mg/mL 3500, Baltimore, MD 21224. ANDA 71±990 Metoclopramide Injection USP, 5 mg/mL Faulding Pharmaceutical Co. ANDA 72±155 Metoclopramide Injection USP, 5 mg/mL Bedford Laboratories. ANDA 72±244 Metoclopramide Injection USP, 5 mg/mL Do. ANDA 72±247 Metoclopramide Injection USP, 5 mg/mL Do. ANDA 72±383 Sulfamethoxazole and Trimethoprim for Injection Concentrate Do. USP ANDA 72±427 Potassium Chloride Extended-release Capsules USP, 10 Savage Laboratories, 60 Baylis Rd., Melville, NY 11747. milliequivalents (mEq) ANDA 72±966 Albuterol Sulfate Tablets USP, 2 mg Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc., 25 John Rd., Canton, MA 02021. ANDA 72±967 Albuterol Sulfate Tablets USP, 4 mg Do. ANDA 73±307 Albuterol Sulfate Inhalation Solution, 0.5% Do. ANDA 73±398 Potassium Chloride Extended-release Capsules USP, 8 mEq Savage Laboratories Do. ANDA 73±495 Albuterol Sulfate Inhalation Solution, 0.083% Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc. ANDA 74±285 Diflunisal Tablets USP, 250 mg and 500 mg Purepac Pharmaceutical Co., 200 Elmora Ave., Elizabeth, NJ 07207. ANDA 74±406 Sufentanil Citrate Injection USP, 50 mcg/mL Steris Laboratories, Inc., 620 North 51st Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85043±4705. ANDA 74±665 Inapamide Tablets USP, 1.25 mg and 2.5 mg Novopharm N.C. Inc., U.S. Agent for Novopharm Ltd., 4700 Novopharm Blvd., Wilson, NC 27893. ANDA 80±763 Hydramine (diphenhydramine hydrochloride) Elixir 12.5 mg/5 Alpharma. mL ANDA 83±296 Aeroseb-DEX (dexamethasone 0.01%) Topical Aerosol Spray Allergan Herbert, P.O. Box 19534, Irvine, CA 92623±9534. ANDA 84±055 ELDECORT (Hydro-cortisone Cream USP) 2.5% ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 3300 Hyland Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626. ANDA 85±482 LIBRITABS (Chlordiazepoxide Tablets USP) Do.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.199 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31228 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Application No. Drug Applicant

ANDA 85±805 Aeroseb-HC (hydrocortisone 0.5%) Topical Aerosol Spray Allergan Herbert. ANDA 86±164 Nitrol Ointment (Nitroglycerin Ointment, 2%) Savage Laboratories. ANDA 86±604 Sustachron (Nitroglycerin Extended-release) Buccal Tablets, Forest Laboratories, Inc., 909 Third Ave., New York, NY 5 mg 10022±4731. ANDA 87±171 Sustachron (Nitroglycerin Extended-release) Buccal Tablets, Do. 2.5 mg ANDA 87±286 Sustachron (Nitroglycerin Extended-release) Buccal Tablets, Do. 1 mg ANDA 87±322 Sustachron (Nitroglycerin Extended-release) Buccal Tablets, Do. 1.5 mg ANDA 87±323 Sustachron (Nitroglycerin Extended-release) Buccal Tablets, Do. 2 mg ANDA 87±615 Sustachron (Nitroglycerin Extended-release) Buccal Tablets, Do. 3 mg ANDA 87±782 Nitrol Ointment (Nitroglycerin Ointment, 2% unit-dose) Savage Laboratories. ANDA 87±998 Spironolactone Tablets USP, 25 mg Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. ANDA 88±421 Amitriptyline Hydro-chloride Tablets USP, 10 mg Copley Pharmaceutical Inc. ANDA 88±422 Amitriptyline Hydro-chloride Tablets USP, 25 mg Do. ANDA 88±423 Amitriptyline Hydro-chloride Tablets USP, 50 mg Do. ANDA 88±424 Amitriptyline Hydro-chloride Tablets USP, 75 mg Do. ANDA 88±425 Amitriptyline Hydro-chloride Tablets USP, 100 mg Do. ANDA 88±426 Amitriptyline Hydro-chloride Tablets USP, 150 mg Do. ANDA 89±817 DEY-LUTE (Isoetharine Inhalation Solution USP) Sulfite-Free, Dey, L.P., 2751 Napa Valley Corporate Dr., Napa, CA 94558. 0.08% ANDA 89±818 DEY-LUTE (Isoetharine Inhalation Solution USP) Sulfite-Free, Do. 0.1% ANDA 89±819 DEY-LUTE (Isoetharine Inhalation Solution USP) Sulfite-Free, Do. 0.17% ANDA 89±820 DEY-LUTE (Isoetharine Inhalation Solution USP) Sulfite-Free, Do. 0.25% ANDA 89±932 Theophylline Extended-Release Capsules, 300 mg F.H. Faulding & Co., Ltd., U.S. Agent: Faulding Inc., 200 Elmora Ave., Elizabeth, NJ 07207. ANDA 89±976 Theophylline Extended-Release Capsules, 100 mg Do. ANDA 89±977 Theophylline Extended-Release Capsules, 200 mg Do.

Therefore, under section 505(e) of the SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Administration (FDA) is publishing an 301–827–3480. (21 U.S.C. 355(e)) and under authority annual comprehensive list of all SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: delegated to the Director, Center for guidance documents currently in use at Drug Evaluation and Research (21 CFR the agency. FDA committed to I. Background 5.82), approval of the applications listed publishing this list in its February 1997 In the Federal Register of February in the table in this document, and all ‘‘Good Guidance Practices’’ (GGP’s), 27, 1997 (62 FR 8961), FDA published amendments and supplements thereto, which set forth the agency’s policies a notice announcing its GGP’s, which is hereby withdrawn, effective July 12, and procedures for the development, set forth the agency’s policies and 1999. issuance, and use of guidance procedures for the development, Dated: May 24, 1999. documents. This list is intended to issuance, and use of guidance Janet Woodcock, inform the public of the existence and documents. The agency adopted the availability of all current guidance Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and GGP’s to ensure public involvement in Research. documents. the development of guidance documents [FR Doc. 99–14656 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] DATES: General comments on this list and to enhance public understanding of BILLING CODE 4160±01±F and on agency guidance documents are the availability, nature, and legal effect welcome at any time. of such guidance. As part of FDA’s effort to ensure DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ADDRESSES: Submit written comments meaningful interaction with the public HUMAN SERVICES to the Dockets Management Branch regarding guidance documents, the (HFA–305), Food and Drug agency committed to publish an annual Food and Drug Administration Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. comprehensive list of guidance 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Information [Docket No. 98N±0046] documents and quarterly updates that on where to obtain a single copy of list all guidance documents that were Annual Comprehensive List of listed guidance documents is provided issued and withdrawn during that Guidance Documents at the Food and for each agency Center individually in quarter, including ‘‘Level 2’’ guidance Drug Administration the specific Center’s list of guidance documents. documents. AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, On June 1, 1998, the President HHS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa instructed all Federal agencies to ensure M. Helmanis, Office of Policy (HF–22), the use of ‘‘plain language’’ in all new ACTION: Notice. Food and Drug Administration, 5600 documents. As part of this initiative,

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.199 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31229

FDA uses the principles of ‘‘plain FDA World Wide Web home page. This following list refer to the date of language’’ set forth by the President list will be updated and published issuance or, where applicable, the date when writing its guidance documents. annually in the Federal Register. The of last revision of the document. The agency seeks public comment on guidance documents on this Document numbers are provided where the clarity of its guidances. comprehensive list are organized by the available. The following comprehensive list of issuing Center or Office within FDA, guidance documents represents all and are further grouped by the intended II. Guidance Documents Issued by the guidances currently in effect. This users or regulatory activities to which Center for Biologics Evaluation and comprehensive list is maintained on the they pertain. Dates provided in the Research (CBER)

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Requirements for Infrequent Plasmapheresis Do- August 27, 1982 FDA regulated industry Office of Communication, Training, nors and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM±40), CBER, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852±1448, 1±800± 835±4709 or 301±827±1800, FAX Information System: 1±888±CBER± FAX (within U.S.) or 301±827±3844 (outside U.S. and local to Rockville, MD). Internet: http://www.fda.gov/ cber Recommendations to Decrease the Risk of Trans- March 24, 1983 Do Do mitting AIDS from Plasma Donors Deferral of Blood Donors Who Have Received the February 28, 1984 Do Do Drug Accutane (isotretinoin/Roche); 13-cis-retinoic acid) Equivalent Methods for Compatibility Testing December 14, 1984 Do Do Plasma Derived from Therapeutic Plasma Exchange December 14, 1984 Do Do Reduction of the Maximum Platelet Storage Period June 2, 1986 Do Do to 5 Days in an Approved Container Deferral of Donors Who Have Received Human Pi- November 25, 1987 Do Do tuitary-Derived Growth Hormone Recommendations for the Management of Donors December 2, 1987 Do Do and Units That Are Initially Reactive for Hepatitis B Surface Antigen (HBsAg) Extension of Dating Period for Storage of Red Blood December 4, 1987 Do Do Cells, Frozen To Licensed In-Vitro Diagnostic Manufacturers: Han- December 23, 1987 Do Do dling of Human Blood Source Materials Recommendations for Implementation of Comput- April 6, 1988 Do Do erization in Blood Establishments Control of Unsuitable Blood and Blood Components April 6, 1988 Do Do Discontinuance of Prelicensing Inspection for Immu- July 7, 1988 Do Do nization Using Licensed Tetanus Toxoid and Hep- atitis B and Rabies Vaccines Physician Substitutes August 15, 1988 Do Do To Licensed Manufacturers of Blood Grouping Re- August 26, 1988 Do Do agents: Criteria for Exemption of Lot Release To Manufacturers of HTLV±I Antibody Test Kits: October 18, 1988 Do Do Antibody to Human T±Cell Lymphotropic Virus, Type I (HTLV±I) Release Panel I HTLV±1 Antibody Testing November 29, 1988 Do Do Use of Recombigen HIV±1 LA Test February 1, 1989 Do Do Guidance for Autologous Blood and Blood Compo- March 15, 1989 Do Do nents HTLV±I Antibody Testing July 6, 1989 Do Do Use of Recombigen HIV±1 Latex Agglutination (LA) August 1, 1989 Do Do Test Requirements for Computerization of Blood Estab- September 8, 1989 Do Do lishments Abbott Laboratories' HIVAG±1 Test for HIV±1 Anti- October 4, 1989 Do Do gen(s) Not Recommended for Requirements for Computerization of Blood Establishments Autologous Blood Collection and Processing Proce- February 12, 1990 Do Do dures Use of Genetic Systems HIV±2 EIA June 21, 1990 Do Do Deficiencies Relating to the Manufacture of Blood March 20, 1991 Do Do and Blood Components

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31230 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Responsibilities of Blood Establishments Related to March 20, 1991 Do Do Errors & Accidents in the Manufacture of Blood and Blood Components Revision to October 26, 1989 Guideline for Collec- April 17, 1991 Do Do tion of Blood or Blood Products from Donors with Positive Tests for Infectious Disease Markers (High Risk Donors) FDA Recommendations Concerning Testing for September 10, 1991 Do Do Antibody to Hepatitis B Core Antigen (Anti-HBc) Disposition of Blood Products Intended for September 11, 1991 Do Do Autologous Use That Test Repeatedly Reactive for Anti-HCV Clarification of FDA Recommendations for Donor December 12, 1991 Do Do Deferral and Product Distribution Based on the Results of Syphilis Testing Revised Recommendations for the Prevention of April 23, 1992 Do Do Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Trans- mission by Blood and Blood Products Use of Fluorognost HIV±1 Immunofluorescent April 23, 1992 Do Do Assay (IFA) Revised Recommendations for Testing Whole April 23, 1992 Do Do Blood, Blood Components, Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes for Antibody to Hepatitis C Virus Encoded Antigen (Anti-HCV) Exemptions to Permit Persons with a History of Viral April 23, 1992 Do Do Hepatitis Before the Age of Eleven Years to Serve as Donors of Whole Blood and Plasma; Al- ternative Procedures (21 CFR 640.120) Changes in Equipment for Processing Blood Donor July 21, 1992 Do Do Samples Nomenclature for Monoclonal Blood Grouping Re- August 19, 1993 Do Do agents Volume Limits for Automated Collection of Source November 4, 1992 Do Do Plasma Revision of October 7, 1988 Memo Concerning Red December 16, 1992 Do Do Blood Cell Immunization Programs Recommendations Regarding License Amendments July 22, 1993 Do Do and Procedures for Gamma Irradiation of Blood Products Deferral of Blood and Plasma Donors Based on July 28, 1993 Do Do Medications Revised Recommendations for Testing Whole August 19, 1993 Do Do Blood, Blood Components, Source Plasma and Source Leukocytes for Antibody to Hepatitis C Virus Encoded Antigen (Anti-HCV) Changes in Administrative Procedures September 9, 1993 Do Do Guidance Regarding Post Donation Information Re- December 10, 1993 Do Do ports Donor Suitability Related to Laboratory Testing for December 22, 1993 Do Do Viral Hepatitis and a History of Viral Hepatitis Recommendations for the Invalidation of Test Re- January 3, 1994 Do Do sults When Using Licensed Viral Marker Assays to Screen Donors Recommendations for Deferral of Donors for Malaria July 26, 1994 Do Do Risk Use of and FDA Cleared or Approved Sterile Dock- August 5, 1994 Do Do ing Device (STCD) in Blood Bank Practices (transmittal memo 8/12/94) (corrects 7/29/94 Memo) Recommendations to Users of Medical Devices December 20, 1994 Do Do That Test for Infectious Disease Markers by En- zyme Immunoassay (EIA) Test Systems Timeframe for Licensing Irradiated Blood Products February 3, 1995 Do Do Revision of 8/27/82 FDA Memo: Requirements for March 10, 1995 Do Do Infrequent Plasmapheresis Donors To All Establishments Performing Red Blood Cell March 14, 1995 Do Do Immunizations: Revised Recommendations for Red Blood Cell Immunization Programs for Source Plasma

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31231

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Recommendations for the Deferral of Current and June 8, 1995 Do Do Recent Inmates of Correctional Institutions as Do- nors of Whole Blood, Blood Components, Source Leukocytes and Source Plasma Disposition of Products Derived from Donors Diag- August 8, 1995 Do Do nosed with, or at Known High Risk for, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Recommendations for Labeling and Use of Units of August 8, 1995 Do Do Whole Blood, Blood Components, Source Plas- ma, Recovered Plasma or Source Leukocytes Obtained from Donors with Elevated Levels of Al- anine Aminotransferase (ALT) Precautionary Measures to Further Reduce the Pos- August 8, 1995 Do Do sible Risk of Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease by Blood and Blood Products Recommendations for Donor Screening with a Li- August 8, 1995 Do Do censed Test for HIV±1 Antigen Guidance Concerning Conversion to FDA-Reviewed November 13, 1995 Do Do Software Products Donor Deferral Due to Red Blood Cell Loss During December 4, 1995 Do Do Collection of Source Plasma by Automated Plas- mapheresis Additional Recommendations for Donor Screening March 14, 1996 Do Do With a Licensed Test for HIV±1 Antigen Additional Recommendations for Testing Whole May 16, 1996 Do Do Blood, Blood Components, Source Plasma and Source Leucocytes for Antibody to Hepatitis C Virus Encoded Antigen (Anti-HCV) Recommendations and Licensure Requirements for May 29, 1996 Do Do Leukocyte-Reduced Blood Products Recommendations for the Quarantine and Disposi- July 19, 1996 Do Do tion of Units from Prior Collections from Donors with Repeatedly Reactive Screening Tests for Hepatitis B Virus (HBV), Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) and Human T±Lymphotropic Virus Type I (HTLV± I) Interim Recommendations for Deferral of Donors at December 11, 1996 Do Do Increased Risk for HIV±1 Group O Infection Revised Precautionary Measures to Reduce the December 11, 1996 Do Do Possible Risk of Transmission of Creutzfeldt- Jakob Disease (CJD) by Blood and Blood Prod- ucts Interstate Shipment of Interferon for Investigational November 21, 1983 Do Do Use in Laboratory Research Animals or Tests in Vitro Alternatives to Lot Release July 20, 1993 Do Do Application of Current Statutory Authorities to October 14, 1993 Do Do Human Somatic Cell Therapy Products and Gene Therapy Products; Notice Home Specimen Collection Kit Systems Intended for February 23, 1995 Do Do Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV±1 and/or HIV±2) Antibody Testing; Revisions to Previous Guidance Interim Definition and Elimination of Lot-by-Lot Re- December 8, 1995 Do Do lease for Well-Characterized Therapeutic Recom- binant DNA-Derived and Monoclonal Antibody Biotechnology Products Draft Public Health Service Guideline on Infectious September 23, 1996 Do Do Disease Issues in Xenotransplantation; Notice The Food and Drug Administration's Development, February 27, 1997 Do Do Issuance, and Use of Guidance Documents Preclearance of Promotional Labeling; Clarification March 5, 1997 Do Do Draft Guidance for Industry: Computerized Systems June 18, 1997 Do Do Used in Clinical Trials; Availability Recommended Methods for Short Ragweed Pollen November 1, 1985 Do Do Extracts Information Relevant to the Manufacture of Acellular August 23, 1989 Do Do Pertussis Vaccine Recommended Methods for Blood Grouping Re- March 1, 1992 Do Do agents Evaluation

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31232 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Recommended Methods for Evaluating Potency, March 1, 1992 Do Do Specificity and Reactivity of Anti-Human Globulin Methods of the Allergenic Products Testing Labora- October 1, 1993 Do Do tory Guide to Inspections of Blood Banks, Division of September 1, 1994 FDA personnel Do Field Investigations, Office of Regional Oper- ations, Office of Regulatory Affairs Guide to Inspections of Infectious Disease Marker June 1, 1996 Do Do Testing Facilities Guide to Inspections of Source Plasma Establish- June 1, 1997 Do Do ments (Division of Field Investigations, Office of Regional Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs) Notification Process for Transfusion Related Fatali- October 7, 1997 FDA regulated industry Do ties and Donation Related Deaths (revised telephone number) Submission Requirements for Requesting Certifi- October 15, 1997 Do Do cates for Exporting Products to Foreign Countries CBER Refusal to File (RTF) Guidance for Product July 12, 1993 Do Do and Establishment License Applications OELPS, Advertising and Promotional Labeling Staff August 1, 1994 Do Do Procedural Guidance Document (Draft) Guidance on Alternatives to Lot Release for Li- October 27, 1994 Do Do censed Biological Products Content and Format of Investigational New Drug November 1, 1995 Do Do Applications (INDs) for Phase 1 Studies of Drugs, Including Well-Characterized, Therapeutic, Bio- technology-Derived Products Computer Assisted Product License Application March 1, 1996 Do Do (CAPLA) Guidance Manual FDA Guidance Concerning Demonstration of Com- April 26, 1996 Do Do parability of Human Biological Products, Including Therapeutic Biotechnology-Derived Products Guidance for IndustryÐThe Content and Format for May 23, 1996 Do Do Pediatric Use Supplements Guidance on Applications for Products Comprised of May 24, 1996 Do Do Living Autologous Cells Manipulated Ex Vivo and Intended for Structural Repair of Reconstruction Guidance for Industry for the Submission of Chem- August 15, 1996 Do Do istry, Manufacturing, and Controls Information for a Therapeutic Recombinant DNA-Derived Product or a Monoclonal Antibody Product for In Vivo Use Draft Guidance for Industry: Manufacture, Proc- September 20, 1996 Do Do essing or Holding of Active Pharmaceutical Ingre- dients Draft Guidance for Industry; Submitting Application November 4, 1996 Do Do Archival Copies in Electronic Format Draft Guidance for Industry; Electronic Submission November 4, 1996 Do Do of Case Report Forms and Case Report Tabula- tions Guidance for the Submission of Chemistry, Manu- January 10, 1997 Do Do facturing, and Controls Information and Establish- ment Description for Autologous Somatic Cell Therapy Products Proposed Approach to Regulation of Cellular and February 28, 1997 Do Do Tissue-Based Products Tables 1 and 2 from Proposed Approach to Regula- March 4, 1997 Do Do tion of Cellular and Tissue-Based Products Guidance for IndustryÐProviding Clinical Evidence March 13, 1997 Do Do of Effectiveness for Human Drug and Biological Products Guidance for Industry for the Evaluation of Com- April 10, 1997 Do Do bination Vaccines for Preventable Diseases: Pro- duction, Testing and Clinical Studies Guidance for IndustryÐChanges to an Approved July 24, 1997 Do Do Application: Biological Products Guidance for IndustryÐChanges to an Approved July 24, 1997 Do Do Application for Specified Biotechnology and Spec- ified Synthetic Biological Products

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31233

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Guidance for IndustryÐScreening and Testing of July 29, 1997 Do Do Donors of Human Tissue Intended for Transplan- tation Guidance for IndustryÐDonor Screening for Anti- August 15, 1997 Do Do bodies to HTLV±II Draft Guidance for Industry on Testing Limits in Sta- August 25, 1997 Do Do bility Protocols for Standardized Grass Pollen Ex- tracts Guidance for IndustryÐPostmarketing Adverse Ex- August 27, 1997 Do Do perience Reporting for Human Drug and Licensed Biological Products: Clarification of What to Re- port Draft Guidance for Industry Efficacy Evaluation of September 1, 1997 Do Do Hemoglobin-and Perfluorocarbon-Based Oxygen Carriers Guidance for IndustryÐThe Sourcing and Proc- October 7, 1997 Do Do essing of Gelatin to Reduce the Potential Risk Posed by Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in FDAÐRegulated Products for Human Use FDA's Policy Statement Concerning Cooperative November 25, 1992 Do Do Manufacturing Arrangements for Licensed Bio- logics FDA Guidance Document Concerning Use of Pilot July 11, 1995 Do Do Manufacturing Facilities for the Development and Manufacture of Biological Products; Availability Advertising and Promotion; Guidance; Notice October 8, 1996 Do Do Interpretative Guidelines of the Source Plasma October 2, 1973 Do Do (Human) Standards Guidelines for Reviewing Amendments to Include July 20, 1976 Do Do Plasmapheresis of Hemophiliacs Package Insert: Immune Serum Globulin (Human) March 30, 1978 Do Do Guidelines for Interpretation of Potency Test Results April 12, 1979 Do Do for All Forms of Adsorbed Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids Guidelines for Immunization of Source Plasma June 1, 1980 Do Do (Human) Donors with Blood Substances Collection of Human Leukocytes for Further Manu- January 28, 1981 Do Do facturing (Source Leukocytes) Platelet Testing GuidelinesÐApproval of New Pro- July 1, 1981 Do Do cedures and Equipment Revised Guideline for Adding Heparin to Empty August 1, 1981 Do Do Containers for Collection of Heparinized Source Plasma (Human) Guidelines for Meningococcal Polysaccharide Vac- July 17, 1985 Do Do cines Guideline for the Uniform Labeling of Blood and August 1, 1985 Do Do Blood Components Guideline for Submitting Documentation for the Sta- February 1, 1987 Do Do bility of Human Drugs and Biologics Guideline for Submitting Documentation for Pack- February 1, 1987 Do Do aging for Human Drugs and Biologics Guideline On General Principles of Process Valida- May 1, 1987 Do Do tion Guideline On Sterile Drug Products Produced by June 1, 1987 Do Do Aseptic Processing Guideline On Validation of the Limulus Amebocyte December 1, 1987 Do Do Lysate Test as an End-Product Endotoxin Test for Human and Animal Parenteral Drugs, Biological Products, and Medical Devices Revised Guideline for the Collection of Platelets, October 7, 1988 Do Do Pheresis Draft Guideline for the Design of Clinical Trials for November 1, 1988 Do Do Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Allergenic Products for Therapeutic Uses Guidelines for Release of Pneumococcal Vaccine, February 1, 1989 Do Do Polyvalent FDA Regulated Industries for Drug Master Files September 1, 1989 Do Do

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31234 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

FDA Regulated Industries for Collection of Blood or October 26, 1989 Do Do Blood Products from Donors With Positive Tests for Infectious Disease Markers (``High Risk'' Do- nors) Guideline for Determination of Residual Moisture in January 1, 1990 Do Do Dried Biological Products Guideline on the Preparation of Investigational New March 1, 1991 Do Do Drug Products (Human & Animal) Draft Guideline for the Validation of Blood Establish- September 28, 1993 Do Do ment Computer Systems Guideline for Adverse Experience Reporting for Li- October 15, 1993 Do Do censed Biological Products Guideline for Quality Assurance in Blood Establish- July 11, 1995 Do Do ments To In Vitro Diagnostic Reagent Manufacturers: December 6, 1986 Do Do Guidance On the Labeling of Human Blood De- rived In Vitro Diagnostic Devices In Regard to La- beling for HTLV±III/LAV Antibody Testing To Biologic Product ManufacturersÐControlling Ma- May 3, 1991 Do Do terials of Bovine or Ovine Origin To Sponsors of INDs Using Retroviral Vectors September 20, 1993 Do Do To Manufacturers: Bovine Derived Materials (BSE) December 17, 1993 Do Do To Blood Establishment Computer Software Manu- March 31, 1994 Do Do facturers To Sponsors of INDs for Human Immunoglobulin May 23, 1994 Do Do Products To Manufacturers of Licensed Anti-HIV Test Kits May 26, 1994 Do Do Letter to Manufacturers of Immune Globulin Intra- October 3, 1994 Do Do venous (Human) (IGIV), Aseptic Meningitis Syn- drome To Manufacturers of Immune Globulin Products: December 27, 1994 Do Do Testing for Hepatitis C Virus RNA Immunoglobulin To Blood Establishment Computer Software Manu- February 10, 1995 Do Do facturers To Manufacturers of Intramuscular Immune Globulin March 3, 1995 Do Do Products: HCV RNA Testing by PCR To Manufacturers of Intramuscular Immune Globulin March 13, 1995 Do Do Products: Additional Information Regarding HCV RNA Testing by PCR To Health Professionals: Implementation of Testing March 14, 1995 Do Do for HCV RNA by PCR for Immune Globulin Prod- ucts for Intramuscular Administration Dear Colleague: Regarding Reverse Transcriptase January 4, 1996 Do Do Activity in Viral Vaccines Produced in Chicken Cells To Manufacturers of FDA-Regulated Drug/Biologi- May 9, 1996 Do Do cal/Device Products, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) To Manufacturers: Implementation of Testing for June 13, 1996 Do Do Hepatitis C Virus RNA by Manufacturers: Imple- mentation of Testing for Hepatitis C Virus RNA by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) of Intramuscular Immune Globulin Preparations To Manufacturers: HIV±1 Group O July 31, 1996 Do Do To All Plasma Derivative Manufacturers and to October 7, 1996 Do Do ABRA: Warning Statement for Plasma Derivative Product Labeling To Biologic Product Manufacturers: Revised Proce- December 3, 1996 Do Do dures for Internal Labeling Review Number As- signment To Plasma FractionatorsÐCBER's View on Product May 29, 1997 Do Do Recalls Conducted by the Plasma Fractionation Industry PTC in the Manufacture of In Vitro Monoclonal Anti- June 20, 1983 Do Do body Products Subject to Licensure Draft PTC in the Production and Testing of July 28, 1983 Do Do Interferon Intended for Investigational Use in Hu- mans (Interferon Test Procedures)

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31235

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Draft PTC in the Production and Testing of New April 10, 1985 Do Do Drugs and Biologicals Produced by Recombinant DNA Technology Draft PTC in the Manufacture and Clinical Evalua- August 8, 1989 Do Do tion of In Vitro Tests to Detect Antibodies to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (1989) PTC in the Collection, Processing and Testing of Ex August 22, 1989 Do Do Vivo Activated Mononuclear Leukocytes for Ad- ministration to Humans Cytokine and Growth Factor Pre-Pivotal Trial Infor- April 2, 1990 Do Do mation Package PTC in the Safety Evaluation of Hemoglobin-Based August 21, 1990 Do Do Oxygen Carriers PTC in the Design and Implementation of Field March 1, 1992 Do Do Trials for Blood Grouping Reagents and Anti- Human Globulin PTC in the Manufacture of In Vitro Monoclonal Anti- March 1, 1992 Do Do body Products for Further Manufacturing into Blood Grouping Reagent and Anti-Human Glob- ulin Supplement to the PTC in the Production and Test- April 6, 1992 Do Do ing of New Drugs and Biologicals Produced by Recombinant DNA Technology: Nucleic Acid Characterization and Genetic Stability Draft PTC in the Characterization of Cell Lines Used July 12, 1993 Do Do to Produce Biologicals PTC in the Manufacture and Testing of Therapeutic August 22, 1995 Do Do Products for Human Use Derived from Transgenic Animals PTC on Plasmid DNA Vaccines for Preventive Infec- December 22, 1996 Do Do tious Disease Indications PTC in the Manufacture and Testing of Monoclonal February 28, 1997 Do Do Antibody Products for Human Use Reviewer Guidance, Computer Software April 26, 1995 FDA Personnel Do Informed Consent for Plasmapheresis/Immunization October 1, 1995 Do Do Draft Reviewers' Guide: Changes in Personnel October 1, 1995 Do Do Disease Associated Antibody Collection Program October 1, 1995 Do Do Reviewer Guidance for a Premarket Notification January 13, 1997 Do Do Submission for Blood Establishment Computer Software Compliance Program Guidance Manual (Drugs and 1994 Do National Technical Information Service Biologics) (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161, 703±605± 6050 (Publication No. 94±920699) Guidance for Industry: Industry-Supported Scientific November 1997 FDA regulated industry Office of Communication, Training, and Educational Activities and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM±40), CBER, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852±1448, 1±800± 835±4709 or 301±827±1800, FAX Information System: 1±888±CBER± FAX (within U.S.) or 301±827±3844 (outside U.S. and local to Rockville, MD). Internet: http://www.fda.gov/ cber To Biologic Product ManufacturersÐWithdrawal of December 11, 1997 Do Do Human Blood-Derived Materials Because Donors Diagnosed With, or At Increased Risk For, CJD To Allergenic Extract ManufacturersÐStandardized December 23, 1997 Do Do Grass Pollen Extracts Draft Guidance for Industry: Promoting Medical December 1997 Do Do Products in a Changing Healthcare Environment; I. Medical Product Promotion by Healthcare Orga- nizations or Pharmacy Benefits Management Companies (PBMS) Dear Doctor LetterÐDifficulty in Obtaining Immune January 28, 1998 Health care providers Do Globulin Intravenous (Human) Guidance for Industry: Year 2000 Date Change for January 1998 FDA regulated industry Do Computer Systems and Software Applications Used in the Manufacture of Blood Products

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31236 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Draft Guidance for Industry: Efficacy Studies to Sup- January 1998 Do Do port Marketing of Fibrin Sealant Products Manu- factured for Commercial Use Draft Guidance for Industry: Container and Closure January 1998 Do Do Integrity Testing in Lieu of Sterility Testing as a Component of the Stability Protocol for Sterile Products Draft Guidance for Industry: Clinical Development of February 1998 Do Do Programs for Drugs, Devices and Biological Prod- ucts Intended for Treatment of Osteoarthritis (OA) Draft Guidance for Industry: Manufacturing, Proc- March 1998 Do Do essing or Holding Active Pharmaceutical Ingredi- ents Guidance for Industry: Guidance for Human So- March 1998 Do Do matic Cell Therapy and Gene Therapy Dear Doctor LetterÐStandardized Grass Pollen Ex- May 11, 1998 Health care providers Do tracts Draft Guidance for Industry: Instructions for Submit- May 1998 FDA regulated industry Do ting Electronic Lot Release Protocols to the Cen- ter for Biologics Evaluation and Research Draft Guidance for Industry: Pilot Program for Elec- May 1998 Do Do tronic Investigational New Drug (eIND) Applica- tions for Biological Products Draft Guidance for Industry: Electronic Submissions May 1998 Do Do of Case Report Forms (CRFs), Case Report Tab- ulations (CRTs) and Data to the Center for Bio- logics Evaluation and Research Draft Guidance for Industry: Electronic Submissions May 1998 Do Do of a Biologics License Application (BLA) or Prod- uct License Application (PLA)/ Establishment Li- cense Application (ELA) to the Center for Bio- logics Evaluation and Research Guidance for Industry: Submitting and Reviewing May 1998 Do Do Complete Responses to Clinical Holds Guidance for Industry: Classifying Resubmissions in May 1998 Do Do Response to Action Letters Guidance for Industry: Pharmacokinetics in Patients May 1998 Do Do with Impaired Renal FunctionÐStudy Design, Data Analysis and Impact on Dosing and Labeling Guidance for Industry: Standards for the Prompt May 1998 Do Do Review of Efficacy Supplements, Including Priority Efficacy Supplements Guidance for Industry: Providing Clinical Evidence May 1998 Do Do of Effectiveness for Human Drugs and Biological Products Draft Guidance for Industry: Stability Testing of Drug June 1998 Do Do Substances and Drug Products ICH Draft Guidance on Specifications: Test Proce- June 9, 1998 Do Do dures and Acceptance Criteria for Biotechno- logical/Biological Products ICH Guidance on Ethnic Factors in the Acceptability June 10, 1998 Do Do of Foreign Clinical Data Draft Guidance for Industry: Exports and Imports June 12, 1998 Do Do Under the FDA Export Reform and Enhancement Act of 1996 Guidance for Industry: Qualifying for Pediatric Ex- June 1998 Do Do clusivity Under Section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Guidance for Industry: Errors and Accidents Re- June 1998 Do Do garding Saline Dilution of Samples Used for Viral Marker Testing Draft Guidance for Industry: In the Manufacture and July 1998 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of In Vitro Tests to Detect Nu- cleic Acid Sequences of Human Immuno- deficiency Virus Type 1

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31237

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Draft Guidance for Industry: For the Submission of July 1998 Do Do Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls and Es- tablishment Description Information for Human Blood and Blood Components Intended for Trans- fusion or for Further Manufacture and for the Completion of the FDA Form 356h ``Application to Market a New Drug, Biologic or an Antibiotic Drug for Human Use'' Guidance for Industry: Implementation of Section July 1998 Do Do 126 of the Food and Drug Administration Mod- ernization Act of 1997ÐElimination of Certain La- beling Requirements Guidance for Industry: Environmental Assessment July 1998 Do Do of Human Drug and Biologics Applications Draft Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for July 1998 Do Do Collecting Red Blood Cells by Automated Apheresis Methods Dear Colleague LetterÐUse of Haemophilus August 12, 1998 Health care providers Do influenzae Conjugate Vaccines in Combination With DTaP in Infants Dear Doctor LetterÐAlbumin Use in Seriously Ill Pa- August 19, 1998 Do Do tients Draft Guidance for Industry: Content and Format of August 1998 FDA regulated industry Do Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls Informa- tion and Establishment Description Information for an Allergenic Extract or Allergen Patch Test Draft Guidance for Industry: Submission of Abbre- August 1998 Do Do viated Reports and Synopses in Support of Mar- keting Applications ICH Guidance on Statistical Principles for Clinical September 16, 1998 Do Do Trials ICH Guidance on Quality of Biotechnological/Bio- September 21, 1998 Do Do logical Products: Derivation and Characterization of Cell Substrates Used for Production of Bio- technological/Biological Products ICH Guidance on Viral Safety Evaluation of Bio- September 24, 1998 Do Do technology Products Derived From Cell Lines of Human or Animal Origin Change to the Guidance Entitled ``Revised Pre- September 8, 1998 Do Do cautionary Measures to Reduce the Possible Risk of Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) by Blood and Blood Products''ÐInformation Sheet Guidance for Industry: Current Good Manufacturing September 1998 Do Do Practice for Blood and Blood Components: (1) Quarantine and Disposition of Units from Prior Collections from Donors with Repeatedly Reactive Screening Tests for Antibody to Hepatitis C Virus (Anti-HCV); (2) Supplemental Testing, and the Notification of Consignees and Blood Recipients of Donor Test Results for Anti-HCV Draft Guidance for Industry: Submitting Debarment September 1998 Do Do Certification Statements Guidance for Industry: How to Complete the Vac- September 1998 Do Do cine Adverse Reporting System Form (VAERS±1) Guidance for Industry: Fast Track Drug Develop- September 1998 Do Do ment ProgramsÐDesignation, Development, and Application Review CBER's Year 2000 Letter October 27, 1998 Do Do Draft Guidance for Industry: Developing Medical Im- October 1998 Do Do aging Drugs and Biologics Dear Blood Bank/Transfusion Service Director Let- November 3, 1998 Do Do ter: Hepatitis C Virus Risk Dear Doctor LetterÐImportant Drug Warning: Im- November 13, 1998 Health care providers Do mune Globulin Intravenous (Human) Draft Guidance for Industry: Content and Format of November 1998 FDA regulated industry Do Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls Informa- tion and Establishment Description Information for a Biological In Vitro Diagnostic Product

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31238 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Draft Guidance for Industry: In Vivo Drug Metabo- November 1998 Do Do lism/Drug Interaction StudiesÐStudy Design, Data Analysis and Recommendations for Dosing and Labeling Draft Document: United States Industry Consensus December 1997 (re- Do Do Standard for the Uniform Labeling of Blood and leased November Blood Components Using ISBT 128 1998) Draft Guidance for Industry: General Considerations November 1998 Do Do for Pediatric Pharmacokinetic Studies for Drugs and Biological Products To Viral Vaccine IND SponsorsÐUse of PCR-Based December 18, 1998 Do Do Reverse Transcriptase Assay Guidance for Industry: FDA Approval of New Can- December 1998 Do Do cer Treatment Uses for Marketed Drug and Bio- logical Products Draft Guidance for Industry: Gamma Irradiation of December 1998 Do Do Blood and Blood Components: A Pilot Program for Licensing Draft Guidance for Industry: Content and Format of December 1998 Do Do Geriatric Labeling Dear Healthcare Provider: Important Drug Warning: January 25, 1999 Health care providers Do Safety Information Regarding the use of Abbokinase (Urokinase) Guidance for Industry: Content and Format of January 1999 FDA regulated industry Do Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls Informa- tion and Establishment Description Information for a Vaccine or Related Product Guidance on Amended Procedures for Advisory January 1999 Do Do Panel Meetings Guidance for Industry: Providing Regulatory Sub- January 1999 Do Do missions in Electronic FormatÐGeneral Consider- ations Guidance for Industry: Population Pharmacokinetics February 1999 Do Do Guidance for Industry: For the Submission of Chem- February 1999 Do Do istry, Manufacturing and Controls and Establish- ment Description Information for Human Plasma- Derived Biological Products, Animal Plasma or Serum-Derived Products Guidance for Industry: Clinical Development Pro- February 1999 Do Do grams for Drugs, Devices and Biological Products for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Dear Colleague Letter: Voluntary Recall of Tripedia, February 4, 1999 Health care providers Do DTaP Vaccine

III. Guidance Documents Issued by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH)

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Guidance on Medical Device Tracking (Docket No. February 19, 1998 Office of Compliance Division of Small Manufacturers As- 98D±0132) (OC) sistance, CDRH, Food and Drug Ad- ministration, 1±800±638±2041 or 301±827±0111 or (FAX) Facts on Demand at 1±800±899±0381 or Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh Guidance on Lead Wires and Patient Cables March 9, 1998 OC Do Global Harmonization Task Force: Draft Document October 28, 1998 OC Do on the Essentials Principles of Safety and Per- formance of Medical Devices on a Global Basis Medical Devices: Draft Global Harmonization Task July 16, 1998 OC Do Force Study Group 3 Process Validation Guid- ance (Draft)

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31239

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Letter to Medical Device Manufacturer on Pentium February 14, 1995 OC Do Processors Guideline for Preparing Notices of Availability of In- November 1, 1985 OC/Bioresearch Moni- Do vestigational Medical Devices toring (BIMO) All Diagnostic Ultrasound Manufacturers and Import- February 24, 1986 OC/Division of Enforce- Do ers-Exemption from Reporting Under 21 CFR ment I (DOEI) 1002 General Principles of Software Validation; Draft June 9, 1997 OC/DOEI Do Guidance Exemption from Reporting and Recordkeeping Re- September 16, 1981 OC/DOEI Do quirements for Certain Sunlamp Product Manu- facturers Clarification of Radiation Control Regulations for Di- March 1, 1989 OC/DOEI Do agnostic X-ray Equipment (FDA 89±8221) A Guide for the Submission of Abbreviated Radi- March 1, 1996 OC/DOEI Do ation Safety Reports on Cephalometric X-ray De- vices: Defined as Dental Units with an Attachment for Mandible Work that Holds a Cassette and Beam Limiting Device A Guide for the Submission of Abbreviated Radi- March 1, 1996 OC/DOEI Do ation Safety Reports on Image Receptor Support Devices for Mammographic X-ray Systems A Guide for the Submission of an Abbreviated Radi- March 1, 1996 OC/DOEI Do ation Safety Report on X-ray Tables, Cradles, Film Changers or Cassette Holders Intended for Diagnostic Use Guide for the Submission of Initial Reports on Diag- January 1, 1982 OC/DOEI Do nostic X-Ray Systems and their Major Compo- nents Guideline for the Manufacture of In Vitro Diagnostic January 10, 1994 OC/DOEI Do Products Letter to Medical Device Industry on Endoscopy and May 17, 1993 OC/DOEI Do Laparoscopy Accessories (Galdi) Manufacturers/Assemblers of Diagnostic X-ray Sys- October 13, 1993 OC/DOEI Do tems: Enforcement Policy for Positive-Beam Limi- tation (PBL) Requirements in 21 CFR 1020.31(g) Retention of Records Required by 21 CFR 1002 August 24, 1981 OC/DOEI Do All U.S. Condom Manufacturers, Importers and Re- April 7, 1987 OC/Division of Enforce- Do packagers ment II (DOEII) Letter to Ophthalmologists about Lasers for Refrac- June 27, 1997 OC/DOEII Do tive Surgery Manufacturers and Initial Distributors of May 23, 1996 OC/DOEII Do Hemodialyzers Manufacturers and Users of Lasers for Refractive October 10, 1996 OC/DOEII Do Surgery Shielded Trocars and Needles Used for Abdominal August 23, 1996 OC/DOEII Do Access During Laparoscopy Prospective Manufacturers of Barrier Devices Used October 31, 1996 OC/DOEII Do During Oral Sex for STD Protection Condoms: Inspection and Sampling at Domestic April 8, 1987 OC/DOEII Do Manufacturers and of all Repackers; Sampling from all Importers (Damaska Memo to Field on 4/ 8/87) Guide for Preparing Product Reports for Lasers and September 1, 1995 OC/DOEII Do Products Containing Lasers Hazards of Volume Ventilators and Heated Humidi- September 15, 1993 OC/DOEII Do fiers Latex Labeling Letter (Johnson) March 18, 1993 OC/DOEII Do LetterÐCondom Manufacturers and Distributors (in- April 5, 1994 OC/DOEII Do cluded in Condom Packet #398) Letter to Industry, Powered Wheelchair Manufactur- May 10, 1993 OC/DOEII Do ers from R. M. Johnson Letter to Manufacturers/Repackers Using Cotton April 22, 1994 OC/DOEII Do Manufacturers and Initial Distributors of Sharps February 3, 1994 OC/DOEII Do Containers and Destroyers Used by Health Care Professionals Compliance Guide for Laser Products (FDA 86± September 1, 1985 OC/DOEII Do 8260) Dental Handpiece Sterilization (Dear Doctor Letter) September 28, 1992 OC/DOEII Do

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31240 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Ethylene Oxide; Ethylene Chlorohydrin; and Ethyl- June 23, 1978 OC/DOEII Do ene Glycol; Proposed Maximum Residue Limits and Maximum Levels of Exposure LetterÐManufacturers, Distributors and Importers of February 23, 1994 OC/DOEII Do Condom Products (included in Condom Packet #Κ398) LetterÐManufacturers, Importers, and Repackagers February 13, 1989 OC/DOEII Do of Condoms for Contraception or Sexually-Trans- mitted Disease Prevention (Holt) (included in Condom Packet #398) Regulatory Requirements for Medical GlovesÐA September 1, 1996 OC/DOEII Do Workshop Manual FDA Publication No. 96±4257 Standard Specification for Rubber Contraceptives October 28, 1983 OC/DOEII Do (Condoms) (included in Condom Packet #398) Pesticide Regulation Notice 94±4 Interim Measures June 30, 1994 OC/DOEII Do for the Registration of Antimicrobial Products/Liq- uid Chemical Germicides with Medical Device Use Claims Open Door Operation of Microwave Ovens as a Re- March 28, 1980 OC/Division of Enforce- Do sult of Oven Miswiring ment III (DOEIII) Guide for Preparing Abbreviated Reports of Micro- September 1, 1996 OC/DOEIII Do wave and RF Emitting Electronic Products In- tended for Medical Use Final Design Control Inspectional Strategy March 1, 1997 OC/DOEIII Do Abbreviated Reports on Radiation Safety for Micro- August 1, 1995 OC/DOEIII Do wave Products (Other Than Microwave Ovens)Ð E.G. Microwave Heating, Microwave Diathermy, RF Sealers, Induction, Dielectric Heaters, Security Systems Design Control Guidance for Medical Device Manu- March 11, 1997 OC/DOEIII Do facturers Abbreviated Reports on Radiation Safety of Non- August 1, 1995 OC/DOEIII Do Medical Ultrasonic Products Application for a Variance from 21 CFR 1040.11(c) March 1, 1987 OC/DOEIII Do for a Laser Light Show, Display, or Device Computerized Devices/Processes GuidanceÐAppli- May 1, 1992 OC/DOEIII Do cation of the Medical Device GMP to Computer- ized Devices and Manufacturing Processes Guidance for the Submission of Cabinet X±Ray February 1, 1975 OC/DOEIII Do System Reports Pursuant to 21 CFR 1020.40 Guide for Preparing Annual Reports on Radiation October 1, 1987 OC/DOEIII Do Safety Testing of Electronic Products (General) Guide for Preparing Annual Reports on Radiation September 1, 1995 OC/DOEIII Do Safety Testing of Mercury Vapor Lamps (replaces FDA 82±8127) Guide for Preparing Annual Reports on Radiation September 1, 1995 OC/DOEIII Do Safety Testing of Sunlamps and Sunlamp Prod- ucts (replaces FDA 82±8127) Guide for Preparing Product Reports on Sunlamps September 1, 1995 OC/DOEIII Do and Sunlamp Products (21 CFR 1002) Guide for Preparing Reports on Radiation Safety of March 1, 1985 OC/DOEIII Do Microwave Ovens Guide for Submission of Information on Accelerators April 1, 1971 OC/DOEIII Do Intended to Emit X-Radiation Required Pursuant to 21 CFR 1002.10 Guide for Submission of Information on Analytical X- April 30, 1974 OC/DOEIII Do Ray Equipment Required Pursuant to 21 CFR 1002.10 Guide for Submission of Information on Industrial September 1, 1980 OC/DOEIII Do Radiofrequency Dielectric Heater and Sealer Equipment Pursuant to 21 CFR 1002.10 and 1002.12 (FDA 81±8137) Guide for Submission of Information on Industrial X- March 1, 1973 OC/DOEIII Do Ray Equipment Required Pursuant to 21 CFR 1002.10 Guide for the filing of Annual Reports for X-Ray July 1, 1980 OC/DOEIII Do Components and Systems Guide for the Submission of Initial Reports on Com- September 1, 1984 OC/DOEIII Do puted Tomography X-Ray Systems

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31241

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Impact Resistant Lenses: Questions and Answers September 1, 1987 OC/DOEIII Do (FDA 87±4002) (see shelf # 460) Imports Radiation-Producing Electronic Products November 1, 1988 OC/DOEIII Do (FDA 89±8008) Information Requirements for Cookbooks and User October 31, 1988 OC/DOEIII Do and Service Manuals Keeping Medical Devices Safe from Electro- July 1, 1995 OC/DOEIII Do magnetic Interference Keeping Up With the Microwave Revolution (FDA March 1, 1990 OC/DOEIII Do Pub No. 91±4160) Laser Light Show SafetyÐWho's Responsibility May 1, 1986 OC/DOEIII Do (FDA 86±8262) Letter to All Foreign Manufacturers and Importers of May 28, 1981 OC/DOEIII Do Electronic Products for Which Applicable FDA Performance Standards Exist Letter to Trade Association: ReUse of Single-use or December 27, 1995 OC/DOEIII Do Disposable Medical Devices Letter: Changes in Regulations Concerning Records October 27, 1995 OC/DOEIII Do and Reports on Radiation-Emitting Electronic Products Medical Device Electromagnetic Interference Issues, OC/DOEIII Do Problem Reports, Standards, and Recommenda- tions Medical Devices and EMI: The FDA Perspective January 1, 1995 OC/DOEIII Do Policy on Lamp Compatibility (sunlamps) September 2, 1986 OC/DOEIII Do Policy on Maximum Timer Interval and Exposure August 21, 1986 OC/DOEIII Do Schedule for Sunlamp Products Policy on Warning Label Required on Sunlamp June 25, 1985 OC/DOEIII Do Products Quality Assurance Guidelines for Hemodialysis De- February 1, 1991 OC/DOEIII Do vices Quality Control Guide for Sunlamp Products (FDA March 1, 1988 OC/DOEIII Do 88±8234) Quality Control Practices for Compliance with the May 1, 1980 OC/DOEIII Do Federal Mercury Vapor Lamp Performance Stand- ard Reporting and Compliance Guide for Television October 1, 1995 OC/DOEIII Do Products including Product Report, Supplemental Report, Radiation Safety Abbreviated Report, An- nual Report, Information and Guidance Reporting Guide for Laser Light Shows and Dis- September 1, 1995 OC/DOEIII Do plays (21 CFR 1002) (FDA 88±8140) Reporting Guide for Product Reports on High Inten- September 1, 1995 OC/DOEIII Do sity Mercury Vapor Discharge Lamps (21 CFR 1002) Reporting of New Model Numbers to Existing Model June 14, 1983 OC/DOEIII Do Families Revised Guide for Preparing Annual Reports on Ra- September 1, 1995 OC/DOEIII Do diation Safety Testing of Laser and Laser Light Show Products (replaces FDA 82±8127) Safety of Electrically Powered Products: Letter To September 18, 1996 OC/DOEIII Do Medical Device and Electronic Product Manufac- turers From Lillian Gill & BHB correction memo Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radi- January 1, 1982 OC/DOEIII Do ationÐVolume II Nonionizing RadiationÐLasers (FDA Pub No. 83±8220) Unsafe Patient Lead Wires and Cables September 3, 1993 OC/DOEIII Do Guide for Preparing Annual Reports for Ultrasonic September 1, 1996 OC/DOEIII Do Therapy Products Guide for Preparing Product Reports for Medical September 1, 1996 OC/DOEIII Do Ultrasound Products Guide for Preparing Product Reports for Ultrasonic August 1, 1996 OC/DOEIII Do Therapy Products (physical therapy only) Guide for Establishing and Maintaining a Calibration March 1, 1988 OC/DOEI & III Do Constancy Intercomparison System for Microwave Oven Compliance Survey Instruments (FDA 88± 8264) The FDA Export Reform and Enhancement Act of October 1, 1996 OC/Division of Program Do 1996/Export Certification Operations (DPO)

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31242 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Sec. 300.600 Commercial Distribution with Regard September 24, 1987 OC/Office of the Director Do to Premarket Notification (Section 510(k)) (CPG (OD) 7124.19) Global Harmonization Task Force: Availability of August 31, 1998 OC/Office of Surveillance Do Draft Documents on Adverse Event and Vigilance and Biometrics (OSB) Reporting of Medical Device Events Commercial Distribution/Exhibit Letter (Use instead April 10, 1992 OC/Other (OT) Do of Hile letter) (Display) Working Draft of the Current Good Manufacturing July 1, 1995 OC/OT Do Practice (CGMP) Final Rule Guidance for the Medical Device Industry on PMA November 6, 1998 ODE Do Shell Development and Modular Review Medical Devices Containing Materials Derived from November 6, 1998 ODE Do Animal Sources (Except In Vitro Diagnostic De- vices), Guidance for FDA Reviewers and Industry Frequently Asked Questions on the New 510(k) October 22, 1998 ODE Do Pardigm Guidance to Industry Supplements to Approved Ap- May 20, 1998 ODE Do plications for Class III Medical Devices: Use of Published Literature, Use of Previously Submitted Material, and Priority Review Convenience Kits Interim Regulatory Guidance May 20, 1997 ODE Do Kit Certification for 510(k)s July 1997 ODE Do Guidance for IndustryÐContents of a Product De- July 27, 1998 ODE Do velopment Protocol Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions May 28, 1998 ODE Do for Software Contained in Medical Devices (replaces Reviewer Guidance for Computer-Con- trolled Medical Devices Undergoing 510(k) Re- view 8/29/91) New Model Medical Device Development Process June 3, 1998 ODE Do Modifications to Devices Subject to Premarket Ap- August 6, 1998 ODE Do provalÐthe PMA Supplement Decision Making Process Guidance for Off-the-Shelf Software Use in Medical August 17, 1998 ODE Do Devices PMA/510(k) Expedited ReviewÐGuidance for In- March 20, 1998 ODE Do dustry and CDRH Staff Guidance on Amended Procedures for Advisory March 30, 1998 ODE Do Panel Meetings `Real-Time' Review Program for Premarket Approval April 22, 1997 ODE Do Application (PMA) Supplements A New 510(k) ParadigmÐAlternate Approaches to March 30, 1998 ODE Do Demonstrating Substantial Equivalence in Pre- market Notifications Freedom of Information/510(K) Process Changes May 15, 1997 ODE Do Guidance for Submitting Reclassification Petition January 1, 2000 ODE Do Product Development Protocol October 1, 1997 ODE Do Guidance on PMA Interactive Procedures for Day- February 19, 1998 ODE Do 100 Meetings and Subsequent DeficienciesÐfor Use by CDRH and Industry (Docket No. 98D± 0079) Procedures for Class II Device Exemptions from February 25, 1998 ODE Do Premarket Notification Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff (Docket No. 98D±0083) New section 513(f)(2)ÐEvaluation of Automatic February 19, 1998 ODE Do Class III Designation: Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff (Docket No. 98D±0082) SMDA ChangesÐPremarket Notification; Regu- April 17, 1992 ODE Do latory Requirements for Medical Devices (510k) Manual Insert #D95±2, Attachment A (Interagency Agreement be- September 15, 1995 ODE Do tween FDA & HCFA) #D95±2, Attachment B (Criteria for Categorization of September 15, 1995 ODE Do Investigational Devices (HCFA) 30±Day Notices and 135±Day PMA Supplements February 19, 1998 ODE Do for Manufacturing Method or Process Changes, Guidance for Industry and CDRH (Docket No. 98D±0080) 510(k) Quality Review Program (blue book memo) March 29, 1996 ODE Do

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31243

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Distribution and Public Availability of PMA Summary October 10, 1997 ODE Do of Safety and Effectiveness Data Packages Document Review by the Office of the Chief Coun- June 6, 1996 ODE Do sel (Blue Book Memo G96±1)) HCFA Reimbursement Categorization Determina- September 15, 1995 ODE Do tions for FDA-approved IDEs ODE Executive Secretary Guidance Manual August 7, 1987 ODE Do Determination of Intended Use for 510(k) Devices: February 19, 1998 ODE Do Final Document (Docket No. 98D±0081) LetterÐVascular Graft Industry (Philip Phillips) November 22, 1995 ODE Do Letter to Industry, Powered Wheelchair/Scooter or May 26, 1994 ODE Do Accessory/Component Manufacturer from Susan Alpert, Ph.D., M.D. Preamendments Class III Strategy; SXAlpert April 19, 1994 ODE Do 4-of-A-Kind PMA's October 1, 1991 ODE Do Application of the Device Good Manufacturing Prac- December 1, 1983 ODE Do tice (GMP) Regulation to the Manufacture of Ster- ile Devices CDRH's 510(k)/IDE/PMA Refuse to Accept/Accept/ June 30, 1993 ODE Do File Policies (see #D94±1, #K94±1, & #P94±1) Classified Convenience Kits April 30, 1993 ODE Do Color Additive Petitions (p. II±19 of PMA Manual) June 1, 1987 ODE Do Color Additive Status List (Inspection Operations February 1, 1989 ODE Do Manual) Early Collaboration Meetings Under the FDA Mod- February 19, 1998 ODE Do ernization Act (FDAMA), Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff, Final Document (Docket No. 98D±0078) Color Additives for Medical Devices (Snesko) November 15, 1995 ODE Do Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to January 10, 1997 ODE Do an Existing Device (see CDRH F±O±D #1935) Device Specific Guidance Documents (List) May 11, 1993 ODE Do FDA Clinical Investigator Information Sheets May 1, 1989 ODE Do FDA Guide for Validation of Biological Indicator In- January 1, 1986 ODE Do cubation Time (Source: Sterilization Committee; through Virginia Ross; HFZ±332) FDA Policy For The Regulation Of Computer Prod- November 13, 1989 ODE Do ucts (DRAFT) (See 2099) Format for IDE Progress Reports January 1, 2000 ODE Do Guidance for Preparation of PMA Manufacturing In- August 1, 1992 ODE Do formation Guideline for the Monitoring of Clinical Investiga- January 1, 1988 OC/BIMO Do tions Guideline on General Principles of Process Valida- May 1, 1987 ODE Do tion Guideline on Sterile Drug Products Produced by June 1, 1987 ODE Do Aseptic Processing Guideline on Validation of the Limulus Amebocyte December 1, 1987 ODE Do Lysate (LAL) Test as an End-Product Endotoxin Test Indications for Use Statement January 2, 1996 ODE Do Industry Representatives on Scientific Panels March 27, 1987 ODE Do Labeling Reusable Medical Devices for Reprocess- April 1, 1996 ODE Do ing in Health Care Facilities: FDA Reviewer Guid- ance (see 1198) Limulus Amebocute Lysate; Reduction of Samples October 23, 1987 ODE Do for Testing Master Files Part III; Guidance on Scientific and June 1, 1987 ODE Do Technical Information Memorandum: Electromagnetic Compatibility for June 13, 1995 ODE Do Medical Devices: Issues and Solutions Methods for Conducting Recall Effectiveness June 16, 1978 ODE Do Checks Necessary Information for Diagnostic Ultrasound November 24, 1987 ODE Do 510(k) (Draft) Perspectives on Clinical Studies for Medical Device January 1, 2000 ODE Do Submissions (Statistical) PMA Review Statistical Checklist January 1, 2000 ODE Do

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31244 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Points to Consider in the Characterization of Cell June 1, 1984 ODE Do Lines Used to Produce Biological Products (from John C. Petricciani, M.D.) Preamendment Class III Devices March 11, 1992 ODE Do Premarket Notification [510(k)] Status Request March 7, 1994 ODE Do Form, revised Premarket Submission Coversheet, Instructions, January 19, 1995 ODE Do and Survey Preproduction Quality Assurance Planning: Rec- September 1, 1989 ODE Do ommendations for Medical Device Manufacturers (FDA 90±4236) Proposal for Establishing Mechanisms for Setting June 30, 1993 ODE Do Review Priorities Using Risk Assessment and Al- locating Review Resources (include with 926± 930) Questions and Answers for the FDA Reviewer Guid- September 3, 1996 ODE Do ance: Labeling Reusable Medical Devices for Re- processing in Health Care Facilities (see 198) Shelf Life of Medical Devices March 1, 1991 ODE Do Substantial Equivalence (SE) Decision Making Doc- January 1, 1990 ODE Do umentation ATTACHED: `SE' Decision Making Process (Detailed) i.e. the decision making tree Suggested Content for Original IDE Application February 27, 1996 ODE Do Cover LetterÐVersion 4 Suggestions for Submitting a Premarket Approval April 1, 1993 ODE Do (PMA) Application Threshold Assessment of the Impact of Require- January 1, 1990 ODE Do ments for Submission of PMAs for 31 Medical De- vices Marketed Prior to May 28, 1976 Guidance on IDE Policies and Procedures January 20, 1998 ODE Do Viable Bacteriophage in Co2 Laser Plume: Aero- January 1, 2000 ODE Do dynamic Size Distribution Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to January 10, 1997 ODE/blue Do an Existing Device (blue book memo #K97±1) (see CDRH F±O±D #935) Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Patient August 9, 1996 ODE/blue Do Labeling Review (blue book memo #G96±3)) Continued Access to Investigational Devices During July 15, 1996 ODE/blue Do PMA Preparation and Review (blue book memo) 510(k) Additional Information Procedures (blue book July 23, 1993 ODE/blue/510k Do memo #K93±1) 510(k) Refuse to Accept Procedures (blue book May 20, 1994 ODE/blue/510k Do memo #K94±1) 510(k) Sign-Off Procedures (blue book memo June 3, 1994 ODE/blue/510k Do #K94±2) 510(k) Sterility Review Guidance and Revision of February 12, 1990 ODE/blue/510k Do 11/18/1994 (blue book memo #K90±1) Cover Letter: 510(k) Requirements During Firm-Initi- November 21, 1995 ODE/blue/510k Do ated Recalls; Attachment A: Guidance on Recall and Premarket Notification Review Procedures During Firm-Initiated Recalls of Legally Marketed Devices (blue book memo #Κ95±1) Guidance on the Center for Devices and Radio- June 30, 1986 ODE/blue/510k Do logical Health's Premarket Notification Review Program (blue book memo #K86±3) Premarket NotificationÐConsistency of Reviews February 28, 1989 ODE/blue/510k Do (blue book memo #K89±1) Review of 510(k)s for Computer Controlled Medical August 29, 1991 ODE/blue/510k Do Devices (blue book memo #K91±1) Executive Secretaries Guidance Manual ιG87±3 August 7, 1987 ODE/blue/gnrl Do Consolidated Review of Submissions for Diagnostic October 19, 1990 ODE/blue/gnrl Do Ultrasound Equipment, Accessories and Related Measurement Devices (blue book memo #G90±2) Consolidated Review of Submissions for Lasers and October 19, 1990 ODE/blue/gnrl Do Accessories (blue book memo #G90±1) Device Labeling Guidance (blue book memo Γ91±1 ) March 8, 1991 ODE/blue/gnrl Do Documentation and Resolution of Differences of December 23, 1993 ODE/blue/gnrl Do Opinion on Product Evaluations (blue book memo #G93±1)

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31245

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

ODE Regulatory Information for the Office of Com- May 15, 1987 ODE/blue/gnrl Do plianceÐInformation Sharing Procedures (blue book memo #G87±2) PMA/510(k) Expedited Review (blue book May 20, 1994 ODE/blue/gnrl Do memoG94±2) PMA/510(k) Triage Review Procedures (blue book May 20, 1994 ODE/blue/gnrl Do memo #G94±1) Review of Laser Submissions (blue book memo April 15, 1988 ODE/blue/gnrl Do #G88±1) Toxicology Risk Assessment Committee (blue book August 9, 1989 ODE/blue/gnrl Do memo #G89±1) Use of International Standard ISO±10993, 'Biologi- May 1, 1995 ODE/blue/gnrl Do cal Evaluation of Medical Devices Part 1: Evalua- tion and Testing' (blue book memo) (Replaces #G87±1 #8294) Delegation of IDE Actions (blue book memo #D88± April 26, 1988 ODE/blue/ide Do 1) Goals and Initiatives for the IDE Program (blue book July 12, 1995 ODE/blue/ide Do memo #D95±1) IDE Refuse to Accept Procedures (blue book memo May 20, 1994 ODE/blue/ide Do #D94±1) Implementation of the FDA/HCFA Interagency September 15, 1995 ODE/blue/ide Do Agreement Regarding Reimbursement Cat- egorization of Investigational Devices, Att. A Inter- agency Agreement, Att. B Criteria for Catergorization of Investigational Devices, & Att. C±List (blue book memo #D95±2) Overdue IDE Annual Progress Report Procedures July 23, 1993 ODE/blue/ide Do (blue book memo) #D93±1 Review of IDEs for Feasibility Studies (blue book May 17, 1989 ODE/blue/ide Do memo #D89±1) Assignment of Review Documents (blue book memo August 24, 1990 ODE/blue/integ Do #I90±2) Document Review Processing (blue book memo February 12, 1992 ODE/blue/integ Do #I91±1) Integrity of Data and Information Submitted to ODE May 29, 1991 ODE/blue/integ Do (blue book memo #I91±2) Meetings with the Regulated Industry (blue book November 20, 1989 ODE/blue/integ Do memo #I89±3) Nondisclosure of Financially Sensitive Information March 5, 1992 ODE/blue/integ Do (blue book memo #I92±1) Policy Development and Review Procedures (blue February 15, 1990 ODE/blue/integ Do book memo #I90±1) Telephone Communications Between ODE Staff January 29, 1993 ODE/blue/integ Do and Manufacturers (blue book memo #I93±1) Clinical Utility and Premarket Approval (blue book May 3, 1991 ODE/blue/pma Do memo #P91±1) Criteria for Panel Review of PMA Supplements January 30, 1986 ODE/blue/pma Do (blue book memo #P86±3) Panel Report and Recommendations on PMA Ap- April 18, 1986 ODE/blue/pma Do provals (blue book memo #P86±5) Panel Review of 'Me-Too' Devices (blue book July 1, 1986 ODE/blue/pma Do memo #P86±6) Panel Review of Premarket Approval Applications May 3, 1991 ODE/blue/pma Do (blue book memo #P91±2) PMA Compliance Program (blue book memo #P91± May 3, 1991 ODE/blue/pma Do 3) PMA Filing Decisions (blue book memo #P90±2) May 18, 1990 ODE/blue/pma Do PMA Refuse to File Procedures (blue book memo May 20, 1994 ODE/blue/pma Do #P94±1) PMA Supplements: ODE's letter to manufacturers; April 24, 1990 ODE/blue/pma Do identifies situations which may require the submission of a PMA supplement (when PMA Sup- plements are required) (blue book memo) #P90±1 PMAs Early Review and Preparation of Summaries January 27, 1986 ODE/blue/pma Do of Safety and Effectiveness (blue book memo #P86±1) Premarket Approval Application (PMA) Closure July 8, 1994 ODE/blue/pma Do (blue book memo #P94±1)

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31246 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Review and Approval of PMAs of Licensees (blue October 22, 1990 ODE/blue/pma Do book memo #P86±4) Review of Final Draft Medical Device Labeling (blue August 29, 1991 ODE/blue/pma Do book memo #P91±4) Distribution and Public Availability of Premarket Ap- October 10, 1997 ODE/blue/pma Do proval Application Summary of Safety and Effec- tiveness Data Packages (P98±1) PMA Summaries of Safety and Effectiveness and June 11, 1993 ODE/blue/pma Do Federal Register Notices of PMA ApprovalsÐRe- view by the Office of General Counsel (Revised) (P98±1) PMA Review Schedules (P87±1) March 31, 1988 ODE/blue/pma Do Points to Consider Guidance Document on Assayed February 3, 1999 ODE/Division of Clinical Do and Unassayed Quality Control Material Laboratory Devices (DCLD) Review Criteria for Assessment of Antimicrobial October 30, 1996 ODE/DCLD Do Susceptibility Test Discs Guidance for Submission of Immunohistochemistry June 3, 1998 ODE/DCLD Do Applications to the FDA In Vitro Diagnostic Creatinine Test System July 2, 1998 ODE/DCLD Do In Vitro Diagnostic Bicarbonate/Carbon Dioxide Test July 6, 1998 ODE/DCLD Do System In Vitro Diagnostic Chloride Test System July 6, 1998 ODE/DCLD Do In Vitro Diagnostic Glucose Test System July 6, 1998 ODE/DCLD Do In Vitro Diagnostic Potassium Test System July 6, 1998 ODE/DCLD Do In Vitro Diagnostic Sodium Test System July 6, 1998 ODE/DCLD Do In Vitro Diagnostic Urea Nitrogen Test System July 6, 1998 ODE/DCLD Do In Vitro Diagnostic C±Reactive Immunological Test July 20, 1998 ODE/DCLD Do System In Vitro Diagnostic Calibrators July 20, 1998 ODE/DCLD Do Points To Consider For Hematology Quality Control September 30, 1997 ODE/DCLD Do Materials Guidance for Premarket Submissions for Kits for December 30, 1998 ODE/DCLD Do Screening Drugs of Abuse to be Used by the Consumer Review Criteria for Assessment of Professional Use November 6, 1996 ODE/DCLD Do Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG) in Vitro Di- agnostic Devices (IVDs) Letter to IVD Manufacturers on Streamlined PMA December 22, 1997 ODE/DCLD Do Guidance Document for the Submission of Tumor September 19, 1996 ODE/DCLD Do Associated Antigen Premarket Notification [510(k)] to FDA Review Criteria for Assessment of Rheumatoid Fac- February 21, 1997 ODE/DCLD Do tor (RF) In Vitro Diagnostic Devices Using En- zyme-Linked Immunoassay (EIA), Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), Particle Aggluti- nation Tests, and Laser and Rate Nephgelometry Guidance for 510(k)s on Cholesterol Tests for Clin- July 14, 1995 ODE/DCLD Do ical Laboratory, Physicians' Office Laboratory, and Home Use Assessing the Safety/Effectiveness of Home-use In October 1, 1988 ODE/DCLD Do Vitro Diagnostic Devices (IVDs): Draft Points to Consider Regarding Labeling and Premarket Sub- missions Data for Commercialization of Original Equipment June 10, 1996 ODE/DCLD Do Manufacturer, Secondary and Generic Reagents for Automated Analyzers DCLD Tier/Triage lists (include 931) May 31, 1996 ODE/DCLD Do Draft Criteria for Assessment of In Vitro Diagnostic August 31, 1995 ODE/DCLD Do Devices for Drugs of Abuse Assays Using Various Methodologies Draft Guidance Document for 510(k) Submission of July 29, 1992 ODE/DCLD Do Fecal Occult Blood Tests Draft Guidance Document for 510(k) Submission of September 30, 1991 ODE/DCLD Do Glycohemoglobin (Glycated or Glycosylated) He- moglobin for IVDs Draft Guidance Document for 510(k) Submission of September 1, 1992 ODE/DCLD Do Immunoglobulins A, G, M, D and E Immunoglobulin System In Vitro Devices

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31247

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Draft Guidance for 510(k) Submission of Lym- September 26, 1991 ODE/DCLD Do phocyte Immunophenotyping IVDs using Monoclonal Antibodies Draft Review Criteria for Nucleic Acid Amplification June 14, 1993 ODE/DCLD Do Based In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for Direct De- tection of Infectious Microorganisms Guidance Criteria for Cyclosporine PMAs January 24, 1992 ODE/DCLD Do Draft: Premarketing Approval Review Criteria for September 10, 1992 ODE/DCLD Do Premarket Approval of Estrogen (ER) or Pro- gesterone (PGR) Receptors In Vitro Diagnostic Devices Using Steroid Hormone Points to Consider for Cervical Cytology Devices July 25, 1994 ODE/DCLD Do Points to Consider for Collection of Data in Support September 26, 1994 ODE/DCLD Do of In-Vitro Device Submissions for 510(k) Clear- ance Points to Consider for Portable Blood Glucose Moni- February 20, 1996 ODE/DCLD Do toring Devices Intended for Bedside Use in the Neonate Nursery Points to Consider for Review of Calibration and February 1, 1996 ODE/DCLD Do Quality Control Labeling for In Vitro Diagnostic Devices/Cover Letter dated 3/14/1996 Review Criteria for In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for February 1, 1994 ODE/DCLD Do the Assessment of Thyroid Autoantibodies Using Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay (IFA), Indirect Hemagglutination Assay (IHA), Radioimmunoasay (RIA), and Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) Review Criteria for Assessment of Alpha-Fetoprotein July 15, 1994 ODE/DCLD Do (AFP) In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for Fetal Open Neural Tube Defects Using Immunological Test Methodologies Review Criteria for Assessment of Antimicrobial May 31, 1991 ODE/DCLD Do Susceptibility Devices Review Criteria for Assessment of Cytogenetic Anal- July 15, 1991 ODE/DCLD Do ysis Using Automated and Semi-Automated Chro- mosome Analyzers Review Criteria for Assessment of Human Chorionic September 27, 1995 ODE/DCLD Do Gonadotropin (hCG) In Vitro Diagnostic Devices (IVDs) Review Criteria for Assessment of In Vitro Diag- January 1, 1992 ODE/DCLD Do nostic Devices for Direct Detection of Chlamydiae in Clinical Specimens Review Criteria for Assessment of In Vitro Diag- July 6, 1993 ODE/DCLD Do nostic Devices for Direct Detection of Mycobacterium Spp. (Tuberculosis (TB)) Review Criteria for Assessment of Laboratory Tests September 17, 1992 ODE/DCLD Do for the Detection of Antibodies to Helicobacter pylori Review Criteria for Assessment of Portable Blood February 14, 1996 ODE/DCLD Do Glucose In Vitro Diagnostic Devices Using Glu- cose Oxidase, Dehydrogenase, or Hexokinase Methodology Review Criteria for Blood Culture Systems August 12, 1991 ODE/DCLD Do Review Criteria for Devices Assisting in the Diag- May 31, 1990 ODE/DCLD Do nosis of C. Difficile Associated Diseases Review Criteria for Devices Intended for the Detec- December 30, 1991 ODE/DCLD Do tion of Hepatitis B 'e' Antigen and Antibody to HBe Review Criteria for In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for August 1, 1992 ODE/DCLD Do Detection of IGM Antibodies to Viral Agents Review Criteria for In Vitro Diagnostic Devices that February 15, 1996 ODE/DCLD Do Utilize Cytogenetic In Situ Hybridization Tech- nology for the Detection of Human Genetic Mutations (Germ Line and Somatic) Review Criteria For Premarket Approval of In Vitro May 15, 1992 ODE/DCLD Do Diagnostic Devices for Detection of Antibodies to Parvovirus B19 Review Criteria for the Assessment of Allergen-Spe- March 2, 1993 ODE/DCLD Do cific Immunoglobulin E (IGE) In-Vitro Diagnostic Devices Using Immunological Test Methodologies

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31248 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Review Criteria for the Assessment of Anti-nuclear September 1, 1992 ODE/DCLD Do Antibodies (ANA) In-Vitro Diagnostic Devices Using Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay (IFA), Immunodiffusion (IMD) and Enzyme Linked Immunosorbant Assay (ELISA) Non-Automated Sphygmomanometer (Blood Pres- November 19, 1998 ODE/DCRND Do sure Cuff) Guidance Cardiac Monitor Guidance (including November 5, 1998 ODE/Division of Cardio- Do Cardiotachometer and Rate Alarm) vascular, Respiratory and Neurological De- vices (DCRND) Diagnostic ECG Guidance (Including Non-Alarming November 5, 1998 ODE/DCRND Do ST Segment measurement) Carotid StentÐSuggestions for Content of Submis- October 26, 1996 ODE/DCRND Do sions to the Food and Drug Administration in Sup- port of Investigational Devices Exemption (IDE) Applications Non-Invasive Blood Pressure (NIBP) Monitor Guid- March 10, 1997 ODE/DCRND Do ance Guidance for Off-the-Shelf Software Use in Medical June 4, 1997 ODE/DCRND Do Devices; Draft Document Draft Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary February 7, 1995 ODE/DCRND Do Angioplasty Package Insert Template Medical Device LabelingÐSuggested Format and August 12, 1997 ODE/DCRND Do Content; Draft Document Draft Intravascular BrachytherapyÐGuidance for May 24, 1996 ODE/DCRND Do Data to be Submitted to the Food and Drug Ad- ministration in Support of Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) Applications 510(k) Reviewer GuidelinesÐTracheostomy Tubes January 1, 2000 ODE/DCRND Do 868.5800 Balloon Valvuloplasty Guidance For The Submis- January 1, 1989 ODE/DCRND Do sion Of an IDE Application and a PMA Application Rechargeable Battery Preliminary Guidance for July 12, 1993 ODE/DCRND Do Data to be Submitted to FDA in Support of Pre- market Notification Applications Review Guidance for Anesthesia Conduction Cath- May 15, 1991 ODE/DCRND Do eter Coronary and Cerebrovascular Guidewire Guidance January 1, 1995 ODE/DCRND Do Draft Guidance: Human Heart Valve Allografts June 21, 1991 ODE/DCRND Do Draft Replacement Heart Valve Guidance October 14, 1994 ODE/DCRND Do Draft Reviewer Guidance for Ventilators July 1, 1995 ODE/DCRND Do Draft Reviewer Guidance on Face Masks and March 16, 1996 ODE/DCRND Do Shield for CPR Draft Version Cardiac Ablation Preliminary Guid- March 1, 1995 ODE/DCRND Do ance (Data to be Submitted to FDA in Support In- vestigation Device Exemption Application Draft Version Electrode Recording Catheter Prelimi- March 1, 1995 ODE/DCRND Do nary Guidance (Data to be Submitted to FDA in Support of Premarket Notifications Excerpts Related to EMI from November 1993 An- November 1, 1993 ODE/DCRND Do esthesiology and Respiratory Devices Branch (to be used with EMI standard) General Guidance Document: Non-Invasive Pulse September 7, 1992 ODE/DCRND Do Oximeter Guidance for Oxygen Conserving Device 510(k) Re- February 1, 1989 ODE/DCRND Do view 73 BZD 868.5905 Non-continuous Ventilator Class II Reviewer Guidance for Premarket Notification July 19, 1995 ODE/DCRND Do (510(k)) SubmissionsÐLabeling, Performance and Environmental Testing for Electronic Devices Guidance for Peak Flow Meters for Over-the- June 1, 1993 ODE/DCRND Do Counter Sale Guidance for the Preparation of the Annual Report April 1, 1990 ODE/DCRND Do to the PMA Approved Heart Valve Prostheses Heated Humidifier Review Guidance August 30, 1991 ODE/DCRND Do Implantable Pacemaker Lead Testing Guidance For September 1, 1989 ODE/DCRND Do The Submission of a Section 510(k) Notification Implantable Pacemaker Testing Guidance January 12, 1990 ODE/DCRND Do Policy for Expiration Dating (DCRND RB92±G) October 30, 1992 ODE/DCRND Do

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31249

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Review Guidelines for Oxygen Generators and Oxy- Undated ODE/DCRND Do gen Equipment Reviewer Guidance for Nebulizers, Metered Dose November 9, 1990 ODE/DCRND Do Inhalers, Spacers and Actuators Reviewer's Guidance for Oxygen Concentrator August 30, 1991 ODE/DCRND Do Electrocardiograph (ECG) Electrode February 11, 1997 ODE/DCRND Do Electrocardiograph (ECG) Lead Switching Adapter February 11, 1997 ODE/DCRND Do Electrocardiograph (ECG) Surface Electrode Tester February 11, 1997 ODE/DCRND Do Guidance on the Content of Premarket Notification December 1, 1995 ODE/Division of Dental Do [510(k)] Submissions for Protective Restraints Infection Control and General Hospital De- vices (DDIGD) Guidance for the Preparation of Premarket Notifica- November 27, 1998 ODE/DDIGD Do tions for Dental Composites Neonatal and Neonatal Transport Incubators Pre- September 18, 1998 ODE/DDIGD Do market Notifications Reexamination of the Evaluation Process for Liquid May 19, 1997 ODE/DDIGD Do Chemical Sterilant and High Level Disinfectants Further Information on the Regulation of Liquid August 5, 1997 ODE/DDIGD Do Chemical Sterilants and High Level Disinfectants Guidance on the Content and Format of Premarket December 18, 1997 ODE/DDIGD Do Notifications [510(k)] Submissions for Liquid Chemical Sterilants and High Level Disinfectants Guidance on the Content and Format of Premarket January 16, 1998 ODE/DDIGD Do Notification [510(k)] Submissions for Surgical Masks Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions for January 13, 1999 ODE/DDIGD Do Testing for Skin Sensitization to Chemicals in Nat- ural Rubber Products (Replaces: Guidance on the Content and Format of Premarket Notifications [510(k)] Submissions for Testing for Skin Sen- sitization to Chemicals in Natural Rubber Prod- uctsÐ2/13/98) Guidance on the Content and Format of Premarket August 4, 1998 ODE/DDIGD Do Notification [510(k)] Submissions of Washers and Washer-Disinfectors Devices for the Treatment and/or Diagnosis of June 10, 1998 ODE/DDIGD Do Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction and/or Orofacial Pain Dental Impression MaterialsÐPremarket Notification August 17, 1998 ODE/DDIGD Do OTC Denture Cushions, Pads, Reliners, Repair Kits, August 18, 1998 ODE/DDIGD Do and Partially Fabricated Denture Kits Dental CementsÐPremarket Notification August 18, 1998 ODE/DDIGD Do Groups Capable of Testing for Latex Skin Sensitiza- July 28, 1997 ODE/DDIGD Do tion (Addendum to #944) Addendum to: Guidance on Premarket Notification September 19, 1995 ODE/DDIGD Do [510(k)] Submissions for Sterilizers Intended for Use in Health Care Facilities Guidance Document on Dental Handpieces July 1, 1995 ODE/DDIGD/Dental De- Do vices Branch (DDB) 510(k) Guidance for Screw Type Endosseous Im- August 11, 1992 ODE/DDIGD/DDB Do plants for Prosthetic Attachment 510(k) Information Needed for Hydroxyapatite Coat- July 6, 1993 ODE/DDIGD/DDB Do ed Titanium Endosseous Implants 510(k) Information Needed for Metallurgical August 12, 1993 ODE/DDIGD/DDB Do Endosseous Implants 510(k) Information Needed for Ti-Powder Coated Ti- July 13, 1993 ODE/DDIGD/DDB Do tanium Endosseous Implants Draft Guidance Document for the Preparation of March 3, 1997 ODE/DDIGD/DDB Do Premarket Notification [510(k)'s] for Dental Alloys Guidance Document for the Preparation of Pre- January 23, 1995 ODE/DDIGD/DDB Do market Notifications (510(k)'s) for Temporomandibular Joint Implants Guidance for the Arrangement and Content of a May 16, 1989 ODE/DDIGD/DDB Do Premarket Approval (PMA) Application For An Endosseous Implant For Prosthetic Attachment Guidance for the Preparation of Premarket Notifica- January 1, 2000 ODE/DDIGD/DDB Do tion [510(k)] for Resorbable Periodontal Barriers

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31250 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Information Necessary for Premarket Notification December 9, 1996 ODE/DDIGD/DDB Do Submissions for Screw-Type Endossesous Im- plants Outline of Recommended Procedures for a Clinical January 1, 2000 ODE/DDIGD/DDB Do Investigation of Endosseous Implants Under a 510(k) Outline of Recommended Procedures for Animal January 1, 2000 ODE/DDIGD/DDB Do Laboratory Studies of Endosseous Implants Guidance on the Content of Premarket Notification April 1, 1993 ODE/DDIGD/General Do [510(k)] Submissions for Piston Syringes Hospital Devices Branch (GHDB) Draft Supplementary Guidance on the Content of March 1, 1995 ODE/DDIGD/GHDB Do Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions for Medical Devices with Sharps Injury Prevention Features (Antistick) Guidance on 510(k) Submissions for Implanted Infu- October 1, 1990 ODE/DDIGD/GHDB Do sion Ports Guidance on Premarket Notification [510(k)] Sub- March 16, 1995 ODE/DDIGD/GHDB Do missions for Short-Term and Long-Term Intravascular Catheters Guidance on the Content of Premarket Notification March 1, 1993 ODE/DDIGD/GHDB Do [510(k)] Submissions for Clinical Electronic Ther- mometers Guidance on the Content of Premarket Notification March 1, 1993 ODE/DDIGD/GHDB Do [510(k)] Submissions for External Infusion Pumps Guidance on the Content of Premarket Notification April 1, 1993 ODE/DDIGD/GHDB Do [510(k)] Submissions for Hypodermic Single Lumen Needles Guidance on Premarket Notification [510(k)] Sub- August 1, 1993 ODE/DDIGD/Infection Do missions for Automated Endoscope Washers, Control Devices Branch Washer/Disinfectors, and Disinfectors Intended for (ICDB) Use in Health Care Facilities Guidance on Premarket Notification [510(k)] Sub- August 1, 1993 ODE/DDIGD/ICDB Do missions for Surgical Gowns and Surgical Drapes Guidance on the Content and Format of Premarket December 6, 1996 ODE/DDIG/ICDB Do Notification 510(k) Submissions for Liquid Chem- ical Germicides Guidance on the Content and Format of Premarket October 1, 1993 ODE/DDIGD/ICDB Do Notification [510(k)] Submissions for General Pur- pose Disinfectants (and 3/9/94 Addendum) Guidance on the Content and Format of Premarket October 1, 1993 ODE/DDIGD/ICDB Do Notification [510(k)] Submissions for Sharps Con- tainers Addendum to Guidance on the Content and Format March 9, 1994 ODE/DDIGD/ICDB Do of Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions for General Purpose Disinfectants Guidance on Premarket Notification 510(k) for Steri- March 3, 1993 ODE/Division of General Do lizers Intended for Use in Health Care Facilities and Restorative De- vices (DGRD) Guidance Document for Powered Suction Pump September 30, 1998 ODE/DGRD Do 510(k)s Guidance Document for Industry and CDRH Staff March 18, 1998 ODE/DGRD Do for the Preparation of Investigational Device Ex- emptions and Premarket Approval Applications for Bone Growth Stimulator Devices (Replaces: Guid- ance Document for the Preparation of Investigatinal Device Exemptions and Premarket Approval Applications for Bone Growth Stimulator DevicesÐ8/12/88) Guidance for Content of Premarket Notifications for April 28, 1998 ODE/DGRD Do Esophageal and Tracheal Prostheses Guidance Document for Surgical Lamp 510ks July 13, 1998 ODE/DGRD Do Protocol for Dermal Toxicity Testing for Devices in January 1, 2000 ODE/DGRD Do Contact with Skin (Draft) Guide for 510(k) Review of Processed Human Dura June 26, 1990 ODE/DGRD Do Mater Guide for TENS 510(k) Content (Draft) August 1, 1994 ODE/DGRD Do Guidelines for Reviewing Premarket Notifications January 1, 2000 ODE/DGRD Do that Claim Substantial Equivalence to Evoked Re- sponse Stimulators

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31251

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Guidance for Studies for Pain Therapy DevicesÐ May 12, 1988 ODE/DGRD Do General Considerations in the Design of Clinical Studies for Pain-Alleviating Devices Galvanic Skin Response Measurement DevicesÐ August 23, 1994 ODE/DGRD Do Draft Guidance for 510(k) Content Draft Version Guide for Cortical Electrode 510(k) August 10, 1992 ODE/DGRD Do Content Draft Version Neuro Endoscope Guidance July 7, 1994 ODE/DGRD Do Draft Version Guidance for Clinical Data to be Sub- August 20, 1992 ODE/DGRD Do mitted for Premarket Approval Application for Cra- nial Electrotherapy Stimulators Draft Version 1ÐBiofeedback DevicesÐDraft Guid- August 1, 1994 ODE/DGRD Do ance for 510(k) Content Draft VersionÐGuidance on Biocompatibility Re- September 12, 1994 ODE/DGRD Do quirements for Long Term Neurological Implants: Part 3ÐImplant Model Draft Premarket Notification Review Guidance for June 1, 1994 ODE/DGRD Do Evoked Response Somatosensory Stimulators Draft Version Cranial Perforator Guidance July 13, 1994 ODE/DGRD Do ORDB 510(k) Sterility Review Guidance July 3, 1997 ODE/DGRD Do Draft Guidance for Testing MR Interaction with An- May 22, 1996 ODE/DGRD Do eurysm Clips Draft 510(k) Guideline for General Surgical May 10, 1995 ODE/DGRD/General Sur- Do Electrosurgical Devices gery Devices Brancch (GSDB) Draft Guidance for Arthroscope and Accessory May 1994 ODE/DGRD/GSDB Do 510(k)s Guidance for the Preparation of a Premarket Notifi- August 30, 1994 ODE/DGRD/GSDB Do cation for Extended Laparoscopy Devices Guidance on the Content and Organization of a Pre- June 1, 1995 ODE/DGRD/GSDB Do market Notification for a Medical Laser Guidance Document for Testing Bone Anchor De- April 20, 1996 ODE/DGRD/Orthopedic Do vices Devices Branch (ORDB) 510(k) Information Needed for Hydroxyapatite Coat- February 20, 1997 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do ed Orthopedic Implants Calcium Phosphate (Ca-P) Coating Draft Guidance February 21, 1997 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do for Preparation of FDA Submissions for Ortho- pedic and Dental Endosseous Implants Draft Data Requirements for Ultrahigh Molecular March 28, 1995 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do Weight Polyethylene (Uhmupe) Used in Ortho- pedic Devices Draft Guidance Document for Femoral Stem Pros- August 1, 1995 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do theses Draft Guidance Document for Testing Acetabular May 1, 1995 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do Cup Prostheses Draft Guidance Document for the Preparation of July 16, 1997 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do Premarket Notification [510(k)] Applications for Orthopedic Devices-The Basic Elements Draft Guidance for the Preparation of Premarket No- April 1, 1993 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do tifications [510(k)s] for Cemented, Semi-Con- strained Total Knee Prostheses Draft Guideline for Reviewing Spinal Fixation Device January 9, 1997 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do Systems Draft of Guidance Document for Testing of Ortho- October 25, 1995 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do pedic Implants with Metallic Plasma Sprayed Po- rous Coatings Subject to Required Post Market Surveillance Draft Outline for a Guidance Document for Testing November 1, 1993 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do Orthopedic Bone Cement, request for comments by December 10, 1993 Guidance Document for Testing Biodegradable April 20, 1996 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do Polymer Implant Devices Guidance Document for Testing Non-Articulating, May 1, 1995 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do ``Mechanically Locked'', Modular Implant Compo- nents Guidance Document for Testing Orthopedic Im- April 28, 1994 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do plants with Modified Metallic Surfaces Apposing Bone or Bone Cement

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31252 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Guidance Document for the Preparation of IDE and February 18, 1993 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do PMA Applications for Intra-Articular Prosthetic Knee Ligament Devices Guidance Document for the Preparation of Pre- January 10, 1995 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do market Notification for Ceramic Ball Hip Systems Reviewers Guidance Checklist for Intramedullary February 21, 1997 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do Rods Reviewers Guidance Checklist for Orthopedic Exter- February 21, 1997 ODE/DGRD/ORDB Do nal Fixation Devices Electroencephalograph Device Draft Guidance for June 25, 1997 ODE/DGRD/Plastic and Do 510(k) Content Reconstructive Surgery Devices Branch (PRSB) Alternate Suture Labeling Resulting from the Janu- January 11, 1993 ODE/DGRD/PRSB Do ary 11, 1993, Meeting with HIMA Copy of October 9, 1992 Letter and Original Suture ODE/DGRD/PRSB Do Labeling Guidance Draft Guidance for Preparation of PMA Applications January 18, 1995 ODE/DGRD/PRSB Do for Silicone Inflatable (Saline) Breast Prostheses Draft Guidance for Preparations of FDA Submis- May 11, 1992 ODE/DGRD/PRSB Do sions of Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Prostheses Draft Guidance for Testing of Alternative Breast September 1, 1994 ODE/DGRD/PRSB Do Prostheses (nonsilicone gel-filled) Draft Guidance for the Preparation of a Premarket March 31, 1995 ODE/DGRD/PRSB Do Notification for a Non-Interactive Wound and Burn Dressing [510(k)] Draft Guidance for the Preparation of IDE Submis- April 1, 1995 ODE/DGRD/PRSB Do sion for Interactive Wound and Burn Dressing Letter: Core Study for Silicone Breast Implants January 11, 1996 ODE/DGRD/PRSB Do Electrical Muscle Stimulator (EMS) Labeling Indica- July 11, 1985 ODE/DGRD/Restorative Do tions, Contraindications, Warnings, etc. Devices Branch (REDB) Technological Reporting for Powered Muscle Stimu- January 1, 1992 ODE/DGRD/REDB Do lator 510k Submissions Guidance Document for the Preparation of Notifica- July 26, 1995 ODE/DGRD/REDB Do tion (510(k)) Applications for Therapeutic Massag- ers and Vibrators Guidance Document for the Preparation of Pre- July 26, 1995 ODE/DGRD/REDB Do market Notification [510(k)] Applications for Beds Guidance Document for the Preparation of Pre- July 26, 1995 ODE/DGRD/REDB Do market Notification [510(k)] Applications for Com- munications Systems (Powered and Non-Pow- ered) and Powered Environmental Control Sys- tems Guidance Document for the Preparation of Pre- July 26, 1995 ODE/DGRD/REDB Do market Notification [510(k)] Applications for Electromyograph Needle Electrodes Guidance Document for the Preparation of Pre- July 26, 1995 ODE/DGRD/REDB Do market Notification [510(k)] Applications for Exer- cise Equipment Guidance Document for the Preparation of Pre- July 26, 1995 ODE/DGRD/REDB Do market Notification [510(k)] Applications for Heat- ing and Cooling Devices Guidance Document for the Preparation of Pre- July 26, 1995 ODE/DGRD/REDB Do market Notification [510(k)] Applications for Im- mersion Hyudrobaths Guidance Document for the Preparation of Pre- July 26, 1995 ODE/DGRD/REDB Do market Notification [510(k)] Applications for Pow- ered Muscle Stimulators, and Ultrasound Dia- thermy and Muscle Stimulators Guidance Document for the Preparation of Pre- July 26, 1995 ODE/DGRD/REDB Do market Notification [510(k)] Applications for Pow- ered Tables and Multifunctional Physical Therapy Tables Guidance Document for the Preparation of Pre- July 26, 1995 ODE/DGRD/REDB Do market Notification [510(k)] Applications for Sub- merged (Underwater) Exercise Equipment

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31253

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Guidance Document for the Preparation of Pre- July 26, 1995 ODE/DGRD/REDB Do market Notification [510k)] Applications for Me- chanical and Powered Wheelchairs, and Motor- ized Three-Wheeled Vehicles Aqueous ShuntsÐ510(k) Submissions November 16, 1998 ODE/Division of Do Opthalmics Devices (DOD) Guidance for IndustryÐGuidance Document for October 9, 1998 ODE/DOD Do Nonprescription Sunglasses Third Party Review Guidance for Vitreous Aspiration January 31, 1997 ODE/DOD Do and Cutting Device Premarket Notification (510k) Dear Sponsor Letter Concerning the Revocation of May 20, 1997 ODE/DOD Do 21 CFR Part 813 IOL IDE Regulations Retinoscope Guidance July 8, 1998 ODE/DOD Do Opthalmoscope Guidance July 8, 1998 ODE/DOD Do Slit Lamp Guidance July 8, 1998 ODE/DOD Do Revised Procedures for Adding Lens Finishing Lab- August 11, 1998 ODE/DOD Do oratories to Approved Premarket Approval Appli- cations for Class III Rigid Gas Permeable Contact Lens for Extended Wear Announcement by Dr. Alpert at 7/26/96 Ophthalmic August 26, 1996 ODE/DOD Do Panel Meeting Concerning Manufacturers & Users of Lasers for Refractive Surgery [excimer Announcement: Information for Manufacturers & September 22, 1997 ODE/DOD Do Users of Lasers for Refractive Surgery [excimer] Intraocular Lens (IOL) Guidance Document October 10, 1997 ODE/DOD Do FDA Guidelines for Multifocal Intraocular Lens IDE May 29, 1997 ODE/DOD Do Studies and PMAs Premarket Notification [510(k)] Guidance Document May 12, 1994 ODE/DOD Do for Class II Daily Wear Contact Lenses Contact Lenses: The Better the Care the Safer the April 1, 1991 ODE/DOD Do WearÐFDA Publication No. (FDA) (91±4220) An FDA Survey of U.S. Contact Lens Wearers July 1, 1987 ODE/DOD Do (Carol L. Herman) Reprinted from Contact Lens Spectrum Facts for Consumers from the Federal Trade Com- April 1, 1986 ODE/DOD Do missionÐEyeglasses Important Information About Rophae Intraocular August 20, 1992 ODE/DOD Do Lenses Checklist of Information Usually Submitted in an In- October 10, 1996 ODE/DOD Do vestigational Device Exemption (IDE) Application for Refractive Surgery Lasers [excimer] Ophthalmic Device Triage List March 19, 1998 ODE/DOD Do Discussion Points for Expansion of the 'Checklist of September 5, 1997 ODE/DOD Do Information Usually Submitted in an Investiga- tional Device Exemption (IDE) Application for Re- fractive Surgery Lasers' Draft Document Letter to Manufacturers and Users of Lasers for Re- October 10, 1996 ODE/DOD Do fractive Surgery [excimer] Owners Certification of Lasers as PMA Approved September 26, 1996 ODE/DOD Do Devices [excimer] Update on Excimer Lasers for Nearsightedness May 20, 1996 ODE/DOD Do Amendment 1: Premarket Notification [510(k)] Guid- June 28, 1994 ODE/DOD Do ance Document for Class II Daily Wear Contact Lenses Certification Statement for the Impact Resistance February 3, 1995 ODE/DOD Do Test Premarket Notification 510(k) Guidance for Contact May 1, 1997 ODE/DOD Do Lens Care Products Eye Valve Implant (and all glaucoma drainage de- November 16, 1995 ODE/DOD Do vices) manufacturers letter from N. C. Brogdon New FDA Recommendations & Results of Contact May 30, 1989 ODE/DOD Do Lens Study (7-day letter) Sunglass Letter including 510(k) format October 8, 1996 ODE/DOD Do Sunglass Package February 3, 1995 ODE/DOD Do Guidance for Industry; Noise Claims in Hearing Aid October 21, 1998 ODE/Division of Repro- Do Labeling ductive, Abdominal, ENT, and Radiological Devices (DRAERD)

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31254 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Guidance for the Submission of Premarket Notifica- November 14, 1998 ODE/DRAERD Do tion for Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Devices Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifications November 30, 1998 ODE/DRAERD Do for Intracorporeal Lithotripters Guidance for the Submission of Premarket Notifica- November 20, 1998 ODE/DRAERD Do tions for Radionuclide Dose Calibrators Guidance for the Submission of Premarket Notifica- December 3, 1998 ODE/DRAERD Do tions for Emission Computed Tomography De- vices and Accessories (SPECT and PET) and Nuclear Tomography Systems Information for Manufacturers Seeking Marketing February 4, 1999 ODE/-DRAERD Do Clearance of Digital Mammography Systems Harmonic Imaging with/without ContrastÐPremarket November 16, 1998 ODE/DRAERD Do Notification Requirements Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifications February 5, 1998 ODE/DRAERD Do for Metal Expandable Biliary Stents Guidance for the Submission of 510(k) Premarket February 11, 1997 ODE/DRAERD Do Notifications for Cardiovascular Intravascular Fil- ters Tympanostomy Tubes, Submission Guidance for a January 14, 1998 ODE/DRAERD Do 510(k) Premarket Notification Letter to Manufacturers of Falloposcopes September 5, 1996 ODE/DRAERD Do Letter to Manufacturers of Prescription Home Mon- September 6, 1996 ODE/DRAERD Do itors for Non-Stress Tests Latex Condoms for MenÐInformation for 510(k) July 23, 1998 ODE/DRAERD Do Premarket Notifications: Use of Consensus Stand- ards for Abbreviated Submissions Uniform Contraceptive Labeling July 23, 1998 ODE/DRAERD Do Guidance to Industry and CDRH ReviewersÐGuid- August 7, 1998 ODE/DRAERD Do ance for the Content of Premarket Notifications for Conventional and Permeability Hemodialyzers (Replaces: Guidelines for Premarket Testing of New Conventional Hemodialyers, High Premeability Hemodialyzers and Hemofilters) Devices Used for In Vitro Fertilization and Related September 10, 1998 ODE/DRAERD Do Assisted Reproduction Procedures Guidance for the Technical Content of a Premarket April 1, 1990 ODE/DRAERD Do Approval (PMA) Application for an Endolymphatic Shunt Tube with Valve Letter: Notice to Manufacturers of Bone Mineral September 25, 1997 ODE/DRAERD Do Densitometers Draft Guidance to Hearing Aid Manufacturers for August 5, 1994 ODE/DRAERD/Ear, Do Substantiation of Claims Nose, and Throat De- vices Branch (ENTB) Guidance for Submission of a 510(k) Premarket No- April 1, 1991 ODE/DRAERD/ENTB Do tification for an Air Conduction Hearing Aid Guidance For The Arrangement and Content of a May 1, 1990 ODE/DRAERD/ENTB Do Premarket Approval (PMA) Application For a Cochlear Implant in Children Ages 2 through to 17 Years Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notification October 21, 1996 ODE/DRAERD/ENTB Do for Disposable, Sterile, Ear, Nose and Throat En- doscope Sheaths with Protective Barrier Claims Guideline for the Arrangement and Content of a May 1, 1990 ODE/DRAERD/ENTB Do Premarket Approval (PMA) Application for a Cochlear Implant in Adults at Least 18 Years of Age Draft Guidance for Hemodialyzer Reuse Labeling October 6, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/Gastro- Do enterology and Renal Devices Branch (GRDB) Draft Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifi- May 30, 1997 ODE/DRAERD/GRDB Do cations for Water Purification Components and Systems for Hemodialysis Condom Packet: 4/13/94 R. J. Rivera Letter, April 13, 1994 ODE/DRAERD/Obstet- Do Condom Guidance & 7 Tabs, General Guidance rics/Gynecology De- for Modifying Condom Labeling to Include Shelf vices Branch (OGDB) Life

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31255

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Draft Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifi- July 29, 1991 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do cations for Loop and Rollerball Electrodes for GYN Electrosurgical Excisions Draft Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifi- May 25, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do cations for Menstrual Tampons Draft Thermal Endometrial Ablation Devices (Sub- March 14, 1996 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do mission Guidance for an IDE) Guidance (`Guidelines') for Evaluation of Fetal Clip March 8, 1977 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do Electrode Guidance (`Guidelines') for Evaluation of May 10, 1978 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do Hysteroscopic Sterilization Devices Guidance (`Guidelines') for Evaluation of January 1, 2000 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do Laparoscopic Bipolar and Thermal Coagulators (and Accessories) Guidance (`Guidelines') for Evaluation of Tubal Oc- November 22, 1977 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do clusion Devices Guidelines for Evaluation of Non-Drug IUDs September 28, 1976 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do Hysteroscopes and Gynecology LaparoscopesÐ March 27, 1996 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do Submission Guidance for a 510(k) Ðincludes 00192 Hysteroscopes and Laparoscopic Insufflators: Sub- August 1, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do mission Guidance for a 510(k) In-vivo Devices for the Detection of Cervical Cancer June 14, 1997 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do and its Precursors: Submission Guidance for an IDE Draft Document Intrapartum Continuous Monitors for Fetal Oxygen June 14, 1997 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do Saturation and Fetal pH; Submission Guidance for a PMA; Draft Document Premarket Testing Guidelines for Falloposcopes November 20, 1992 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do Premarket Testing Guidelines for Female Barrier April 4, 1990 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do Contraceptive Devices also Intended to Prevent Sexually Transmitted Diseases Premarket Testing Guidelines for Home Uterine Ac- March 31, 1993 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do tivity Monitors Information for a Latex Condom 510(k) Submission March 1994 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do for Obstetrics-Gynecology Branch (draft) Testing Guidance for Male Condoms Made from June 29, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/OGDB Do New Material (Non-Latex) Draft Guidance for Review of Bone Densitometer November 9, 1992 ODE/DRAERD/Radiology Do 510(k) Submissions Devices Branch (RDB) Guidance for Content and Review of a Magnetic August 2, 1988 ODE/DRAERD/RDB Do Resonance Diagnostic Device 510(k) Application and 10/11/95 MRI Guidance Update for dB/dt Guidance for Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic De- September 29, 1997 ODE/DRAERD/RDB Do vicesÐCriteria for Significant Risk Investigations Guidance for the Comment and Review of 510(k) August 1, 1993 ODE/DRAERD/RDB Do Notifications for Picture Archiving and Commu- nications Systems (PACS) and Related Devices [See 2099] Guidance for the Submission of 510(k)s for Solid June 1, 1997 ODE/DRAERD/RDB Do State X-ray Imaging Devices Information for Manufacturers Seeking Marketing September 30, 1997 ODE/DRAERD/RDB Do Clearance of Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems and Transducers Information for Manufacturers Seeking Marketing June 19, 1996 ODE/DRAERD/RDB Do Clearance of Digital Mammography Systems Reviewer Guidance for Automatic X-Ray Film Proc- February 1, 1990 ODE/DRAERD/RDB Do essor 510(k) Simplified 510(k) procedures for certain radiology December 21, 1993 ODE/DRAERD/RDB Do devices: 12/21/93 letter from L. Yin, ODE/ DRAERD, to NEMA 510(k) Checklist for Sterile Lubricating Jelly Used September 19, 1994 ODE/DRAERD/Urology Do With Transurethral Surgical Instruments and Lithrotripsy De- vices Branch (ULDB) Draft Guidance to Firms on Biliary Lithotripsy Stud- August 2, 1990 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do ies CDRH Interim Regulatory Policy for External Penile September 10, 1997 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do Rigidity Devices Checklist for Mechanical Lithotripters and Stone November 1, 1994 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do Dislodgers Used in Gastroenterology and Urology

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31256 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

DraftÐ510(k) Checklist for Conditioned Response November 23, 1994 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do Enuresis Alarms Draft 510(k) Checklist for Condom Catheters February 23, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do Draft 510(k) Checklist for Endoscopic August 16, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do Electrosurgical Unit (ESU) and Accessories Used in Gastroenterology and Urology Draft 510(k) Checklist for Endoscopic Light Sources June 22, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do Used in Gastroenterology and Urology Draft 510(k) Checklist for Non-Implanted Electrical June 6, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do Stimulators Used for the Treatment of Urinary In- continence Draft 510(k) Checklist for Urological Irrigation Sys- August 1, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do tem and Tubing Set Draft Guidance for Clinical Investigations of Devices November 11, 1994 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do Used for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) Draft Guidance for Information on Clinical Safety February 5, 1992 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do and Effectiveness Data for Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Upper Urinary Tract (Renal Pelvis, Renal Calyx and Upper Ureteral) Calculi Draft Guidance for Preclinical and Clinical Investiga- November 29, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do tions of Urethral Bulking Agents Used in the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence Draft Guidance for Preparation of PMA Applications March 16, 1993 OD/DRAERD/ULDB Do for Penile Inflatable Implants Draft Guidance for Preparation of PMA Applications March 16, 1993 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do for Testicular Prostheses Draft Guidance for Preparation of PMA Applications May 1, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do for the Implanted Mechanical/Hydraulic Urinary Continence Device (Artificial Urinary Sphincter) Draft Guidance for the Clinical Investigation of November 2, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do Urethral Stents Draft Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifi- March 17, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do cations for Endoscopes Used in Gastroenterology and Urology Draft Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifi- May 30, 1995 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do cations for Penile Rigidity Implants Draft Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifi- January 24, 1992 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do cations for Urological Balloon Dilatation Catheters Draft Guidance OutlineÐPoints to Consider for Clin- November 30, 1993 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do ical Studies for Vasovasostomy Devices Draft of Suggested Information for Reporting January 18, 1991 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Device Shock Wave Measurements Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifications February 10, 1993 ODE/DRAERD/ULDBDo for Biopsy Devices Used in Gastroenterology and Urology Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifications September 12, 1994 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do for Conventional and Antimicrobial Foley Cath- eters Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifications February 10, 1993 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do for Ureteral Stents Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifications June 7, 1994 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do for Urine Drainage Bags Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifications July 29, 1994 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do for Urodynamic/Uroflowmetry Systems Guidance to Manufacturers on the Development of January 1, 2000 ODE/DRAERD/ULDB Do Required Postapproval Epidemiologic Study Pro- tocols for Testicular Implants Center for Devices and Radiological Health's Inves- June 30, 1993 ODE/IDE/blue/ Do tigational Device Exemption (IDE) Refuse to Ac- cept Policy Center for Devices and Radiological Health's Pre- June 30, 1993 ODE/510k/blue/ Do market Notification [510(k)] Refuse to Accept Pol- icyÐ(updated Checklist 3/14/95)

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31257

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Guidance For Request and Issuance of Interim No- October 21, 1998 Office of Health and In- Do tice Letters for Mammography Facilities Under the dustry Programs MQSA (OHIP)/Division of Mammography Quality and Radiation Pro- grams (DMQRP) Continuing Education Credits for Reading/ Writing March 17, 1998 OHIP/DMQRP Do Articles/Papers and Presenting Courses/Lectures Accidental Radioactive Contamination of Human August 13, 1998 OHIP/DMQRP Do Food and Animal Feeds: Recommendations for State and Local Agencies Additional Mammography Review Policy March 26, 1998 OHIP/DMQRP Do Guidance For Review of Cases of Possible Suspen- March 26, 1998 OHIP/DMQRP Do sion or Revocation of Mammography Facility Cer- tificates Under the Mammography Quality Stand- ards Act (42 U.S.C. 263(b)) Guidance for Review of Requests for Reconsider- March 26, 1998 OHIP/DMQRP Do ation of Adverse Decisions on Accreditation of Mammography Facilities Under the Mammog- raphy Quality Standards Act (42 U.S.C. 263(b)) Guidance for Submission of Requests for Reconsid- March 26, 1998 OHIP/DMQRP Do eration of Adverse Decisions on Accreditation of Mammography Facilities Under the Mammog- raphy Quality Standards Act, 42 U.S.C. 263(b) Supplement to The Physician's Continuing Experi- April 9, 1998 OHIP/DMQRP Do ence Requirement Requalification for Interpreting Physician's Con- May 28, 1998 OHIP/DMQRP Do tinuing Experience MQSA Policy Statements in a Question and Answer June 2, 1998 OHIP/DMQRP Do Compliance Guidance: The Mammography Quality August 27, 1998 OHIP/DMQRP Do Standards Act Final Regulations MQSA Policy Statements for the Interim Regula- August 6, 1998 OHIP/DMQRP Do tions Policy for Facilities Changing Accreditation Bodies April 15, 1998 OHIP/DMQRP Do Addendum to What a Mammography Facility Should July 31, 1996 OHIP/DMQRP Do do to Prepare for an MQSA Inspection Handbook of Selected Tissue Doses for September 1, 1995 OHIP/DMQRP Do Fluoroscopic and Cineangiographic Examination of the Coronary Arteries (in SI Units) FDA 95± 8289, (Units of milliray (mmmGy) tissue dose and gray (Gy) air kerma) What a Mammography Facility Should Do to Pre- June 30, 1995 OHIP/DMQRP Do pare for an MQSA Inspection Policy Notebook in a Q/A Format (update to existing January 23, 1998 OHIP/DMQRP Do document) Guidance for Staff, Industry, and Third Parties Im- October 30, 1998 OHIP/Division of Small Do plementation of Third Party Programs Under the Manufacturer's Assist- FDA Modernization Act of 1997 ance (DSMA) Pages 39.html Exporting Medical Devices and June 30, 1998 OHIP/DSMA Do 391.html Foreign Liaison List Guidance for Staff, Industry and Third Parties: Third January 6, 1999 OHIP/DSMA Do Party Programs Under the Sectoral Annex on Medical Devices to the Agreement on Mutual Recognition Between the United States of Amer- ica and the European Community (MRA) A Pocket Guide to Device GMP InspectionsÐIn- November 1, 1991 OHIP/DSMA Do spections of Medical Device Manufacturers and GMP Regulation Requirements Medical Device Reporting for Manufacturers March 1997 OHIP/DSMA Do Regulatory Requirement for Devices for the Handi- August 1, 1987 OHIP/DSMA Do capped (FDA 87±4221) Comparison Chart: 1996 Quality System Reg vs. January 1, 2000 OHIP/DSMA Do 1978 Good Manufacturing Practices Reg vs. ANSI/ISO/ASQC Q9001 and ISO/DI 13485:1996 (include 126) Small Business Guide to FDA (FDA 96±1092) January 1, 1996 OHIP/DSMA Do Investigational Device Exemptions [IDE] Manual July 1, 1996 OHIP/DSMA Do (FDA 96±4159)/DSMA An Introduction to Medical Device Regulations (FDA January 1, 1992 OHIP/DSMA Do 92±4222)

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31258 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

In Vitro Diagnostic Devices: Guidance for the Prepa- January 1, 1997 OHIP/DSMA Do ration of 510(k) Submissions (supersedes FDA 87±4224) Instructions for Completion of Medical Device Reg- July 1, 1997 OHIP/DSMA Do istration and Listing Forms FDA 2891, 2891a and 2892 Additional Guidance for Testing Immunity to Radi- September 1, 1993 OHIP/DSMA Do ated Electromagnetic FieldsÐInfant Apnea Mon- itor Standard Classification Names for Medical Devices and In March 1, 1995 OHIP/DSMA Do Vitro Diagnostic Products (FDA Pub No. 95±4246) LabelingÐRegulatory Requirements for Medical De- September 1, 1989 OHIP/DSMA Do vices (FDA 89±4203) List of Current CDRH Addresses for Report Submis- July 30, 1996 OHIP/DSMA Do sion and Ordering of CDRH Forms Obtaining CDRH Guidance Documents May 13, 1998 OHIP/DSMA Do Premarket Approval (PMA) Manual (FDA 97±4214) July 1, 1997 OHIP/DSMA Do Premarket Notification: 510(k)ÐRegulatory Require- August 1, 1995 OHIP/DSMA Do ments for Medical Devices (FDA 95±4158) Procedures for Laboratory Compliance Testing of May 1, 1986 OHIP/DSMA Do Television ReceiversÐPart of TV Packet Regulation of Medical Devices Background Informa- May 1, 1996 OHIP/DSMA Do tion for Foreign Officials MDR Documents Access Information May 10, 1996 OHIP/DSMA Do MDR Documents Access Information for CDRH February 29, 1996 OHIP/DSMA Do Electronic Docket (ED) MDR Documents Access Information for CDRH February 29, 1996 OHIP/DSMA Do Facts-On-Demand (FOD) MDR Documents Access Information for Industry May 8, 1996 OHIP/DSMA Do Organizations MDR Documents Access Information for National May 10, 1996 OHIP/DSMA Do Technical Information Service (NTIS) MDR Documents Access Information for World February 29, 1996 OHIP/DSMA Do Wide Web (WWW) Medical Device Quality Systems Manual: A Small December 1, 1996 OHIP/DSMA Do Entity Compliance Guide Overview of FDA Modernization Act of 1997, Med- February 19, 1998 OHIP/DSMA Do ical Device Provisions Medical Device Appeals and ComplaintsÐGuidance February 1, 1998 OHIP/DSMA/Office of the Do on Dispute Resolutions Center Director (OCD) Medical Device Reporting for User Facilities April 1996 OHIP/Division of Device Do User Programs and Systems Analysis (DUPSA) Human Factors Points to Consider for IDE Devices January 17, 1997 OHIP/DUPSA Do Human Factors Principles for Medical Device Label- September 1, 1993 OHIP/DUPSA Do ing Write it Right August 1, 1993 OHIP/DUPSA Do Do It By DesignÐAn Introduction to Human Factors December 1, 1996 OHIP/DUPSA Do in Medical Devices FDA Modernization Act of 1997: Guidance for the February 6, 1998 OHIP/Regs Do Device Industry on Implementation of Highest Pri- ority Provisions: Availability Statistical Aspects of Submissions to FDA: A Med- June 1, 1984 OSB/Division of Biostatis- Do ical Device Perspective (also includes as Appen- tics (DB) dix the Article Observed Uses and Abuses of Sta- tistical Procedures in Medical Device Submissions Statistical Guidance for Clinical Trials of Non Diag- January 1, 1996 OSB/DB Do nostic Medical Devices (Replaces Clincal Study Guidance, formerly 891) Amendment to Guidance on Discretionary March 30, 1994 OSB/Division of Do Postmarket Surveillance on Pacemaker Leads Postmarket Surveil- lance (DPS) Guidance on Procedures to Determine Application February 19, 1998 OSB/DPS Do of Postmarket Surveillance Strategies Guidance on Procedures for Review of Postmarket February 19, 1998 OSB/DPS Do Surveillance Submissions SMDA to FDAMA: Guidance on FDA's Transition February 19, 1998 OSB/DPS Do Plan for Existing Postmarket Surveillance

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31259

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Proposed Draft Guidance to Sponsors Regarding October 7, 1994 OSB/DPS Do Required Postmarket Surveillance Studies of Plasma-Sprayed Porous-Coated Hip Prostheses Guidance to Sponsors on the Development of a Dis- June 9, 1993 OSB/DPS Do cretionary Postmarket Surveillance Study for Per- manent Implantable Cardiac Pacemaker Elec- trodes (Leads) Medical Device Reporting for Distributors April 1996 OSB/Division of Surveil- Do lance Systems (DSS) Medical Device Reporting: An Overview April 1996 OSB/DSS Do MDR Internet List Server (listserv) Instruction Sheet August 29, 1996 OSB/DSS Do MEDWATCH FDA Form 3500A For Use By User June 1, 1993 OSB/DSS Do Facilities, Distributors and Manufacturers for Man- datory Reporting Instructions for Completing FDA Form 3500A with December 15, 1995 OSB/DSS Do Coding Manual for Form 3500A (MEDWATCH) MDR Policy/Guidance for Endosseus Implant De- December 1992 OSB/DSS Do vices MDR GuidanceÐBlood Loss Policy December 1995 OSB/DSS Do Summary Reporting Approval for Adverse Events July 31, 1997 OSB/DSS Do Common Problems: Baseline Reports and OSB/DSS Do MedWatch Form 3500A (letter to manufacturerÐ undated) MDR Guidance Document: Remedial Action Exemp- July 30, 1996 OSB/DSS Do tionÐE1996001 Variance from Manufacturer Report Number Format July 16, 1996 OSB/DSS Do [MDR letter] Instructions for Completing Form 3417: Medical De- March 31, 1997 OSB/DSS Do vice Reporting Baseline Report [MDR] MDR Guidance Document No. 1ÐIOLÐE1996004 August 7, 1996 OSB/DSS Do MDR Guidance Document No. 3ÐNeedlestick & August 9, 1996 OSB/DSS Do Blood ExposureÐE1996003 MDR Reporting Guidance For Breast ImplantsÐ August 7, 1996 OSB/DSS Do E1996002 Instructions for Completing Semi-Annual Report, September 24, 1996 OSB/DSS Do Form 3419 (MDR) Guidance on FDA's Expectations of Medical Device May 15, 1998 Office of Standards and Do Manufacturers Concerning the Year 2000 Date Technology (OST)/Divi- sion of Electronics and Computer Science (DECS) Draft DocumentÐA Primer on Medical Device Inter- February 7, 1997 OST/Division of Do actions with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sys- Postmarket Surveil- tems lance (DPS) Frequently Asked Questions on Recognition of Con- February 19, 1998 OST/OD Do sensus Standards Guidance on the Recognition and Use of Con- February 19, 1998 OST/OD Do sensus Standards

IV. Guidance Documents Issued by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

Aerosol Steroid Product Safety Information in Pre- January 12, 1998 Advertising Drug Information Branch (HFD±210), scription Drug Advertising and Promotional Label- CDER, Food and Drug Administra- ing tion, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301±827±4573, or via Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cder/ guidance/index.htm Dissemination of Reprints of Certain Published, October 8, 1996 Do Do Original Data Funded Dissemination of Reference Texts October 8, 1996 Do Do

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31260 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

Consumer-Directed Broadcast Advertisements August 12, 1997 Advertising draft Do Promoting Medical Products in a Changing January 5, 1998 Do Do Healthcare Environment; Medical Product Pro- motion by Healthcare Organizations or Pharmacy Benefits Management Companies (PBMs) Alprazolam Tablets In Vivo Bioequivalence and In November 27, 1992 Biopharmaceutic Do Vitro Dissolution Testing Bioavailability Policies and Guidelines Do Do Bumetanide Tablets In Vivo Bioequivalence and In April 23, 1993 Do Do Vitro Dissolution Testing Buspirone Hydrochloride Tablets In Vivo Bioequiva- May 15, 1998 Do Do lence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Captopril Tablets In Vivo Bioequivalence and In May 13, 1993 Do Do Vitro Dissolution Testing Carbidopa and Levodopa Tablets In Vivo Bioequiva- June 19, 1992 Do Do lence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Cefactor Capsules and Suspension In Vivo Bio- April 23, 1993 Do Do equivalence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Cholestyramine Powder In Vitro Bioequivalence July 15, 1993 Do Do Cimetidine Tablets In Vivo Bioequivalence and In June 12, 1992 Do Do Vitro Dissolution Testing Clozapine (Tablets) In Vivo Bioequivalence and In November 15, 1996 Do Do Vitro Dissolution Testing Corticosteroids, Dermatologic (topical) In Vivo June 2, 1995 Do Do Diclofenac Sodium (tablets) In Vivo Bioequivalence October 6, 1994 Do Do and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Diflunisal Tablets In Vivo Bioequivalence and In May 16, 1992 Do Do Vitro Dissolution Testing Diltiazen Hydrochloride Tablets In Vivo Bioequiva- May 16, 1992 Do Do lence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Dissolution Testing of Immediate Release Solid Oral August 25, 1997 Do Do Dosage Forms Extended Release Oral Dosage Forms: Develop- September 26, 1997 Do Do ment, Evaluation, and Application of In Vitro/In Vivo Correlations Flurbiprofen (tablets) In Vivo Bioequivalence and In June 8, 1995 Do Do Vitro Dissolution Testing Gemfibrozil Capsules or Tablets In Vivo Bioequiva- June 15, 1992 Do Do lence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Glipizide (Tablets) In Vivo Bioequivalence and In April 23, 1993 Do Do Vitro Dissolution Testing Guanabenz Acetate Tablets In Vivo Bioequivalence April 23, 1993 Do Do and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Hydroxchloroquine Sulfate (tablets) In Vivo Bio- December 28, 1995 Do Do equivalence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Indapamide (tablets) In Vivo Bioequivalence and In April 23, 1993 Do Do Vitro Dissolution Testing Ketoprofen (capsules) In Vivo Bioequivalence and April 23, 1993 Do Do In Vitro Dissolution Testing Leucovorin Calcium (tablets) In Vivo Bioequivalence August 4, 1988 Do Do and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Medroxyprogesterone Acetate (tablets) In Vivo Bio- September 17, 1987 Do Do equivalence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Metaproferenol Sulfate and Albuterol Metered Dose June 27, 1989 Do Do Inhalers In Vitro Metoprolol Tartrate (tablets) In Vivo Bioequivalence June 12, 1992 Do Do and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Nadolol (tablets) In Vivo Bioequivalence and In Vitro May 16, 1992 Do Do Dissolution Testing Naproxen (tablets) In Vivo Bioequivalence and In June 8, 1995 Do Do Vitro Dissolution Testing Nortriptyline Hydrochloride (capsules) In Vivo Bio- June 12, 1992 Do Do equivalence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Oral Extended (controlled) Release In Vivo Bio- September 9, 1993 Do Do equivalence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Pentoxifyline (extended-release tablets) In Vivo Bio- December 22, 1995 Do Do equivalence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Phenytoin/Phenytoin Sodium (capsules, tablets, March 4, 1994 Do Do suspension) In Vivo Bioequivalence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31261

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

Pindolol (tablets) In Vivo Bioequivalence and In April 23, 1993 Do Do Vitro Dissolution Testing Piroxicam (capsules) In Vivo Bioequivalence and In June 15, 1992 Do Do Vitro Dissolution Testing Potassium Chloride (slow-release tablets and cap- June 6, 1994 Do Do sules) In Vivo Bioequivalence and In Vitro Dis- solution Testing Rantidine Hydrochloride (tablets) In Vivo Bioequiva- April 23, 1993 Do Do lence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Selegiline Hydrochloride (tablets) In Vivo Bioequiva- December 22, 1995 Do Do lence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Statistical Procedure for Bioequivalence Studies July 1, 1992 Do Do Using a Standard Two-Treatment Crossover De- sign Trazodone Hydrochloride (tablets) In Vivo Bio- April 30, 1988 Do Do equivalence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing Antifungal (topical) February 24, 1990 Biopharmaceutic draft Do Antifungal (vaginal) February 24, 1990 Do Do Bioanalytical Methods Validations for Human Stud- January 5, 1999 Do Do ies Food-Effect Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Stud- December 30, 1997 Do Do ies In Vivo Bioequivalence Studies Based on Popu- December 30, 1997 Do Do lation and Individual Bioequivalence Approaches Topical Dermatological Drug Product NDAs and June 18, 1998 Do Do ANDAsÐIn Vivo Bioavailability, Bioequivalence, In Vitro Release and Associated Studies Waiver Policy March 29, 1993 Do Do Glyburide Tablets In Vivo Bioequivalence and In April 23, 1993 Biopharmaceutic testing Do Vitro Dissolution Testing Drug Master Files September 1, 1989 Chemistry Do Environmental Assessment of Human Drugs and July 27, 1998 Do Do Biologics Applications FDA's Policy Statement for the Development of New May 1, 1992 Do Do Stereoisomeric Drugs Format and Content for the CMC Section of an An- September 1, 1994 Do Do nual Report Format and Content of the Chemistry, Manufac- February 1, 1987 Do Do turing and Controls Section of an Application Format and Content of the Microbiology Section of February 1, 1987 Do Do an Application PAC±ALTS: Postapproval ChangesÐAnalytical April 28, 1998 Do Do Testing Laboratory Sites Reviewer Guidance: Validation of Chromatographic November 1, 1994 Do Do Methods Submission of Chemistry, Manufacturing and Con- November 1, 1994 Do Do trols Information for Synthetic Peptide Substances Submission of Documentation for Sterilization Proc- November 1, 1994 Do Do ess Validation Applications for Human and Veteri- nary Drug Products Submitting Documentation for Packaging for Human February 1, 1987 Do Do Drugs and Biologics Submitting Documentation for the Manufacturing of February 1, 1987 Do Do and Controls for Drug Products Submitting Documentation for the Stability of February 1, 1987 Do Do Human Drugs and Biologics Submitting Supporting Documentation in Testing February 1, 1987 Do Do Drug Applications for the Manufacture of Drug Substances Submitting Samples and Analytical Data for Meth- February 1, 1987 Do Do ods Validation SUPAC±IRÐImmediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage November 30, 1995 Do Do Forms: Scale-Up and Post-Approval Changes: Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls, In Vitro Dissolution Testing and In Vivo Bioequivalence Documentation SUPAC±IR: Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage October 21, 1997 Do Do Forms; Manufacturing Equipment Addendum SUPAC±IR Questions and Answers February 18, 1997 Do Do

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31262 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

SUPAC±MR: Modified Release Solid Oral Dosage October 6, 1997 Do Do Forms: Scale-Up and Postapproval Changes: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls, In Vitro Dissolution Testing, and In Vivo Bioequivalence Documentation SUPAC±SSÐNonsterile Semisolid Dosage Forms; June 13, 1997 Do Do Scale-Up and Postapproval Changes: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls; In Vitro Release Testing and In Vivo Bioequivalence Documenta- tion BACPAC I: Intermediates in Drug Substance Syn- November 30, 1998 Chemistry draft Do thesis (Bulk Actives Postapproval Changes: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Docu- mentation) Content and Format of Investigational New Drug December 10, 1997 Do Do Applications (INDs) for Phases 2 and 3 Studies of Drugs, Including Specific Therapeutic Bio- technology-Derived ProductsÐPreliminary Draft Metered Dose Inhalers (MDI) and Dry Powder Inhal- November 19, 1998 Do Do ers (DPI) Drug Products; Chemistry, Manufac- turing, and Controls Documentation NDAs: Impurities in Drug Substances January 21, 1999 Do Do Stability Testing of Drug Substances and Drug June 8, 1998 Do Do Products Submission of Documentation in Drug Applications July 15, 1997 Do Do for Container Closure Systems Used for the Pack- aging of Human Drugs and Biologics Submitting Supporting Chemistry Documentation in November 1, 1991 Do Do Radiopharmaceutical Drug Applications SUPAC±IR/MR: Immediate Release and Modified April 28, 1998 Do Do Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms, Manufacturing Equipment Addendum SUPAC±SS: Nonsterile Semisolid Dosage Forms January 5, 1999 Do Do Tracking of NDA and ANDA Reformulations for Do Do Solid, Oral, Immediate Release Drug Products Acute Bacterial Exacerbation of Chronic Bronchitis; July 22, 1998 Clinical antimicrobial draft Do Developing Antimicrobial Drugs for Treatment Acute Bacterial Meningitis; Developing Antimicrobial July 22, 1998 Do Do Drugs for Treatment Acute Bacterial Sinusitis; Developing Antimicrobial July 22, 1998 Do Do Drugs for Treatment Acute or Chronic Bacterial Prostatitis; Developing July 22, 1998 Do Do Antimicrobial Drugs for Treatment Acute Otitis Media; Developing Antimicrobial Drugs July 22, 1998 Do Do for Treatment Bacterial Vaginosis; Developing Antimicrobial Drugs July 22, 1998 Do Do for Treatment Community Acquired Pneumonia; Developing Anti- July 22, 1998 Do Do microbial Drugs for Treatment Complicated Urinary Tract Infections and July 22, 1998 Do Do Pylonephritis; Developing Antimicrobial Drugs for Treatment Empiric Therapy of Febrile Neutropenia; Developing July 22, 1998 Do Do Antimicrobial Drugs for Treatment General Considerations for Clinical Trials; Devel- July 22, 1998 Do Do oping Antimicrobial Drugs for Treatment Lyme Disease; Developing Antimicrobial Drugs for July 22, 1998 Do Do Treatment Nosocomial Pneumonia; Developing Antimicrobial July 22, 1998 Do Do Drugs for Treatment Secondary Bacterial Infections of Acute Bronchitis; July 22, 1998 Do Do Developing Antimicrobial Drugs for Treatment Streptococcal Pharyngitis and Tonsillitis; Developing July 22, 1998 Do Do Antimicrobial Drugs for Treatment Uncomplicated GonorrheaÐCervical, Urethral, Rec- July 22, 1998 Do Do tal, and/or Pharyngeal; Developing Antimicrobial Drugs for Treatment Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections; Developing July 22, 1998 Do Do Antimicrobial Drugs for Treatment

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31263

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

Uncomplicated and Complicated Skin and Skin July 22, 1998 Do Do Structure Infections; Developing Antimicrobial Drugs for Treatment Vuvlovaginal Candidiasis; Developing Antimicrobial July 22, 1998 Do Do Drugs for Treatment Clinical Evaluation of Antidepressant Drugs September 1, 1977 Clinical medical Do Clinical Evaluation of Antidiarrheal Drugs September 1, 1977 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Antiepileptic Drugs (adults and January 1, 1981 Do Do children) Clinical Evaluation of Combination Estrogen/Pro- March 20, 1995 Do Do gestin-Containing Drug Products Used for Hor- mone Replacement Therapy of Postmenopausal Women Clinical Evaluation of Radiopharmaceutical Drugs October 1, 1981 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Analgesic Drugs December 1, 1992 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Antacid Drugs April 1, 1978 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Anti-Inflammatory and April 1, 1988 Do Do Antirheumatic Drugs (adults and children) Clinical Evaluation of Anti-Anxiety Drugs September 1, 1977 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Anti-Infective Drugs (Systemic) September 1, 1977 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Drugs to Prevent, Control and/ November 1, 1978 Do Do or Treat Periodontal Disease Clinical Evaluation of Gastric Secretory Depressant September 1, 1977 Do Do (GSD) Drugs Clinical Evaluation of General Anesthetics May 1, 1982 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Hypnotic Drugs September 1, 1977 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Laxative Drugs April 1, 1978 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Local Anesthetics May 1, 1982 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Psychoactive Drugs in Infants July 1, 1979 Do Do and Children Content and Format for Pediatric Use Supplements May 24, 1996 Do Do Content and Format of Investigational New Drug November 20, 1995 Do Do Applications (INDs) for Phase 1 Studies of Drugs, Including Well-Characterized, Therapeutic, Bio- technology-Derived Products Development of Vaginal Contraceptive Drugs (NDA) April 19, 1995 Do Do FDA Approval of New Cancer Treatment Uses for February 2, 1999 Do Do Marketed Drug and Biological Products FDA Requirements for Approval of Drugs to Treat June 20, 1989 Do Do Superficial Bladder Cancer FDA Requirements for Approval of Drugs to Treat January 29, 1991 Do Do Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Format and Content of the Clinical and Statistical July 1, 1988 Do Do Sections of an Application Format and Content of the Summary for New Drug February 1, 1987 Do Do and Antibiotic Applications Formatting, Assembling and Submitting New Drug February 1, 1987 Do Do and Antibiotic Applications General Considerations for the Clinical Evaluation of September 1, 1977 Do Do Drugs in Infants and Children General Considerations for the Clinical Evaluation of December 1, 1978 Do Do Drugs Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Discussion on April 13, 1988 Do Do FDA Requirements for Approval of New Drugs for Treatment of Ovarian Cancer Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Discussion on April 19, 1988 Do Do FDA Requirements for Approval of New Drugs for Treatment of Colon and Rectal Cancer OTC Treatment of Hypercholesterolemia October 27, 1997 Do Do Points to Consider: Clinical Development Programs September 19, 1994 Do Do for MDI and DPI Drug Products Points to Consider in the Clinical Development and October 26, 1992 Do Do Labeling of Anti-Infective Drug Products Points to Consider in the Preclinical Development of May 1, 1993 Do Do Immunomodulatory Drugs for the Treatment of HIV Infection and Associated Disorders Points to Consider in the Preclinical Development of November 1, 1990 Do Do Antiviral Drugs

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31264 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

Postmarketing Adverse Experience Reporting for August 27, 1997 Do Do Human Drugs and Licensed Biological Products; Clarification of What to Report Postmarketing Reporting of Adverse Drug Experi- March 1, 1992 Do Do ences Preparation of Investigational New Drug Products November 1, 1992 Do Do (Human and Animal) Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for May 15, 1998 Do Do Human Drug and Biological Products Study and Evaluation of Gender Differences in the July 22, 1993 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Drugs Study of Drugs Likely to be Used in the Elderly November 1, 1989 Do Do Abuse Liability Assessment July 1, 1990 Clinical medical draft Do Clinical Development Programs for Drugs, Devices, February 18, 1998 Do Do and Biological Products Intended for the Treat- ment of Osteoarthritis (OA) Clinical Development Programs for Drugs, Devices, March 18, 1998 Do Do and Biological Products for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Clinical Evaluation of Antihypertensive Drugs May 1, 1988 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Anti-Anginal Drugs January 1, 1989 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Anti-Arrhythmic Drugs July 1, 1985 Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Drugs for the Treatment of December 1, 1987 Do Do Congestive Heart Failure Clinical Evaluation of Drugs for Ulcerative Colitis Do Do (3rd draft) Clinical Evaluation of Lipid-Altering Agents in Adults September 1, 1990 Do Do and Children Clinical Evaluation of Motility-Modifying Drugs Do Do Clinical Evaluation of Weight-Control Drugs October 1, 1997 Do Do Conducting a Clinical Safety Review of a New Prod- November 22, 1996 Do Do uct Application and Preparing a Report on the Re- view Developing Medical Imaging Drugs and Biologics October 13, 1998 Do Do Development and Evaluation of Drugs for the Treat- February 12, 1992 Do Do ment of Psychoactive Substance Use Disorders Evaluating Clinical Studies of Antimicrobials in the February 18, 1997 Do Do Division of Anti-Infective Drug Products Points to Consider for System Inflammatory Re- Do Do sponse Syndrome (SIRS) 1st Draft Points to Consider in the Preparation of IND Appli- September 1, 1991 Do Do cations for New Drugs Intended for the Treatment of HIV-Infected Individuals Preclinical and Clinical Evaluation of Agents Used in April 1, 1994 Do Do the Prevention or Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis Submission of Abbreviated Reports and Synopses September 21, 1998 Do Do in Support of Marketing Applications Drug Metabolism/Drug Interaction Studies in the April 7, 1997 Clinical pharmacology Do Drug Development Process: Studies In Vitro Format and Content of the Human Pharmaco- February 1, 1987 Do Do kinetics and Bioavailability Section of an Applica- tion Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics in Pa- May 15, 1998 Do Do tients with Impaired Renal Function: Study De- sign, Data Analysis, and Impact on Dosing and Labeling Population Pharmacokinetics February 10, 1999 Do Do General Considerations for Pediatric Pharmaco- November 30, 1998 Clinical pharmacology o kinetic Studies for Drugs and Biological Products draft In Vivo Metabolism/Drug Interaction StudiesÐStudy November 19, 1998 Do Do Design, Data Analysis, and Recommendations for Dosing and Labeling A Review of FDA's Implementation of the Drug Ex- Compliance Do port Amendments of 1986 Compressed Medical Gases December 1, 1989 Do Do Expiration Dating and Stability Testing of Solid Oral June 27, 1997 Do Do Dosage Form Drugs Containing Iron General Principles of Process Validation May 1, 1987 Do Do

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31265

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

Good Laboratory Practice Regulations Questions Do Do and Answers Monitoring of Clinical Investigations January 1, 1988 Do Do Nuclear Pharmacy Guideline Criteria for Deter- May 1, 1984 Do Do mining When to Register as a Drug Establishment Sterile Drug Products Produced by Aseptic Proc- May 1, 1987 Do Do essing Validation of Limulus Amebocyte Lysate Test as an December 1, 1987 Do Do End-Product Endotoxin Test for Human and Ani- mal Parenteral Drugs, Biological Products, and Medical Devices Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Trials June 18, 1997 Compliance draft Do Investigating Out of Specification (OOS) Test Re- September 30, 1998 Do Do sults for Pharmaceutical Production Manufacture, Processing or Holding of Active Phar- April 17, 1998 Do Do maceutical Ingredients Repackaging of Solid Oral Dosage Form Drug Prod- February 1, 1992 Do Do ucts ANDAs: Impurities in Drug Products January 5, 1999 Generic drug draft Do ANDAs: Impurities in Drug Substances July 24, 1998 Do Do Content and Format of an Abbreviated New Drug April 18, 1997 Do Do Application (ANDA)ÐPositron Emission Tomog- raphy (PET) Drug ProductsÐWith Specific Infor- mation for ANDAs for Fludeoxyglucose F18 Injec- tion Letter announcing that the OGD will now accept the August 18, 1995 Generic drug Do ICH long-term storage conditions as well as the stability studies conducted in the past Letter describing efforts of CDER & ORA to clarify October 14, 1994 Do Do the responsibilities of CDER chemistry review scientists and ORA field investigators in the new and abbreviated drug approval process in order to reduce duplication or redundancy in the process Letter on incomplete Abbreviated Applications, Con- April 8, 1994 Do Do victions under GDEA, Multiple Supplements, An- nual Reports for Bulk Antibiotics, Batch Size for Transdermal Drugs, Bioequivalence Protocols, Research, Deviations from OGD Policy Letter on the request for cooperation of regulated in- November 8, 1991 Do Do dustry to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the generic drug review process, by assuring the completeness and accuracy of required information and data submissions Letter on the provision of new information pertaining July 1, 1992 Do Do to new bioequivalence guidelines and refuse-to- file letters Letter on the provision of new procedures and poli- March 15, 1989 Do Do cies affecting the generic drug review process Letter on the response to 12/20/84 letter from the March 26, 1985 Do Do Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association about the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Res- toration Act Letter to all ANDA and AADA applicants about the January 15, 1993 Do Do Generic Drug Enforcement Act of 1992 (GDEA), and the Office of Generic Drugs intention to refuse-to-file incomplete submissions as required by the new law Letter to regulated industry notifying interested par- August 4, 1993 Do Do ties about important detailed information regarding labeling scale-up, packaging, minor/major amendment criteria, and bioequivalence requirements Organization of an Abbreviated New Drug Applica- April 7, 1997 Do Do tion and an Abbreviated Antibiotic Application Variations in Drug Products that May Be Included in January 27, 1999 Do Do a Single ANDA E5 Ethnic Factors in the Acceptability of Foreign June 10, 1998 ICH draft guidances effi- Do Clinical Data cacy

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31266 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

Q6A Specifications: Test Procedures and Accept- November 25, 1997 ICH draft guidancesÐ Do ance Criteria for New Drug Substances and New quality Drug Products: Chemical Substances Q6B Specifications: Test Procedures and Accept- June 9, 1998 Do Do ance Criteria for Biotechnological/Biological Prod- ucts S4A Duration of Chronic Toxicity Testing in Animals November 18, 1997 ICH draft guidances safe- Do (Rodent and Nonrodent Toxicity Testing) ty E1A The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess March 1, 1995 ICH guidancesÐefficacy Do Clinical Safety: for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions E2A Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions March 1, 1995 Do Do and Standards for Expedited Reporting E2B Data Elements for Transmission of Individual January 15, 1998 Do Do Case Reports E2C Clinical Safety Data Management: Periodic May 19, 1997 Do Do Safety Update Reports for Marketed Drugs E4 Dose-Response Information to Support Drug November 9, 1994 Do Do Registration E6 Good Clinical Practice: Consolidated Guideline May 9, 1997 Do Do E7 Studies in Support of Special Populations: Geri- August 2, 1994 Do Do atrics E8 General Considerations for Clinical Trials December 24, 1997 Do Do E9 Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials September 16, 1998 Do Do M3 Nonclinical Safety Studies for the Conduct of November 25, 1997 ICH guidancesÐjoint Do Human Clinical Trials for Pharmaceuticals safety/efficacy (multidisciplinary) Q1A Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and September 22, 1994 ICH guidancesÐquality Do Products Q1B Photostability Testing of New Drug Substances May 16, 1997 Do Do and Products Q1C Stability Testing for New Dosage Forms May 9, 1997 Do Do Q2A Text on Validation of Analytical Procedures March 1, 1995 Do Do Q2B Validation of Analytical Procedures: Method- May 19, 1997 Do Do ology Q3A Impurities in New Drug Substances January 4, 1996 Do Do Q3B Impurities in New Drug Products May 19, 1997 Do Do Q3C Impurities: Residual Solvents December 24, 1997 Do Do Q5A Biotechnological/Biological Pharmaceutical September 24, 1998 Do Do Products, Viral Safety Evaluation Q5B Quality of Biotechnology Products: Analysis of February 23, 1996 Do Do the Expression Construct in Cells Used for Pro- duction of r-DNA Derived Protein Products Q5C Quality of Biotechnological Products: Stability July 10, 1996 Do Do Testing of Biotechnology/Biological Products Q5D Quality of Biotechnological/Biological Products: September 21, 1998 Do Do Derivation and Characterization of Cell Substrates Used for Production of Biotechnological/Biological Products S1A The Need for Long-Term Rodent Carcino- March 1, 1996 ICH guidancesÐsafety Do genicity Studies of Pharmaceuticals S1B Testing for Carcinogenicity in Pharmaceuticals February 23, 1998 Do Do S1C Dose Selection for Carcinogenicity Studies of March 1, 1995 Do Do Pharmaceuticals S1C(R) Dose Selection for Carcinogenicity Studies December 4, 1997 Do Do of Pharmaceuticals: Addendum on a Limit Dose and Related Notes S2A Specific Aspects of Regulatory Genotoxicity April 24, 1996 Do Do Tests for Pharmaceuticals S2B Genotoxicity: Standard Battery Testing November 21, 1997 Do Do S3A Toxicokinetics: The Assessment of Systemic March 1, 1995 Do Do Exposure in Toxicity Studies S3B Pharmacokinetics: Guidance for Repeated March 1, 1995 Do Do Dose Tissue Distribution Studies S5A Detection of Toxicity to Reproduction for Me- September 22, 1994 Do Do dicinal Products S5B Detection of Toxicity to Reproduction for Me- April 5, 1996 Do Do dicinal Products: Addendum on Toxicity to Male Fertility

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31267

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

S6 Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology- November 18, 1997 Do Do Derived Pharmaceuticals E3 Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports July 17, 1996 IHC guidancesÐefficacy Do A Revision in Sample Collection Under the Compli- July 15, 1996 Industry letters Do ance Program Pertaining to Pre-Approval Inspec- tions Certification Requirements for Debarred Individuals July 27, 1992 Do Do in Drug Applications Continuation of a series of letters communicating in- June 1, 1990 Do Do terim and informal generic drug policy and guidance. Availability of Policy and Procedure Guides, and further operational changes to the generic drug review program Fifth of a series of letters providing informal notice April 10, 1987 Do Do about the Act, discussing the statutory mechanisms by which ANDA applicants may make modifications in approved drugs where clinical data is required Fourth of a series of letters providing informal notice October 31, 1986 Do Do to all affected parties about policy developments and interpretations regarding the Act. Three year exclusivity provisions of Title I Implementation of the Drug Price Competition and October 11, 1984 Do Do Patent Term Restoration Act. Preliminary Guid- ance Implementation Plan USP injection nomenclature October 2, 1995 Do Do Instructions for Filing Supplements Under the Provi- April 11, 1996 Do Do sions of SUPAC±IR Seventh of a series of letters about the act providing July 29, 1988 Do Do guidance on the ``180-day exclusivity'' provision of section 505(j)(4)(B)(iv) of the FD&C Act Sixth of a series of informal notice letters about the April 28, 1988 Do Do Act discussing the 3- and 5-year exclusivity provisions of sections 505(c)(3)(d) and 505(j)(4)(D) of the FD&C Act Streamlining Initiatives December 24, 1996 Do Do Supplement to 10/11/84 letter about policies, proce- November 16, 1984 Do Do dures and implementation of the Act (Q & A format) Third of a series of letters regarding the implemen- May 1, 1985 Do Do tation of the Act Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format; Gen- January 28, 1999 Information technology Do eral Considerations Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format; New January 28, 1999 Do Do Drug Applications Acetaminophen, Aspirin and Codeine Phosphate December 1, 1993 Labeling Do Tablets/Capsules Acetaminophen and Codeine Phosphate Oral Solu- December 1, 1993 Do Do tion/Suspension Acetaminophen and Codeine Phosphate Tablets/ December 1, 1993 Do Do Capsules Alprazolam Tablets USP August 1, 1996 Do Do Amiloride Hydrochloride and Hydrochlorothiazide September 1, 1997 Do Do Tablets USP Amlodipine Besylate Tablets September 1, 1997 Do Do Astemizole Tablets September 1, 1997 Do Do Atenolol Tablets USP August 1, 1997 Do Do Barbituate, Single Entity-Class Labeling March 1, 1981 Do Do Butalbital, Acetaminophen, Caffeine and September 21, 1997 Do Do Hydocodone Bitartrate Tablets Butalbital, Acetaminophen and Caffeine Capsules/ September 1, 1997 Do Do Tablets USP Butorphanol Tartrate Injection USP October 1, 1992 Do Do Captopril and Hydrochlorothiazide Tablets USP April 1, 1995 Do Do Captopril Tablets February 1, 1995 Do Do Carbidopa and Levodopa Tablets USP February 1, 1992 Do Do Chlordiazepoxide Hydrochloride Capsules January 1, 1988 Do Do Cimetidine Hydrochloride Injection September 1, 1995 Do Do Cimetidine Tablets September 1, 1995 Do Do Cisapride Oral Suspension September 1, 1997 Do Do

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31268 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

Cisapride Tablets September 1, 1997 Do Do Clindamycin Phosphate Injection USP September 1, 1998 Do Do Clorazepate Dipotassium Capsules/Tablets March 1, 1993 Do Do Combination Oral ContraceptivesÐPhysician and January 1, 1994 Do Do Patient Labeling Cyproheptadine Hydrochloride Tablets/Syrup December 1, 1986 Do Do Diclofenac Sodium Delayed-Release Tablets January 1, 1997 Do Do Diltiazem Hydrochloride Extended-Release Cap- September 1, 1995 Do Do sules Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride and Atropine Sulphate April 1, 1995 Do Do Tablets USP Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride and Atropine Sulfate April 1, 1995 Do Do Oral Solution USP Dipivefrin Hydrochloride Ophthalmic Solution USP October 1, 1998 Do Do Dipivefrin Hydrochloride Ophthalmic Solution, 0.1% November 2, 1998 Do Do Ergoloid Mesylates Tablets January 1, 1988 Do Do Fludeoxyglucose F18 Injection January 1, 1997 Do Do Flurbiprofen Tablets USP January 1, 1994 Do Do Fluvoxamine Maleate Tablets September 1, 1997 Do Do Gentamicin Sulfate Ophthalmic Ointment and Solu- April 1, 1992 Do Do tion USP Heparin Sodium Injection USP March 1, 1991 Do Do Hydrocodone Bitartrate and Acetaminophen Tablets April 1, 1994 Do Do USP Hydroxyzine Hydrochloride Injection December 1, 1989 Do Do Hypoglycemic Oral AgentsÐFEDERAL REGISTER April 1, 1984 Do Do Indomethacin Capsules USP September 1, 1995 Do Do Informal Labeling Guidance Texts for Estrogen Drug August 1, 1992 Do Do ProductsÐPatient Labeling Informal Labeling Guidance Texts for Estrogen Drug August 1, 1992 Do Do ProductsÐProfessional Labeling Isoetharine Inhalation Solution March 1, 1989 Do Do Itraconazole Capsules, USP September 1, 1998 Do Do Leucovorin Calcium for Injection July 1, 1996 Do Do Leucovorin Calcium Tablets, USP July 1, 1996 Do Do Local AnestheticsÐClass Labeling September 1, 1982 Do Do Meclofenamate Sodium Capsules July 1, 1992 Do Do Medroxyprogesterone Acetate Tablets, USP September 1, 1998 Do Do Metaproterenol Sulfate Inhalation Solution USP May 1, 1992 Do Do Metaproterenol Sulfate Syrup, USP May 1, 1992 Do Do Metaproterenol Sulfate Tablets May 1, 1992 Do Do Metoclopramide Tablets/ Oral Solution, USP February 1, 1995 Do Do Naphazoline Hydrochloride Ophthalmic Solution March 1, 1989 Do Do Naproxen Sodium Tablets, USP September 1, 1997 Do Do Naproxen Tablets, USP September 1, 1997 Do Do Niacin Tablets July 1, 1992 Do Do Paclitaxel Injection September 1, 1997 Do Do Phendimetrazine Tartrate Capsules/Tablets, and Ex- February 1, 1991 Do Do tended-Release Capsules Phentermine Hydrochloride Capsules/Tablets August 1, 1988 Do Do Promethazine Hydrochloride Tablets March 1, 1990 Do Do Propantheline Bromide Tablets August 1, 1988 Do Do Pyridoxine Hydrochloride Injection June 1, 1984 Do Do Quinidine Sulfate Tablets/Capsules USP October 1, 1995 Do Do Ranitidine Tablets November 1, 1993 Do Do Risperidone Oral Solution September 1, 1997 Do Do Risperidone Tablets September 1, 1997 Do Do Sulfacetamide Sodium Ophthalmic Solution/Oint- August 1, 1992 Do Do ment Sulfacetamide Sodium and Prednisolone Acetate January 1, 1995 Do Do Ophthalmic Suspension and Ointment Sulfamethoxazole and Phenazopyridine Hydro- February 1, 1992 Do Do chloride Tablets Sulfamethoxazole and Trimethoprim Tablets and August 1, 1993 Do Do Oral Suspension Theophylline Immediate-Release Dosage Forms February 1, 1995 Do Do Theophylline Intravenous Dosage Forms September 1, 1995 Do Do Thiamine Hydrochloride Injection February 1, 1988 Do Do Tobramycin Sulfate Injection USP May 1, 1993 Do Do Venlafaxine Hydrochloride Tablets October 1, 1997 Do Do

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31269

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

Verapamil Hydrochloride Tablets October 1, 1991 Do Do Vitamin A Capsules February 1, 1992 Do Do Zolpidem Tartrate Tablets September 1, 1997 Do Do Content and Format for Geriatric Labeling January 21, 1999 Labeling draft Do Non-Contraceptive Estrogen Class Labeling October 15, 1998 Do Do Non-Contraceptive Estrogen Drug ProductsÐPhysi- January 8, 1999 Do Do cian and Patient Labeling OTC Topical Drug Products for the Treatment of July 16, 1998 Do Do Vaginal Yeast Infections (Vulvovaginal Candidiasis) Therapeutic Equivalence Code Placement on Pre- January 28, 1999 Do Do scription Drug Labels and Labeling Enforcement Policy on Marketing OTC Combination OTC Do Products General Guidelines for OTC Combination Products Do Do Upgrading Category III Antiperspirants to Category I Do Do OTC Nicotine Substitutes March 1, 1994 OTC draft Do Points to Consider for OTC Actual Use Studies July 22, 1994 Do Do Format and Content of the Nonclinical Pharma- February 1, 1987 Pharmacology/toxicology Do cology/Toxicology Section of an Application Points to Consider in the Nonclinical Pharmacology/ Do Do Toxicology Development of Topical Drugs In- tended to Prevent the Transmission of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) and/or for the Devel- opment of Drugs Intended to Act as Vaginal Con- traceptives Reference Guide for the Nonclinical Toxicity Studies February 1, 1989 Do Do of Antiviral Drugs Indicated for the Treatment of Non-Life Threatening Disease: Evaluation of Drug Toxicity Prior to Phase I Clinical Studies Single Dose Acute Toxicity Testing for Pharma- August 26, 1996 Do Do ceuticals 180±Day Generic Drug Exclusivity Under the Hatch- July 14, 1998 Procedural Do Waxman Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Advisory Committees: Implementing Section 120 of November 2, 1998 Do Do the Food and Drug Modernization Act of 1997 Enforcement Policy During Implementation of Sec- November 23, 1998 Do Do tion 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos- metic Act Fast Track Drug Development Programs: Designa- November 18, 1998 Do Do tion, Development, and Application Review Implementation of Section 126, Elimination of Cer- July 21, 1998 Do Do tain Labeling Requirements, of the FDA Mod- ernization Act of 1997 National Uniformity for Nonprescription Drugs Ingre- April 9, 1998 Do Do dient Labeling for OTC Drugs Qualifying for Pediatric Exclusivity Under Section June 29, 1998 Do Do 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Repeal of Section 507 of the Federal Food, Drug, June 15, 1998 Do Do and Cosmetic Act Standards for the Prompt Review of Efficacy Sup- May 15, 1998 Do Do plements, Including Priority Efficacy Supplements Submitting Debarment Certification Statements October 2, 1998 Procedural draft Do Classifying Resubmissions in Response to Action May 14, 1998 User fee Do Letters Submitting and Reviewing Complete Responses to May 14, 1998 Do Do Clinical Holds

V. Guidance Documents Issued by the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN)

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31270 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Compliance Policy Guides Manual 1996 FDA regulated industries National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161 (Order No. PB96±920500) Compliance Programs Guidance Manual 1995 Do NTIS (Order No. PB95±915499) Inspection Operations Manual October 1994 Do NTIS (Order No. PB95±913399) Regulatory Procedures Manual August 1995 Do NTIS (Order No. PB95±265534) Requirements of Laws and Regulations Enforced by 1997 Do Superintendent of Documents, Gov- the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ``Blue ernment Printing Office, Wash- Book'' ington, DC 20402 FDA Recall Policy 1995 Do Industry Activities Staff (HFS±565), CFSAN, Food and Drug Administra- tion, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204 Action Levels for Poisonous or Deleterious Sub- 1995 Food and animal feed in- Do stances in Human Food and Animal Feed dustries Pesticides Analytical Manual 1994 Food Industry NTIS (Order No. PB94±911899) FDA Advisory for Deoxynivanol (DON) in Finished September 16, 1993 Food and animal feed in- Office of Plant & Dairy Foods & Bev- Wheat Products Intended for Human Consump- dustries erages (HFS±306), CFSAN, Food tion and in Grain and Grain By-Products for Ani- and Drug Administration, 200 C St. mal Feed SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202± 205±4681 FDA's Cosmetic Labeling Manual October 1991 Cosmetic industry Office of Colors and Cosmetics (HFS± 105), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±205±4493 Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant May 29, 1992 Developers of new plant Office of Premarket Approval (HFS± Varieties food varieties 200), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±418±3100 A Food Labeling Guide September 1994 Food industry Superintendent of Documents, Gov- ernment Printing Office, Wash- ington, DC 20402, 202±512±1800 Appendix IÐModel Small Business Food Labeling August 7, 1993 Do Industry Activities Staff (HFS±565), Exemption Notice CFSAN, Food and Drug Administra- tion, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±205±5251 Food Labeling: Questions and Answers August 1993 Do Do Food Labeling: Questions and Answers: Volume II August 1995 Do Superintendent of Documents, Gov- ernment Printing Office, Wash- ington, DC 20420, 202±512±1800 Fair Packaging and Labeling Act Requirements and June 1978 Do NTIS (Order No. PB83±222117) Interpretations Bacteriological Analytical Manual 7th Edition 1992 FDA regulated industries AOAC International, 481 North Fred- erick Ave., suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877±2417, 301±924±7077 FDA Food Importer's Guide for Low-Acid Canned 1995 Food industry Industry Activities Staff (HFS±565), and Acidified Foods CFSAN, Food and Drug Administra- tion, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±205±5251 Fabrication of Single Service Containers and Clo- 1995 States Milk Safety Branch (HFS±626), sures for Milk and Milk Products CFSAN, Food and Drug Administra- tion, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±205±9175 Evaluation of Milk Laboratories 1995 Do Do Methods of Making Sanitation Ratings Of Milk Sup- 1995 Do Do plies Dry Milk Ordinance 1995 Do Do Procedures Governing the Cooperative State-Public 1995 Dairy industry Do Health Service/Food and Drug Administration Pro- gram for Certification of Interstate Milk Shippers Frozen Dessert Processing Guidelines 1989 Do Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages (HFS±302), CFSAN, Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±205±9175 Pasteurized Milk Ordinance 1995 States Milk Safety Branch (HFS±626), CFSAN, Food and Drug Administra- tion, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±205±9175

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31271

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

FDA Nutrition Labeling Manual: A Guide for Devel- 1993 Food industry Office of Food Labeling (HFS±150), oping and Using Databases Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±205±4561 Guidelines for Determining Metric Equivalents of October 1, 1993 Do Do Household Measures List of Food Defect Action Levels (DALS) 1995 Food and Animal Feed Industries Industry Ac- tivities Staff (HFS±565), CFSAN, Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Wash- ington, DC 20204, 202±205±5251 Action Levels for Poisonous or Deleterious Sub- 1995 Do Do stances in Human Food and Feed (Also Found in CPG's) 1997 FDA Food Code 1997 States NTIS Seafood List 1993 Seafood industry Superintendent of Documents, Gov- ernment Printing Office, Wash- ington, DC 20402, 202±512±1800 Manual of Operations National Shellfish Sanitation 1992 States Office of Seafood (HFS±407), Shellfish Sanitation Branch, Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±418± 3150 Fish and Fisheries Products Hazards and Controls 1996 Seafood industry Office of Seafood (HFS±400), Food Guide and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202± 418±3150 Guidance for Submitting Requests Under 21 CFR 1996 Food packaging industry Office of Premarket Approval (HFS± 170.39, Threshold of Regulation for Substances 200), Food and Drug Administration, Used in Food Articles 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±418±3100 Guidelines for the Preparation of Petition Submis- 1996 Do Do sions Guidelines for Approval of Color Additives in Con- 1996 Color or contact lens in- Do tact Lenses Intended as Colors dustry Recommendations for Submission of Chemical and February 1993 Color additives industry Do Technological Data on Color Additives for Food, Drugs or Cosmetics Use Points to Consider for the Use of Recycled Plastics December 1992 Food packaging industry Do in Food Packaging: Chemistry Considerations Recommendations for Submission of Chemical and May 1993 Do Do Technological Data for Direct Food Additive and GRAS Food Ingredient Petitions Recommendations for Chemistry Data for Indirect June 1995 Do Do Food Additive Petitions Enzyme Preparations: Chemistry Recommendations January 1993 Food enzyme industry Do for Food Additive and GRAS Affirmation Petitions Estimating Exposure to Direct Food Additive and September 1995 Food and food ingredient Do Chemical Contaminants in the Diet industry Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment 1982 Petitioners for food or NTIS (Order No. PR±83±170696) of Direct Food Additives and Color Additives Used color additives in Food (also known as Redbook I) Environmental Assessment Technical Handbook March 1987 Do NTIS (Order No. PB87±175345±AS, A±01) Preparing Environmental Assessments: General August 1990 Do Office of Premarket Approval (HFS± Suggestions 200), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW, Washington, DC 20204, 202±418±3100 Step-by-Step Guidance for Preparing Environmental March 1987 Do Do Assessments Environmental Assessment of Food-Packaging Ma- February 1994 Do Do terials with Enhanced Degradation Characteristics Color Additive Petitions Information and Guidance 1996 Do Do Toxological Testing of Food Additives 1983 Do Do

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31272 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

List of Products for Each Product Category October 8, 1992 Food industry Office of Food Labeling (HFS±150), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±205±4561 Label Declaration of Allergenic Substances in June 10, 1996 Do Do Foods; Notice to Manufacturers Guidance on Labeling of Foods that Need Refrig- February 24, 1997 Do Do eration by Consumers Interim Guidance on the Voluntary Labeling of Milk February 10, 1994 Do Do and Milk Products that Have Not Been Treated With Recombinant Bovine Somatropin Guidelines Concerning Notification and Testing of 1985 Infant formula manufac- Office of Special Nutritionals (HFS± Infant Formula turers 450), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW, Washington, DC 20204 202±205±4168 Clinical Testing of Infant Formulas with Respect to 1985 Do Do Nutritional Suitability for Term Infants Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Safety and Suit- Infants with Allergic 1988 Do ability of New Infant Formulas for Feeding Diseases Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Safety and Suit- 1990 Do Do ability of Infant Formulas for Feeding Infants with Allergic Diseases Guidelines for the Clinical Evaluation of New Prod- 1987 Do Do ucts Used in the Dietary Management of Infants, Children and Pregnant Women with Metabolic Disorders Guidance Document for Arsenic (Trace Elements in January 1993 States Office of Seafood (HFS±400), Food Seafood) and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202± 418±3150 or via Internet: FDA Home Page http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/ list.html Guidance Document for Cadmium (Trace Elements January 1993 Do Do in Seafood) Guidance Document for Chromium (Trace Elements January 1993 Do Do in Seafood) Guidance Document for Lead (Trace Elements in August 1993 Do Do Seafood) Guidance Document for Nickel (Trace Elements in January 1993 Do Do Seafood) FDA's Policy for Foods Developed by Biotechnology 1995 Food industry Internet: FDA Home Page http:// vm.cfsan.fda.gov Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) In Prod- 1997 Do Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and ucts for Human Use Beverages (HFS±302), CFSAN, Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±205±9175 or via Internet: FDA Home Page http://www.fda.gov/ opacom/morechoices/industry/guidance/gelguide.htm Shellfish Sanitation Model Ordinance 1995 States Shellfish Program Implementation Branch, Office of Field Programs (HFS±628), Food and Drug Adminis- tration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±205±8137 Draft Working Guide to Minimize Microbial Hazards 1998 Farmers and food pack- Food Safety Initiative (HFS±3), Food for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables ers and Drug Administration, 200 C. St. SW, Washington, DC 20204 or [email protected] Iron-Containing Supplements and Drugs: Label 1997 Dietary supplement man- Office of Special Nutritionals (HFS± Warning and Unit Dose Packaging; Small Entity ufacturers: small enti- 450), Food and Drug Administration, Compliance Guide ties 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204 Partial List of Enzyme Preparations That are Used 1998 FDA regulated industry Office of Premarket Approval (HFS± in Foods 200), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204 Partial List of Microorganisms and Microbial-Derived 1998 Do Do Ingredients That Are Used in Food

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31273

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls January 1998 Do Office of Seafood (HFS±400), Food Guide, 2nd Edition and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204 HACCP Regulations for Fish and Fishery Products: 1997 Do Do Questions and Answers Notification of a Health Claim or Nutrient Content 1998 Do Office of Food Labeling (HFS±150), Claim Based on an Authoritative Statement of a Food and Drug Administration, 200 Scientific Body C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±205±5099 Small Business Juice Labeling: Questions and An- 1998 Do Do swers FDA Nutrition Labeling Manual, A Guide for Devel- March 1998 Do Do oping and Using Data Bases HACCP Regulation for Fish and Fishery Products: January 1999 Seafood processors Office of Seafood (HFS±400), Food Questions and Answers, Issue Three, Revised and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202± 418±3150 FoodsÐAdulteration Involving Hard or Sharp For- February 1999 FDA field offices Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and eign Objects (CPG) Beverages (HFS±300), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204 Food Additive Petition Expedited Review January 1999 FDA personnel and regu- Office of Premarket Approval, Food lated industry and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202± 418±3074, [email protected] OR http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/dms/opa- expe.html Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in September 1998 FDA regulated industry DoÐ[email protected] OR Transgenic Plants http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov//dms/opa- armg.html Changes to the ``Pesticides and Industrial Chemi- December 30, 1998 FDA districts FOI/Domestic Programs Branch (HFS± cals in Domestic Foods'' Compliance Program for 636), Office of Field Programs, Food FY 99 and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202± 205±4771 FY 99 Mycotoxin Collection and Sample Analysis November 13, 1998 Do Do Schedule Revisions to the EHEC Method November 23, 1998 Do Do Vibrio Vulnificus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Re- June 17, 1998 Do Do tail Shell Oysters CFSAN Assignment 98±7 Revisions to Att F ``Special Survey ObligationsÐ September 30, 1998 Do Do Dioxins and Furans in Food'' of the Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals Domestic Food Compli- ance Program for FY99 Collection and Analyses of Physical Sample to Sup- November 30, 1998 Do Do port Undeclared Allergen Cases: NLEA and Gen- eral Labeling Requirements; Domestic Compli- ance Program Assignment to Assure Unpasteurized Juice Manu- September 21, 1998 Do Do facturers and Imported Juice Products Provide Required Label Warnings, Placards, and/or meet the 5 log Pathogen Reduction Requirement Assignment to Assure Unpasteurized Juice Manu- November 3, 1998 Do Do facturers and Imported Juice Products Provide Required Label Warnings, Placards, and/or meet the 5 log Pathogen Reduction Requirement Pesticides in Imported Ginseng (Field Assignment) September 17, 1998 FDA districts FOI/Imports Branch (HFS±606), Office of Field Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204 Radionuclides in Foods October 2, 1998 Do Do Letters to Manufacturers of Prepared Sandwiches August 21, 1998 Manufacturers of pre- Office of Field Programs (HFS±600), pared sandwiches Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202±205±5194 or JohnThomas@[email protected], FAX 292±260±0133

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31274 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

VI. Guidance Documents Issued by the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Guideline 3ÐGeneral Principles for Evaluating the July 1994 Animal drug industry Internet via: http://www.fda.gov/cvm or Safety of Compounds Used in Food-Producing Communications Staff (HFV±12), Animals CVM, Food and Drug Administra- tion, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301±594±1755, FAX 301±594±1831 Guideline 4ÐGuidelines for Efficacy Studies for Do Do Systemic Sustained Release Sulfonamide Boluses for Cattle Guideline 5ÐStability Guidelines December 1990 Do Do Guideline 6ÐGuidelines for Submitting NADA's for Do Do Generic Drugs Reviewed by NAS/NRC Guideline 9ÐPreclearance Guidelines for Produc- October 1975 Do Do tion Drugs Guideline 10ÐAmendment of Section II(G)(1)(b)(4) October 1975 Do Do of the Preclearance Guidelines Guideline 13ÐGuidelines for Evaluation of Effective- January 1985 Do Do ness of New Animal Drugs for Use in Free-Choice Feeds Guideline 14ÐGuideline and Format for Reporting Do Do the Details of Clinical Trials Using An Investiga- tional New Animal Drug in FOOD Producing Ani- mals Guideline 15ÐGuideline and Format for Reporting February 1977 Do Do the Details of Clinical Trials Using An Investiga- tional New Animal Drug in NON±FOOD Producing Animals Guideline 16ÐFOI Summary Guideline May 1985 Do Do Guideline 18ÐAntibacterial Drugs in Animal Feeds: Do Do Human Health Safety Criteria Guideline 19ÐAntibacterial Drugs in Animal Feeds: Do Do Animal Health Safety Criteria Guideline 20ÐAntibacterial Drugs in Animal Feeds: Do Do Antibacterial Effectiveness Criteria Guideline 22ÐGuideline Labeling of Arecoline Base Do Do Drugs Intended for Animal Use Guideline 23ÐMedicated Free Choice FeedsÐMan- July 1985 Do Do ufacturing Control Guideline 24ÐGuidelines for Drug Combinations for October 1983 Do Do Use in Animals Guideline 25ÐGuidelines for the Efficacy Evaluation January 1979 Do Do of Equine Anthelmintics Guideline 29ÐGuidelines for the Effectiveness Eval- September 1980 Do Do uation of Swine Anthelmintics Guideline 31ÐGuidelines for the Evaluation of Bo- July 1981 Do Do vine Anthelmintics Guideline 33ÐTarget Animal Safety Guidelines for June 1989 Do Do New Animal Drugs Guideline 35ÐBioequivalence GuidelineÐFinal 1996 Do Do Guideline 36ÐGuidelines for Efficacy Evaluation of July 1985 Do Do Canine/Feline Anthelmintics Guideline 37ÐGuidelines for Evaluation of Effective- March 1984 Do Do ness of New Animal Drugs for Use in Poultry Feed for Pigmentation Guideline 38ÐGuideline for Effectiveness Evalua- August 1984 Do Do tion of Topical/Otic Animal Drugs Guideline 40ÐDraft Guideline for the Evaluation of April 1992 Do Do the Efficacy of Anticoccidial Drugs and Anticoccidial Drug Combinations in Poultry Guideline 41ÐDraft Guideline: Formatting, Assem- June 1992 Do Do bling, and Submitting New Animal Drug Applica- tions Guideline 42ÐAnimal Drug Manufacturing Guide- 1994 Do Do lines, 1994 Guideline 43ÐGuidance on Generic Animal Drug October 1995 Do Do Products Containing Fermentation-Derived Drug Substances

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31275

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Guideline 45ÐGuideline for Uniform Labeling of August 1993 Do Do Drugs for Dairy and Beef Cattle Guideline 48ÐGuidance for Industry for the Submis- November 1994 Do Do sion of Documentation for Sterilization Process Validation in Applications for Human and Veteri- nary Drug Products Guideline 49ÐGuidance Document for Target Ani- April 1996 Do Do mal Safety and Drug Effectiveness Studies for Anti-Microbial Bovine Mastitis Products Guideline 50ÐDraft Guideline for Target Animal and February 1993 Do Do Human Food Safety, Drug Efficacy, Environ- mental and Manufacturing Studies for Teat Anti- septic Products Guideline 52ÐGuidanceÐMicrobiological Testing of January 1996 Do Do Antimicrobial Drug Residues in Food Guideline 53ÐGuideline for the Evaluation of the May 1994 Do Do Utility of Food Additives in Diets Fed to Aquatic Animals Guideline 54ÐDraft Guideline for Utility Studies for June 1994 Do Do Anti-Salmonella Chemical Food Additives in Ani- mal Feeds Guideline 55ÐSupportive Data for Cat Food Labels June 1994 Do Do Bearing ``Reduces Urinary pH Claims: Guideline in Protocol Development'' Guideline 56ÐProtocol Development Guideline for November 1994 Do Do Clinical Effectiveness and Target Animal Safety Trials Guideline 57ÐMaster FilesÐGuidance for Industry July 1995 Do Do for the Preparation and Submission of Veterinary Master Files Guideline 58ÐGuidance for Industry for Good Tar- May 1997 Do Do get Animal Study Practices: Clinical Investigators and Monitors Guideline 59ÐGuidance for Industry: Submitting a January 1999 Do Do Notice of Claimed Investigational Exemption in Electronic Format to CVM via E-Mail Guidance 61ÐGuidance for IndustryÐFDA Ap- January 1999 Do Do proval of Animal Drugs for Minor Uses and for Minor Species Guideline 62ÐGuidance for IndustryÐConsumer- August 1997 Do Do Directed Broadcast Advertisements Guideline 63ÐGuidance for IndustryÐValidation of December 1997 Do Do Analytical Procedures: Definition and Termi- nologyÐDraft Guidance Guideline 64ÐGuidance for IndustryÐValidation of December 1997 Do Do Analytical Procedures: MethodologyÐDraft Guid- ance Guideline 65ÐGuidance for IndustryÐIndustry-Sup- November 1997 Do Do ported Scientific and Educational Activities Guideline 66ÐGuidance for IndustryÐProfessional January 1998 Do Do Flexible Labeling of Antimicrobial DrugsÐDraft Guidance Guideline 67ÐGuidance for IndustryÐSmall Entities February 1998 Do Do Compliance Guide for Renderers Guideline 68ÐGuidance for IndustryÐSmall Entities February 1998 Do Do Compliance Guide for Protein Blenders, Feed Manufacturers, and Distributors Guideline 69ÐGuidance for IndustryÐSmall Entities February 1998 Do Do Compliance Guide for Feeders of Ruminant Ani- mals With On-Farm Feed Mixing Operations Guideline 70ÐGuidance for IndustryÐSmall Entities February 1998 Do Do Compliance Guide for Feeders of Ruminant Ani- mals Without On-Farm Feed Mixing Operations Guideline 71ÐGuidance for IndustryÐUse of April 1998 Do Do Human Chorionic Gonadotropic (HCG) as a Spawning Aid for Fish Guideline 72ÐGuidance for IndustryÐGMP's for May 1998 Do Do Medicated Feed Manufacturers Not Required to Register and Be Licensed With FDA

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31276 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail or Internet)

Guideline 73ÐDraft Guidance for IndustryÐStability July 1998 Do Do Testing of New Animal Drug Substances and Products Guideline 74ÐDraft Guidance for IndustryÐStability July 1998 Do Do Testing for New Dosage Forms of New Animal Drugs Guideline 75ÐGuidance for IndustryÐStability Test- July 1998 Do Do ing: Photostability Testing of New Animal Drug Substances and Products: Draft Guidance Guideline 76ÐGuidance for IndustryÐQuestions July 1998 Do Do and AnswersÐBSE Feed Regulation Guideline 77ÐGuidance for IndustryÐInterpretation August 1998 Do Do of On-Farm Feed Manufacturing and Mixing Oper- ationsÐDraft Guidance Guideline 78ÐGuidance for IndustryÐEvaluation of November 1998 Do Do the Human Health Impact of the Microbial Effects of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs Intended for Use in Food-Producing AnimalsÐDraft Guidance

VII. Guidance Documents Issued by the Office of Regulatory Affairs

Grouped by Intended How To Obtain A Hard Copy of The Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

Compliance Policy Guides Manual August 1996 FDA staff personnel National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161 (Order No. PB96±915499) or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/complianceÐref/ cpg/cpgtc.html Compliance Policy Guide Medical Device Warning August 27, 1998 Do Division of Compliance Policy (HFC± Letter Draft Pilot 230), Office of Enforcement, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fish- ers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301±827±0420 or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/complianceÐref/ devÐpl.pdf Compliance Policy Guide-DRAFT Commercialization January 5, 1998 Do Division of Compliance Policy or via of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices (IVD's) Labeled for Internet at www.fda.gov/cdrh/comp/ Research Use Only or Investigational Use Only ivddrfg.html Compliance Policy Guide 675.400 (CPG 7126.24) November 13, 1998 Do Division of Compliance Policy or via REVISION Rendered Animal Feed Ingredients Internet at www.fda.gov/ora/compli- anceÐref/cpg/cpgvet/ cpg675.400.html Compliance Policy GuideÐDRAFT Distributor Med- August 28, 1998 Do Division of Compliance Policy or via ical Device Reporting Internet at www.fda.gov/ora/compli- anceÐref/cpgÐmdr3.txt Compliance Policy Guide 257.100 NEW Deferral of December 21, 1998 Do Division of Compliance Policy or via Source Plasma Donors Due to Red Cell Loss Internet at www.fda.gov/ora/compli- During Collection of Source Plasma by Auto- anceÐref/cpg/default.html mated Plasmapheresis FDA/ORA International Inspection Manual and Trav- May 1997 Do Division of Emergency & Investiga- el Guide tional Operations (HFC±130), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fish- ers Lane, Rockville, MD 29857 or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/in- spectÐref/itob/itob.html Glossary of Computerized System and Software De- August 1995 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127352) or via velopment Terminology Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31277

Grouped by Intended How To Obtain A Hard Copy of The Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

Import Alerts continuously Do Freedom of Information Staff (HFI±35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857 or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ oraÐimportÐalerts.html Investigations Operations Manual January 1999 Do Division of Emergency and Investiga- tional Operations (HFC±130), Office of Regional Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301± 443±3276 or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐref/iom/ iomtc.html Investigations Operations Manual-REVISION: Chap- July 1998 Do Do ter 4ÐSampling Investigations Operations Manual-REVISION: Chap- July 1998 Do Do ter 5ÐEstablishment Inspection Laboratory Procedures Manual June 1994 Do Division of Field Science (HFC±141), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12±41, Rockville, MD 20857, ATTN: Donna Porter or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/ scienceÐref/lpm/lpmtc.html Regulatory Procedures Manual August 1997 Do NTIS (Order No. PB97±196182) or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/compli- anceÐref/rpm/rpmtc.html Regulatory Procedures Manual: UPDATE/New March 1998 Do Division of Compliance Policy, or via Subchapter/ Application Integrity Policy Internet www.fda.gov/ora/compli- anceÐref/rpm/rpmtc.html Regulatory Procedures Manual: UPDATE Sub- March 1998 Do Do chapter/Warning Letters Regulatory Procedures Manual: UPDATE/REVI- April 1998 Do Do SION Subchapter/Import Procedures Regulatory Procedures Manual; UPDATE/REVI- April 1998 Do Do SION Subchapter/Priority Enforcement Strategy for Problem Importers Regulatory Procedures Manual: UPDATE/REVI- April 1998 Do Do SION Subchapter/Import Procedures Regulatory Procedures Manual: UPDATE/REVI- April 1998 Do Do SION Subchapter/Notice of Sampling Regulatory Procedures Manual: UPDATE/NEW May 1998 Do Do Subchapter/Granting and Denying Transportation and Exportation (T&E) Entries Regulatory Procedures Manual: UPDATE/REVI- June 1998 Do Division of Compliance Policy or via SION Subchapter/Seizure Internet at www.fda.gov/ora/compli- anceÐref/rpmÐnew2/ch6.html Regulatory Procedures Manual: UPDATE/REVI- June 1998 Do Division of Compliance Policy or via SION Subchapter/Supervisory Charges Internet at www.fda.gov/ora/compli- anceÐref/rpmÐnew2/ch9chgs.html Regulatory Procedures Manual: NEW Subchapter/ July 1998 Do Division of Compliance Policy or via Civil PenaltiesÐElectronic Product Radiation Internet at www.fda.gov/ora/compli- Control anceÐref/ch6civpen.html Guide to Inspections of Bulk Pharmaceutical Chemi- May 1994 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127154) or via cals Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Pharmaceutical Quality July 1993 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127279) or via Control Laboratories Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Microbiological Pharma- July 1993 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127287) or via ceutical Quality Control Laboratories Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Validation of Cleaning Proc- July 1993 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127246) or via esses Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Lyophilization of Parenterals July 1993 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127253) or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of High Purity Water Systems July 1993 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127261) or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31278 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How To Obtain A Hard Copy of The Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

Guide to Inspections of Dosage Form Drug Manu- October 1993 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127212) or via facturers-CGMPs Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Oral Solid Dosage Forms January 1994 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127345) or via Pre/Post Approval Issues for Development and Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ Validation ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Topical Drug Products July 1994 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127394) or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Sterile Drug Substance July 1994 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127295) or via Manufacturers Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Oral Solutions and Suspen- August 1994 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127147) or via sions Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Nutritional Labeling and February 1995 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127378) or via Education Act (NLEA) Requirements Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Interstate Carriers and Sup- April 1995 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127386) or via port Facilities Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Dairy Product Manufactur- April 1995 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127329) or via ers Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Miscellaneous Foods Vol. I May 1995 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127220) or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Miscellaneous Foods Vol. II September 1996 Do NTIS (Order No. PB97±196133) or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Low Acid Canned Foods November 1996 Do NTIS (Order No. PB97±196141) or via Manufacturers, Part 1 - Administrative Proce- Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ dures/Scheduled Processes ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Low Acid Canned Foods April 1997 Do NTIS (Order No. PB97±196158) or via Manufacturers, Part 2- Processes/Procedures Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Cosmetic Product Manufac- February 1995 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127238) or via turers Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Blood Banks September 1994 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127303) or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Source Plasma Establish- December 1994 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127360) or via ments Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Infectious Disease Marker June 1996 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±199476) or via Testing Facilities Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Biotechnology Inspections Guide November 1991 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127402) or via Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Computerized Systems in February 1983 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127337) or via Drug Processing Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Foreign Medical Device September 1995 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±127311) or via Manufacturers Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Foreign Pharmaceutical May 1996 Do NTIS (Order No. PB96±199468) or via Manufacturers Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) Audi- January 1998 Do NTIS (Order No. PB98±127178) or via tors Guide Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html Guide to Inspections of Electromagnetic Compat- December 1997 Do NTIS (Order No. PB98±127152) or via ibility Aspects of Medical Device Quality Systems Internet www.fda.gov/ora/inspectÐ ref/igs/iglist.html

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31279

Grouped by Intended How To Obtain A Hard Copy of The Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, FAX, E-mail, or Internet)

Guide to Inspections of Grain Product Manufactur- March 1998 Do Division of Emergency and Investiga- ers tional Operations (HFC±130), Office of Regional Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301± 443±3276 Guide to Bioresearch Monitoring Inspections of In February 1998 Do Do Vitro Devices Guide to Inspections of Viral Clearance Processes March 1998 Do Do for Plasma Derivatives Guide to Traceback of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables August 1998 Do Do Implicated in Epidemiological Investigations Guide to Inspections of Computerized Systems in August 1998 Do DoÐInternet at www.fda.gov/ora/in- the Food Processing Industry spectÐref/igf/iglist.html Guideline for the Monitoring of Clinical Investigators January 1988 FDA regulated industry Division of Compliance Policy (HFC± 230), Office of Enforcement, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fish- ers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301±827±0420 Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Trials- June 18, 1997 Do Do DRAFT Compliance Program 7348.808: Bioresearch Moni- Revised August 17, FDA staff personnel DoÐInternet http://www.fda.gov/ora/ toring; Good Laboratory Practices (Nonclinical) 1998 complianceÐref/bimo/default.html Compliance Program 7348.810: Sponsors, Contract Revised October 30, Do Do Research Organizations and Monitors 1998 Compliance Program 7348.811: Bioresearch Moni- Revised September Do Do toring; Clinical Investigations 2, 1998 Food Laboratory Practice Program (Nonclinical Lab- October 1, 1991 Do Division of Compliance Policy oratories) 7348.808A; EPA Data Audit Inspections Compliance Program 7348.809; Bioresearch Moni- August 18, 1994 Do Do toring; Institutional Review Board Good Laboratory Practice Regulations Management August 1979 Do DoÐInternet at www.fda.gov/ora/com- Briefings plianceÐref/bimo/default.html

VIII. Guidance Documents Issued by the Office of the Commissioner and Office of Policy

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, Fax, E-mail or Internet

Draft Guidance for Industry; Exports and Imports June 1998 Regulated industry Internet via www.fda.gov/opacom/ under the FDA Export Reform and Enhancement fedregister/frexport.html Act of 1996 FDA's Development, Issuance and Use of Guidance February 1997 FDA personnel and regu- Internet via www.fda.gov/opacom/ Documents lated industry morechoices/moreindu.html or Office of Policy (301±827±3360) Industry Supported Scientific and Educational Activi- December 1997 Regulated industry Internet via www.fda.gov/cder/guid- ties ance/index.htm or Office of Policy (301±827±3360) Draft Guidance on Broadcast Advertisements February 1997 Do Do Direct Final Rule Guidance November 1997 FDA personnel Internet via www.fda.gov/opacom/ morechoices/industry/guidedc.htm or Lisa Helmanis (301±443±3480) Small Entities Compliance Guide: Regulations to February 1997 Regulated industry Internet via www.fda.gov/opacom/cam- Restrict the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes paigns/tobacco/tobret.htm or 1±888± and Smokeless Tobacco in Order to Protect Chil- FDA±4KIDS dren and Adolescents (21 CFR Part 897) Children & TobaccoÐFrequently Asked Questions July 1997 Do Do about the New Regulations (Draft) Children & TobaccoÐA Retailer's Guide to the New October 1997 Do Do Federal Regulations Children & TobaccoÐA Guide to the the New Fed- October 1997 Do Do eral Regulations

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31280 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Grouped by Intended How to Obtain a Hard Copy of the Name of Document Date of Issuance User or Regulatory Document (Name and Address, Activity Phone, Fax, E-mail or Internet

FDA's Standards Policy October 1995 FDA personnel and regu- 60 FR 53078, October 11, 1995 or Of- lated industry fice of Policy (301±827±3360) Policy & Guidance Handbook for FDA Advisory 1994 FDA personnel National Technical Information Service Committees (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161, 703±487± 4650 (Order No. PB94±158854)

Dated: June 4, 1999. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Comments guidance documents FDA’s current William K. Hubbard, and requests are to be identified with thinking on this subject. Although the Associate Commissioner for Policy the docket number found in brackets in guidance is being submitted in draft for Coordination. the heading of this document. comment, FDA recognizes that sponsors [FR Doc. 99–14752 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of already marketed levothyroxine BILLING CODE 4160±01±F Michael J. Fossler, Center for Drug sodium products that are required to Evaluation and Research (HFD–870), obtain approved NDA’s by August 14, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Food and Drug Administration, 5600 2000, may already have begun to HUMAN SERVICES Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, conduct bioavailability and dissolution 301–827–6417. Food and Drug Administration studies. The study design described in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is this guidance may be used for these [Docket No. 99D±1149] announcing the availability of a draft studies or an alternative approach may guidance for industry entitled ‘‘In Vivo Draft Guidance for Industry on in Vivo be used. In either case, the study Pharmacokinetics and Bioavailability designs will be acceptable if Pharmacokinetics and Bioavailability Studies and in Vitro Dissolution Testing Studies and in Vitro Dissolution scientifically justified. FDA will revise for Levothyroxine Sodium Tablets.’’ the study designs described in the Testing for Levothyroxine Sodium This draft guidance contains agency Tablets; Availability guidance in accordance with any recommendations on how to design in comments received, if appropriate. AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, vivo pharmacokinetics and HHS. bioavailability studies and perform in This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA’s good ACTION: Notice. vitro dissolution testing for levothyroxine sodium tablets, which guidance practices (62 FR 8961, SUMMARY: The Food and Drug were identified as new drugs in a notice February 27, 1997). The draft guidance Administration (FDA) is announcing the published in the Federal Register of represents the agency’s current thinking availability of a draft guidance for August 14, 1997 (62 FR 43536). on in vivo pharmacokinetics and industry entitled ‘‘In Vivo Levothyroxine sodium was bioavailability studies and in vitro Pharmacokinetics and Bioavailability introduced into interstate commerce dissolution testing for levothyroxine Studies and in Vitro Dissolution Testing during the 1950’s without approval of sodium tablets. It does not create or for Levothyroxine Sodium Tablets.’’ The new drug applications (NDA’s) for the confer any rights for or on any person draft guidance contains agency drug products. As a result of concerns and does not operate to bind FDA or the recommendations on how to design in about the stability and consistent public. An alternative approach may be vivo pharmacokinetics and potency of the products, the agency used if such approach satisfies the bioavailability studies and perform in announced that orally administered requirements of the applicable statutes, vitro dissolution testing for drug products containing levothyroxine regulations, or both. levothyroxine sodium tablets. sodium were new drugs (62 FR 43536). DATES: Written comments on the draft The notice stated that a manufacturer Interested persons may, on or before guidance may be submitted by August 9, who wished to continue to market orally August 9, 1999, submit to the Dockets 1999. General comments on documents administered levothyroxine sodium Management Branch (address above) are welcome at any time. products had to submit an NDA. The written comments on the draft guidance. ADDRESSES: Copies of this draft agency allowed current manufacturers 3 Two copies of any comments are to be guidance for industry can be obtained years to obtain approved NDA’s, until submitted, except that individuals may on the Internet at ‘‘http://www.fda.gov/ August 14, 2000. submit one copy. Comments are to be cder/guidance/index.htm’’. Submit A number of firms have contacted identified with the docket number written requests for single copies of the FDA for advice regarding how to found in brackets in the heading of this draft guidance to the Drug Information conduct bioavailability studies and in document. The draft guidance and Branch (HFD–210), Center for Drug vitro dissolution testing for received comments may be seen in the Evaluation and Research, Food and levothyroxine sodium tablets. Because office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers of this interest, and the need to provide Monday through Friday. Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send one consistent advice to all firms who Dated: June 3, 1999. self-addressed adhesive label to assist intend to submit NDA’s for this product, that office in processing your requests. FDA has developed this draft guidance Peggy Dotzel, Submit written comments on the draft on designing in vivo pharmacokinetics Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy guidance to the Dockets Management and bioavailability studies and Coordination. Branch (HFA–305), Food and Drug performing in vitro dissolution testing [FR Doc. 99–14751 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. for levothyroxine sodium tablets. The BILLING CODE 4160±01±F

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.152 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31281

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 426–5233 (for information about the Section 4012(b) of the BBA requires HUMAN SERVICES Kansas City metropolitan area AAC). the Secretary to appoint an Area Advisory Committee (AAC) in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Health Care Financing Administration Section demonstration site to advise the 4011 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 [HCFA±1081±N] Secretary on the implementation of the (BBA) (Pub. L. 105–33), requires the project. Thus far, the CPAC has Secretary of the Department of Health Medicare Program; June 24, 1999, designated the Kansas City metropolitan and Human Services (the Secretary) to Meeting of the Competitive Pricing area and Maricopa County in Arizona as establish a demonstration project under Advisory Committee and the Area demonstration sites. The Kansas City which payments to Medicare+Choice Advisory Committee for the Kansas metropolitan area AAC has previously organizations in designated areas are City Metropolitan Area met on March 26, 1999, April 8, 1999, determined in accordance with a April 22, 1999, and May 12, 1999. The AGENCY: Health Care Financing competitive pricing methodology. Maricopa County AAC has previously Administration (HCFA), HHS. Section 4012(a) of the BBA requires the met on March 31, 1999, April 20, 1999, ACTION: Notice of meeting. Secretary to appoint a Competitive and May 18 and 19, 1999. Additional Pricing Advisory Committee (the CPAC) meetings for the Maricopa County AAC SUMMARY: In accordance with section to meet periodically and make are scheduled for June 7 and 8, 1999. 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee recommendations to the Secretary The Kansas City metropolitan area Act, this notice announces a meeting of concerning the designation of areas for AAC consists of 17 members who the Competitive Pricing Advisory inclusion in the project and appropriate represent health plans, providers, and Committee (the CPAC) and the Area research designs for implementation. Medicare beneficiaries. The members of Advisory Committee (AAC) for the The CPAC has previously met on May the Kansas City metropolitan area AAC Kansas City metropolitan area on June 7, 1998, June 24 and 25, 1998, are: E.J. Holland, Jr., Assistant Vice 24, 1999. The CPAC will first meet September 23 and 24, 1998, October 28, President for Corporate Benefits, Sprint; independently before convening a joint 1998, January 6, 1999, and May 13, Robert Bonney, Vice President, session with the Kansas City 1999. Managed Care, St. Luke’s Shawnee metropolitan area AAC. The CPAC consists of 15 individuals Mission PHO; Hazel Borders, The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 who are independent actuaries, experts beneficiary; Richard Brown, President (BBA) requires the Secretary of the in competitive pricing and the and CEO, Health Midwest; Cynthia Department of Health and Human Finter, President and Executive administration of the Federal Employees Services (the Secretary) to establish a Director, Kaiser Permanente, Kansas Health Benefit Program, and demonstration project under which City Region; Tresia Franklin, Director of representatives of health plans, insurers, payments to Medicare+Choice Benefits Administration, Hallmark employers, unions, and beneficiaries. organizations in designated areas are Cards, Inc.; Alan Freeman, CEO, Cass The CPAC members are: James Cubbin, determined in accordance with a Medical Center; Herman Johnson, Executive Director, General Motors competitive pricing methodology. The beneficiary; John Kennedy, Senior Vice Health Care Initiative; Robert Berenson, BBA requires the Secretary to create the President of Blue Cross and Blue Shield M.D., Director, Center for Health Plans CPAC to make recommendations on of Kansas City; Mike Oxford, Executive and Providers, Health Care Financing sites to be included in the Director, Topeka Independent Living demonstration and appropriate research Administration; John Bertko, Actuary Resource Center; Jean Rumbaugh, Vice designs for the project. The BBA also Principal, Reden & Anders, Ltd.; Dave President, Government Programs, requires the Secretary to appoint AACs Durenberger, Vice President, Public HealthNet; Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas in the demonstration sites to advise on Policy Partners; Gary Goldstein, M.D., Insurance Commissioner; Zarina the implementation of the project. This former CEO, The Oschner Clinic; Shockley-Sparling, Executive Director, meeting is open to the public. Samuel Havens, Healthcare Consultant Humana, Inc.; Jan Stallmeyer, R.N., and Chairman of Health Scope/United; President, Principal Health Care of DATES: The CPAC is scheduled to meet Margaret Jordan, President and CEO, on June 24, 1999, from 10 a.m. until Kansas City, Inc.; Charles Van Way III, The Margaret Jordan Group; Chip Kahn, M.D., Metropolitan Medical Society; 5:30 p.m., c.d.s.t. The CPAC will meet President, The Health Insurance jointly with the Kansas City Barry Wilkinson, President (retired), Association of America; Cleve Heavy Construction Workers Labor metropolitan area AAC from 1 p.m. to Killingsworth, President, Health 5:30 p.m. the same day. Local 663; and Esther Wolf, Associate, Alliance Plan; Nancy Kichak, Director, School of Social Welfare, University of ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Office of Actuaries, Office of Personnel Missouri at Kansas City. The the Kansas City Airport Hilton, 8801 Management; Len Nichols, Principal chairperson of the Kansas City NW 112th Street, Kansas City, MO Research Associate, The Urban Institute; metropolitan area AAC is E.J. Holland, 64153, (816) 891–8900. Robert Reischauer, Senior Fellow, The Jr. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brookings Institution; John Rother, The agenda for the June 24, 1999, Sharon Arnold, Ph.D., Executive Director, Legislation and Public Policy, meeting will include the following: Director, Competitive Pricing Advisory American Association of Retired • In the morning, the CPAC will meet Committee, Health Care Financing Persons; Andrew Stern, President, to review the status and any pending Administration, 7500 Security Service Employees International Union, issues from the Maricopa County AAC, Boulevard C4–14–17, Baltimore, MD AFL-CIO; and Jay Wolfson, Director, as well as review preliminary 21244–1850, (410) 786–6451 (for Florida Health Information Center, information on future demonstration information about the CPAC). Richard P. University of South Florida. The site selection. Brummel, Deputy Regional chairperson of the CPAC is James • In the afternoon, the CPAC and Administrator, Health Care Financing Cubbin and the co-chairperson is Robert Kansas City metropolitan area AAC will Administration, Richard Bolling Federal Berenson, M.D. In accordance with meet in a joint session to discuss and Building, Room 235, 601 East 12th section 4012(a)(5) of the BBA, the CPAC decide how to measure disruption in the Street, Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) will terminate on December 31, 2004. Kansas City market due to competitive

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.201 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31282 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices pricing and to develop a communication changes in the functional statement in (11) provides consultation and technical and education plan for Kansas City the Bureau of Health Professions, assistance to public and private beneficiaries. Division of Medicine. organizations, agencies, and Individuals or organizations that wish institutions, other agencies of the Section RP–20–Function to make 5-minute oral presentations on Federal Government, and international the CPAC agenda issues should contact Delete the functional statement in its agencies and foreign governments, on Sharon Arnold, CPAC Executive entirety and replace with the following: all aspects of the Division’s functions. Director, by 12 noon, June 16, 1999, to DIVISION OF MEDICINE (RP4) be scheduled. A written copy of the oral Section RP–30 Delegations of remarks should be submitted to the Serves as the principal focus with Authority regard to education, practice, and executive director no later than 12 noon, All delegations and redelegations of research of medical personnel; with June 16, 1999. Anyone who is not authority which were in effect special emphasis on allopathic and scheduled to speak may submit written immediately prior to the effective date osteopathic and podiatric medicine, and comments to the executive director by hereof have been continued in effect in closely associated assistants, 12 noon, June 18, 1999. them or their successors pending further particularly physician assistants. Individuals or organizations that wish redelegation. to make 5-minute oral presentations on Specifically: (1) Provides professional This reorganization is effective upon the Kansas City metropolitan area AAC expertise in the direction and leadership the date of signature. agenda issues should contact Richard required by the Bureau for planning, Brummel, Kansas City Deputy Regional coordinating, evaluating, and Dated June 2, 1999. Administrator, by 12 noon, June 16, supporting development and utilization Claude Earl Fox, 1999, to be scheduled. A written copy of the Nation’s health personnel for Administrator. of the oral remarks should be submitted these professions; (2) supports and [FR Doc. 99–14753 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] conducts programs with respect to the to the Kansas City Deputy Regional BILLING CODE 4160±15±P Administrator no later than 12 noon, need for and the development, use, June 16, 1999. Anyone who is not credentialing, and distribution of such scheduled to speak may submit written personnel; (3) engages with other DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND comments to the Kansas City Deputy Bureau programs in cooperative efforts HUMAN SERVICES Regional Administrator by 12 noon, of research, development, and June 18, 1999. demonstration on the interrelationships National Institutes of Health The number of oral presentations may between the members of the health care be limited by the time available. This team, their tasks, education National Institute of Mental Health; meeting is open to the public, but requirements, and training modalities, Notice of Closed Meeting attendance is limited to the space credentialing and practice; (4) supports available. and encourages the planning, Pursuant to section 10(d) of the development, and operation of Federal Advisory Council Committee (Section 4012 of the Balanced Budget Act of regionally integrated educational Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 1997, Pub. L. 105–33 (42 U.S.C.1395w–23 notice is hereby given of the following note) and section 10(a) of Pub. L. 92–463 (5 systems; (5) conducts and supports U.S.C. App.2, section 10(a)). studies and evaluations of physician meeting. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and podiatric personnel requirements, The meeting will be closed to the Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital distribution and availability and public in accordance with the Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, cooperates with other components of provisions set forth in sections Medicare—Supplementary Medical the Bureau and Agency in such studies; 552b(c)(4) and 552(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Insurance Program) (6) analyzes and interprets physician as amended. The grant applications and Dated: June 4, 1999. and podiatric programmatic data the discussions could disclose Nancy-Ann Min DeParle, collected from a variety of sources; (7) confidential trade secrets or commercial Administrator, Health Care Financing conducts, supports, or obtains analytical property such as patentable material, Administration. studies to determine the present and and personal information concerning [FR Doc. 99–14647 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] future supply and requirements of individuals associated with the grant BILLING CODE 4120±01±P physicians and podiatrists by specialty applications, the disclosure of which and geographic location, including the would constitute a clearly unwarranted linkages between their training and invasion of personal privacy. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND practice characteristics; (8) conducts Name of Committee: National Institute of HUMAN SERVICES and supports studies to determine Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel. potential national goals for the Date: June 23, 1999. Health Resources and Services distribution of physicians in graduate Time: 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM. Administration medical education programs and Agenda: To review and evaluate grant develops alternative strategies to applications. Statement of Organization, Functions, Place: Neuroscience Center, National and Delegations of Authority accomplish these goals; (9) supports and conducts programs with respect to Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd. Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference This notice amends Part R of the activities, associated with the Call). Statement of Organization, Functions international migration, domestic Contact Person: Henry J. Haigler, PHD, and Delegations of Authority of the training, and utilization of foreign Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Department of Health and Human medical graduates and U.S. citizens Extramural Activities, National Institute of Services (DHHS), Health Resources and studying abroad; (10) maintains liaison Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, Services Administration (60 FR 56605 with relevant health professional groups 6001 Executive Blvd., Rm. 6150, MSC 9608, as amended November 6, 1995, as last and others, including consumers, Bethesda, MD 20892–9608, 301–443–7216. amended at 64 FR 16977–80, dated having common interest in the Nation’s This notice is being published less than 15 April 7, 1999). This notice reflects the capacity to deliver health services; and days prior to the meeting due to the timing

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.202 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31283 limitations imposed by the review and Contact Person: Antonio Noronha, PhD, authorized funds to support protection funding cycle. Scientific Review Administrator, Extramural and advocacy services on behalf of (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Project Review Branch, National Institute on individuals with mental illness and Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Suite 409, severe emotional disturbance who are at Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development 6000 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892–7003, 301–443–7722, risk for abuse and neglect and other Award, Scientist Development Award for civil rights violations while under Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; [email protected]. 93.282, Mental Health National Research (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance treatment in a residential facility. Under Service Awards for Research Training, Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research the PAIMI Act, formula grant awards are National Institutes of Health, HHS) Career Development Awards for Scientists made to protection and advocacy (P&A) Dated: June 3, 1999. and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National systems designated by the governors of LaVerne J. Stringfield, Research Service Awards for Research the 50 states and 5 territories, and the Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; Committee Management Officer, NIH. District of Columbia to ensure that the 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants, rights of individuals with mental illness [FR Doc. 99–14692 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] National Institutes of Health, HHS) and severe emotional disturbance are BILLING CODE 4140±01±M Dated: June 4, 1999. not violated. The PAIMI Act requires P LaVerne Y. Stringfield, & A systems to file an annual report on Director, Office of Federal Advisory their activities and accomplishments DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Committee Policy, NIH. HUMAN SERVICES and to provide in the report information [FR Doc. 99–14693 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] on such topics as, numbers of National Institutes of Health BILLING CODE 4140±01±M individuals served, types of complaints addressed, the number of intervention National Institute on Alcohol Abuse strategies used to resolve the presenting and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND issues. The Act also requires that the Meetings HUMAN SERVICES P&A Advisory Council also submit an annual report that assesses the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Pursuant to section 10(d) of the effectiveness of the services provided by Services Administration Federal Advisory Committee Act, as P&A systems. amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Agency Information Collection The Center for Mental Health Services is hereby given of the following (CMHS) is revising the PAIMI Annual meetings. Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request Program Performance Report for the The meetings will be closed to the following reasons: (1) to make it public in accordance with the In compliance with Section consistent with the revised annual provisions set forth in sections 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork program report format used by the 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Reduction Act of 1995 concerning Administration on Developmental as amended. The grant applications and opportunity for public comment on Disabilities, Administration on Children the discussions could disclose proposed collections of information, the and Families; and, (2) to conform to the confidential trade secrets or commercial Substance Abuse and Mental Health GPRA requirements that the reporting property such as patentable material, Services Administration will publish burden to the States be reduced. CMHS and personal information concerning periodic summaries of proposed proposes no revisions to the PAIMI individuals associated with the grant projects. To request more information Annual Advisory Council Report. applications, the disclosure of which on the proposed projects or to obtain a Planned revisions to the PAIMI would constitute a clearly unwarranted copy of the information collection Annual Program Performance Report invasion of personal privacy. plans, call the SAMHSA Reports include: (1) Deletion of financial Name of Committee: National Institute on Clearance Officer on (301) 443–7978. expenditure and sub-contractor Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Comments are invited on: (a) Whether information, which P&A systems are Emphasis Panel. the proposed collections of information required to submit annually to the Date: June 14, 1999. are necessary for the proper SAMHSA Grants Management Office; Time: 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant performance of the functions of the (2) Deletion of items that are more applications. agency, including whether the appropriate for inclusion in the Place: Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville information shall have practical utility; Guidance for Applicants (GFA), such as Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate PAIMI program staff positions, by-laws Contact Person: Ronald Suddendorf, PhD, of the burden of the proposed collection & policies and procedures; (3) PAIMI Scientific Review Administrator, Extramural of information; (c) ways to enhance the staff, advisory council and governing Project Review Branch, National Institute on quality, utility, and clarity of the board demographic information will be Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National reduced to a comprehensive graph Institutes of Health, Suite 409, 6000 information to be collected; and (d) Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892– ways to minimize the burden of the format; (4) All ‘‘information not 7003, 301–443–2926. collection of information on available’’ statements will be deleted to This notice is being published less than 15 respondents, including through the use ensure that P&A systems focus on days prior to the meeting due to the timing of automated collection techniques or gathering more accurate client data limitations imposed by the review and other forms of information technology. during the intake and referral process; funding cycle. (5) Sections such as, PAIMI program Name of Committee: National Institute on Proposed Project: Protection and mechanisms for public comment, Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Advocacy for Individuals With Mental individual PAIMI clients, etc. will be Emphasis Panel. Illness (PAIMI) Annual Program reduced to a graph format similar to that Date: July 26, 1999. Performance Report (OMB No. 0930– approved by OMB for use by the Time: 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. 0169, Revision) Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Administration on Developmental applications. The Protection and Advocacy for Disabilities, Administration on Children Place: Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) and Families, which administers the Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Act, (42 U.S.C. Chapter 1114) Protection and Advocacy to the

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.153 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31284 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Developmentally Disabled (PADD) emergency rooms of general hospitals training activities used by the P&As on Program; (6) Case complaints and on individuals with mental illness, co- behalf of the clients served will be problems of the individuals served by occurring disorders and severe placed in a chart format. The revised the P&As will be modified to capture emotional disturbance, during transport format will be effective for the report more accurate information on incidents to and from a residential treatment due on January 1, 2001. of abuse, neglect and civil rights facility, etc.; and, (7) Sections focused violations, such as the incidents of on the types of intervention strategies, The annual burden estimate is as seclusion and restraint used in the public education and awareness/ follows:

Number of re- Number. of responses per Hours per Total hour bur- spondents respondent response den

Annual Program Performance Report ...... 56 1 26 1,456 Activities & accomplishments ...... (20) (1,120) Performance outcomes ...... (3) (168) Expenses ...... (0) (0) Budget ...... (2) (112) Priority statement ...... (1) (56) Advisory Council Report ...... 56 1 10 560 Total ...... 2,016

Send comments to Nancy Pearce, Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Wednesday, June 23, 1999 and from SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Agreement and Consent Decree entered 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, June Room 16–105, Parklawn Building, 5600 into by the United States of America 24, 1999. Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. and the State of Alaska on August 27, PLACE: The meeting will be held at the Written comments should be received 1991, and approved by the United States Shilo Inn, 2500 Almond Street, Klamath within 60 days of this notice. District Court for the District of Alaska Falls, Oregon. Dated: June 14, 1999. in settlement of United States of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Richard Kopanda, America v. State of Alaska, Civil Action No. A91–081 CV. The agenda will Ronald A. Iverson, Project Leader, U.S. Executive Officer, SAMHSA. include discussions about the proposed Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box [FR Doc. 99–14701 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Fiscal Year 2000 Work Plan and the 1006 (1215 South Main), Yreka, BILLING CODE 4162±20±P Restoration Reserve. California 96097–1006, telephone (530) 842–5763. Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Compliance. principal agenda items at this meeting will be: (1) A report on the Clean Water Office of the Secretary [FR Doc. 99–14702 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310±RG±P Act Total Maximum Daily Load Notice of Meeting Process—how this might constrain nonpoint pollution; (2) A report on the AGENCY: Department of the Interior, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR status of the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Secretary. flow study and associated flow study ACTION: Notice of meeting. Fish and Wildlife Service efforts; (3) A status report on the 1999 Klamath Project operations and the SUMMARY: The Department of the Notice of Meeting; Klamath River Basin Long-term Environmental Impact Interior, Office of the Secretary is Fisheries Task Force Statement; (4) Task Force discussion of announcing a public meeting of the the Mid-term Evaluation; (5) Reports AGENCY: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. from the Sub-basin Planning Groups on Group. progress of sub-basin planning and DATES: July 15, 1999, at 1:00 p.m. and ACTION: Notice of meeting. restoration efforts and the Task Force’s July 16 at 8:30 a.m. review of the plans; and (6) Task Force SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of decision on FY2000 Project Funding. ADDRESSES: Fourth floor conference the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 room, 645 ‘‘G’’ Street, Anchorage, U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a For background information on the Alaska. meeting of the Klamath River Basin Task Force, please refer to the notice of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fisheries Task Force, established under their initial meeting that appeared in the Douglas Mutter, Department of the the authority of the Klamath River Basin Federal Register on July 8, 1987 (52 FR Interior, Office of Environmental Policy Fishery Resources Restoration Act (16 25639). and Compliance, 1689 ‘‘C’’ Street, Suite U.S.C. 460ss et seq.). The meeting is Elizabeth Stevens, 119, Anchorage, Alaska, (907) 271– open to the public. Acting Manager, California/Nevada 5011. Operations Office. DATES: The Klamath River Basin SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Fisheries Task Force (Task Force) will [FR Doc. 99–14449 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Public Advisory Group was created by meet from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on BILLING CODE 4310±55±P

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31285

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Services and other Federal agencies to applications for section 10 ‘‘incidental verify avoidance of jeopardy is generally take’’ permits. The Habitat Conservation Fish and Wildlife Service defined in 50 CFR part 402 and further Planning Handbook is available from developed in this handbook. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE This handbook provides consistent Division of Endangered Species, 1849 C procedures for the Services’ compliance Street, NW (Mail Stop 420 Arlington National Oceanic and Atmospheric with the consultation and conference Square), Washington, DC 20240, or from Administration provisions of section 7 of the Act by: the Endangered Species Division, Notice of Availability of Final (1) Providing national procedural and National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 Endangered Species Consultation policy guidance; East-West Highway (PR–3), Silver (2) Providing standardized guidance Spring, MD 20910. Handbook for Procedures for # Conducting Consultation and to Service offices and personnel who Issue 3: Commenters on the FWS Conference Activities Under Section 7 participate in consultation and Intra-Service Consultation Handbook of the Endangered Species Act conferencing procedures under section were concerned with the requirement 7; that candidate species be addressed as AGENCIES: Fish and Wildlife Service, (3) Providing assistance to other though they are proposed for listing and Interior, and National Marine Fisheries Federal agencies and applicants in the that this infringes on the authorities of Service, National Oceanic and non-Federal sector who are involved in States to manage non-listed species. Atmospheric Administration, section 7 procedures; and Response: The FWS Intra-Service Commerce. (4) Providing for conservation of Consultation Handbook clarifies that the ACTION: Notice federally listed, proposed, and need to address candidate species candidate species. (species for which FWS has adequate SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service Within the Fish and Wildlife Service information to propose listing) applies (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Manual we incorporate the handbook by only to consultations that are being Service (NMFS), hereafter referred to as reference into chapter I, part 734. conducted on actions that the FWS is the Services, announce the availability authorizing, funding, or carrying out. Public Comments Addressed of their final joint Endangered Species FWS has implemented this internal Consultation Handbook. This document We published the notice of policy to assist in the conservation of provides internal guidance to all Availability of a draft consultation candidate species and to ensure that employees of the two agencies relative handbook in the Federal Register on actions taken by FWS will not be a to conducting consultations and December 21, 1994 (59 FR 65781). The factor in the necessity to list candidate conferences under section 7 of the Services considered all information and species in the future. FWS staff will bear Endangered Species Act of 1973, as recommendations from comments any additional workload required to amended (Act). Its purpose is to provide submitted on the draft handbook. Our address candidate species in conducting policy and guidance for section 7 analysis follows. the internal FWS section 7 consultation, procedures to promote efficiency and Issue #1: Many commenters requested so no burden will be placed on the nationwide consistency within and that certain terms used in the handbook States. FWS recognizes that the States between the Services. Although be defined. Some commenters have the lead for addressing the needs intended primarily as internal agency questioned the clarity or accuracy of of non-listed species and desires to guidance, this handbook is fully specific definitions. work closely with the States in available for public information and Response: The Services reviewed all developing conservation plans for use. the terms mentioned in comment letters. candidate species. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: We improved definitions as necessary Issue #4: Commenters stated that the Sandy Tucker, Division of Endangered and new definitions were added. These handbook should provide a better Species, Fish and Wildlife Service were taken from the Act or regulations, discussion of how the section 7 process (telephone 703–358–2106; or Craig if available. If not available in those interfaces with other laws, particularly Johnson, Office of Protected Resources, documents, we defined terms by the National Environmental Policy Act National Marine Fisheries Service common usage and practice developed (NEPA), and should address ways of (telephone 301–713–1401). over 20 years of section 7 streamlining the consultation process. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: implementation. To further assist Response: A section has been added handbook users, we added an expanded to the handbook on coordination with Background glossary with all the definitions to the other environmental reviews which Section 7 of the Endangered Species handbook. As terms are used in the text, addresses how the NEPA and the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) outlines the we repeated the definitions and revised section 7 processes can be undertaken procedures for interagency cooperation the glossary in Appendix E (FWS Intra- simultaneously to minimize the need for to conserve Federally listed species and Service Consultation Handbook). extended consultation time frames. A designated critical habitats. Section Issue #2: Several commenters section has also been added to the 7(a)(1) of the Act directs all Federal requested clarification and further handbook which outlines streamlined agencies to utilize their authorities in discussion of the relationship between consultation processes which are furtherance of the purposes of the Act processes relating to section 7 and currently ongoing between the Services by carrying out programs for the section 10 of the Act. and other agencies on various programs, conservation of species listed pursuant Response: The handbook addresses and encourages the Services to look for to the Act. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act procedures to be used in conducting ways to implement such processes for requires Federal agencies to insure that section 7 consultations on the issuance other existing programs. their actions are not likely to jeopardize of section 10 permits. The Services have Issue #5: Commenters requested that listed species or result in the also jointly produced (November 1996) the handbook clarify the role and destruction or adverse modification of a final handbook entitled Endangered authority of Federal agencies in the designated critical habitat. The Species Habitat Conservation Planning section 7 process, and also clarify the consultation process between the Handbook on the processing of involvement of State agencies, Tribal

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.156 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31286 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices governments, and other non-federal Summary of Streamlining Measures Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota parties, especially applicants for Federal The Services have made numerous 55111–4056; Telephone: (612) 713– permits or funds. reforms in the consultation handbook to 5334; Fax: (612) 713–5292. Response: The Services have revised encourage better coordination, FWS Region 4: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, the handbook to better recognize the shortened consultation timeframes, and MS, NC, PR, SC, TN, U.S. Virgin Islands authority of Federal action agencies and streamlined consultation processes. to stress that the Services will work Improvements include: Chief, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and cooperatively with these agencies 1. Clear guidance and standards for all Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Blvd., during consultation, particularly in aspects of the consultation program. Atlanta, Georgia 30345; Telephone: developing the scope of the proposed 2. Incorporating language and policies (404) 679–4156; Fax: (404) 679–7081. action, identifying adverse effects to which encourage early coordination FWS Region 5: CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, listed species, developing reasonable with all parties with an interest in the ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA, VT, WV and prudent alternatives to avoid consultation, including other Federal Chief, Division of Endangered Species, jeopardy, and developing reasonable agencies, applicants, State agencies, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 and prudent measures to minimize the Tribal governments. Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA impacts of incidental take. The Services 3. Encouraging coordination with 01035–9589; Telephone: (413) 253– acknowledge that the action agency can reviews conducted under other 8615; Fax: (413) 253–8482. best judge if an action is technologically environmental statutes, including NEPA feasible and within their authority to and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination FWS Region 6: CO, KS, MT, NE, ND, SD, carry out. Act. UT, WY 4. Requiring the integration of section In addition, the Services have revised 7 consultation processes with section 10 Regional ESA Section 7 Coordinator, the handbook to encourage the requirements early in the process of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Street inclusion of State and Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan review and Address: Lake Plaza North Building, governments in the consultation approval. 134 Union Blvd., 4th Floor, process. State and Tribal governments, 5. Establishing joint policies and Lakewood, Colorado 80228; as managers of land and wildlife procedures for FWS and NMFS. Telephone: (303) 236–7400; Fax: (303) resources, often have information and 6. Encouraging development of 236–0027. Mailing Address: Denver expertise available which is important programmatic consultations and Federal Center, P.O. Box 25486, to the consultation. The Services are streamlined consultation processes. An Denver, Colorado 80225. committed to notifying affected State example of these processes is the FWS Region 7: AK and Tribal governments of ongoing Memorandum of Agreement developed consultations, and requesting that they among the Services, the Forest Service, Regional Endangered Species supply any information pertinent to the and the Bureau of Land Management to Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife consultation. While the Services review projects developed under the Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, recognize that it is the decision of the Northwest Forest Plan. Anchorage, Alaska 99503; Telephone: Federal action agency to include these (907) 786–3505; Fax: (907) 786–3350. Questions on the Contents of the governmental agencies in the formal NMFS Headquarters Office consultation process, we will encourage Handbook Federal agencies to do so. Likewise, we Questions on the content of the National Section 7 Coordinator, will encourage the action agency to handbook may be addressed to the FWS National Marine Fisheries Service, include entities such as local Regional Office nearest you, or to NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 1315 governments and outside interest Headquarters. East-West Highway, PR 3, Silver groups. Spring, Maryland 20910; Telephone: FWS Region 1: CA, HI, ID, ND, OR, WA, (301) 713–1401 x 174; Fax: (301) 713– Issue #6: Commenters requested that American Samoa, Commonwealth of the 0376. the handbook provide more specific Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and guidance and examples on a number of the Pacific Trust Territories Where To Obtain a Copy of the issues, including the difference between Consultation Handbook Chief, Division of Consultation and a ‘‘may affect’’ and ‘‘not likely to You may purchase copies of the adversely affect’’ determination, Conservation Planning, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal handbook through the Superintendent procedures to follow when projects have of Documents at the U.S. Government beneficial effects, clarification of Complex, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232–4181; Printing Office (GPO) for $55.00. The timeframes and procedures for the GPO stock number for the handbook is various types of consultations, and the Telephone: (503) 231–6241; Fax: (503) 231–6243. 024-010–00718–4. Contact the discussion of consultations on ongoing Superintendent of Documents order water projects. FWS Region 2: AZ, NM, OK, TX desk at (202) 512–1800 for further Response: The Services have added Regional ESA Section 7 Coordinator, information. You may find the GPO language and examples, where U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 order form on the Internet at GPO’s appropriate, to clarify all section 7 Gold Avenue S.W., (P.O. Box 1306), Sales Product Catalog site located at: processes that commenters questioned. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103(– http://www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs/ We provided new flow charts for 1306); Telephone: (505) 248–6653; sale/prf/prf.html. Informal, Formal, Early, and Emergency Fax: (505) 248–6922. Consultation processes, and for National Environmental Policy Act Conference processes. Appendix C FWS Region 3: IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, MO, The Department of the Interior has includes recent examples of various OH, WI determined that the issuance of the types of consultations. The handbook is Chief, Ecological Services Operations, consultation handbook is categorically approximately 850 double-sided pages U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, B.H. excluded under the Department of the in length. Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal Interior’s NEPA procedures in 516 DM2,

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31287

Appendix 1.10 and 516 DM 6, Bureau of Land Management at the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Appendix 1.4A(3). address identified above, where the Bureau of Land Management Author/Editor requirements for filing an appeal may be obtained. Parties who do not file an [CO±935±1430±01; COC±62995] The editors of this document were appeal in accordance with the Susan Linner and Mary Klee, U.S. Fish requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart Notice of Proposed Withdrawal; and Wildlife Service, Division of E, shall be deemed to have waived their Colorado Endangered Species, Arlington, rights. Virginia, and Margaret Lorenz, AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Endangered Species Division, National Katherine L. Flippen, Interior. Land Law Examiner, Branch of State and Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, ACTION: Notice. Maryland. Project Adjudication. [FR Doc. 99–14696 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior Authority BILLING CODE 4310±JA±P proposes to withdraw approximately The authority for this action is the 165,000 acres of Federal lands and 6,400 Endangered Species Act of 1973 , as acres of reserved Federal minerals to amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR protect nationally significant scientific Dated: April 29, 1999. and cultural resource values, and the Jamie Rappaport Clark, Bureau of Land Management ecological diversity of the Yellow Jacket Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. Canyon region of southwestern [WY±920±1430±11; WYW 83359] Colorado. This notice segregates the Dated: May 17, 1999. lands and minerals described below for Hilda Diaz-Soltero, Public Land Order No. 7342; up to 2 years from surface entry, mineral Director, Office of Protected Resources, Modification and Partial Revocation of material sales, and mining. The lands National Marine Fisheries Service. 12 Secretarial Orders; Wyoming; will remain open to mineral leasing. [FR Doc. 99–14686 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Correction FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 4310±55±P Mark Stiles, Southwest Center Manager, AGENCY: Bureau of land management, Bureau of Land Management, 2465 Interior. South Townsend, Montrose, Colorado DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ACTION: Public land order; Correction. 81401, 970–240–5300. Bureau of Land Management SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SUMMARY: purpose of the proposed withdrawal is [AK±963±1410±00±P and AA±6686±0] The Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming published a to protect the nationally significant scientific and cultural resource values Notice for Publication; Alaska Native public land order (PLO), in the Federal and the ecological diversity of the Claims Selection Register of June 18, 1998. The PLO Yellow Jacket Canyon area while the contained incorrect legal descriptions. lands are under study for additional In accordance with Departmental This document will correct those errors. regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is protection through some form of special hereby given that a decision to issue EFFECTIVE DATE: [Insert Date of designation. The area represents the conveyance under the provisions of Sec. Publication in Federal Register]. focus of northern Anasazi development, 14(a) of the Alaska Native Claims with more than 100 sites per square FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Settlement Act of December 18, 1971, 43 mile in many areas, representing the Paugh, BLM Wyoming State Office, P.O. U.S.C. 1601, 1613(a), will be issued to highest known archaeologic site density Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003, Kijik Corporation for 581.41 acres. The of any area in the nation. The total lands involved are in the vicinity of 307–775–6306. number of sites on public lands within Nondalton, Alaska. Correction the area is estimated at nearly 20,000. In 1985, the Bureau of Land Management’s Seward Meridian, Alaska By virtue of the authority vested in Resource Management Plan for the San T. 2 S., R. 33 W., the Secretary of the Interior by section Juan/San Miguel Planning Area Sec. 25. 204 of the Federal Land Policy and designated the area as the Anasazi A notice of the decision will be Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. Culture Multiple Use Area of Critical published once a week, for four (4) 1714 (1988), it is ordered as follows: Environmental Concern (ACEC) in consecutive weeks, in the Anchorage The land description in Public Land recognition of the tremendous cultural Daily News. Copies of the decision may Order No. 7342, 63 FR 33389, June 18, values present. be obtained by contacting the Alaska 1998, page 33389, column 3, line 42, T. Approximately 90 percent of the land State Office of the Bureau of Land 14 N., R. 98 W., Sec. 15, which reads proposed for withdrawal is currently Management, 222 West Seventh leased for oil and gas under the Mineral ‘‘SE1⁄4E1⁄4;’’ is hereby corrected to read Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513– Leasing Act of 1920. Approximately 74 ‘‘SE1⁄4SE1⁄4;’’. On page 33390, column 1, 7599 ((907) 271–5960). line 47, under T. 20 N., R. 105 W., producing oil, gas, and carbon dioxide Any party claiming a property interest wells maintain these leases. The which reads ‘‘Sec. 21, E1⁄2;’’ is hereby which is adversely affected by the temporary segregation and subsequent corrected to read ‘‘Sec. 20, E1⁄2;’’. decision, an agency of the Federal withdrawal would not affect existing government or regional corporation, Dated: June 4, 1999. mineral leases or any of the associated shall have until July 12, 1999 to file an Jim Paugh, facilities or authorizations currently in appeal. However, parties receiving Realty Officer. place, nor would it affect the ability of service by certified mail shall have 30 [FR Doc. 99–14703 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] the Bureau of Land Management to days from the date of receipt to file an authorize actions typically associated appeal. Appeals must be filed in the BILLING CODE 4310±22±M with oil and gas development (such as

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31288 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices the drilling of new wells, re-drilling or Secs. 13 to 15, inclusive, and secs.17 to 35, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) re-completion of wells, construction of inclusive. on floating production, storage, and collection systems, and plugging and T. 38 N., R. 19 W., offloading (FPSO) systems on the Gulf abandonment). Development of oil and Secs. 2 to 36, inclusive. of Mexico (GOM) Outer Continental T. 38 N., R. 20 W., gas resources in this area has been Secs. 1 to 3, inclusive, secs.10 to 15, Shelf (OCS). The MMS has awarded a carefully managed over the years to inclusive, secs. 22 to 27, inclusive, and contract to Ecology and Environment, mitigate potential impacts to cultural secs. 34 to 36, inclusive. Inc. (E&E) to prepare the EIS to examine resources and other values. Effective T. 39 N., R. 18 W., the use of FPSO systems in the mitigation of such potential impacts Secs. 6, 7, secs. 17 to 20, inclusive, and deepwater areas (water depths greater would continue to be emphasized secs. 29 and 30. than 200 meters or 656 feet) in the during the temporary segregation period T. 39 N., R. 19 W., Central and Western Planning Areas of and under the proposed withdrawal. Secs. 1 to 3, inclusive, secs. 5, 7, 8, secs. the GOM OCS. The contract was 10 to 15, inclusive, secs. 18, 19, and secs. awarded in April 1999; it is anticipated The proposal, if finalized, would 21 to 28, inclusive, sec. 30, and secs. 32 withdraw the following described to 34, inclusive. that completion of the EIS will take 18 months. Based upon the analysis in the Federal lands and minerals, subject to T. 39 N., R. 20 W., EIS, the MMS will decide whether valid existing rights, from settlement, Secs. 13, 14, secs. 23 to 27, inclusive, and FPSO systems will be an acceptable sale, location, and entry under the secs. 34 to 36, inclusive. option for consideration for use on the general land laws, including the mining The areas described aggregate GOM OCS; the decision will not and mineral material sales laws, but not approximately 165,000 acres of Federal lands and 6,400 acres of reserved Federal mineral constitute approval for the use of any the mineral leasing laws. The proposal estate underlying privately held surface in particular FPSO at any specific site. includes withdrawing the reserved Montezuma and Dolores Counties. Individual plans proposing use of an Federal mineral interest underlying For a period of 2 years from the date FPSO will be subject to MMS’s private surface within the ACEC, but of publication of this notice in the established project-specific and site- would not affect surface rights of those Federal Register, the Federal lands and specific evaluation and decision private lands. The allowance of any minerals will be segregated from process. temporary land use permits, rights-of- settlement, sale, location, and entry 1. Authority. Pursuant to the way or cooperative agreements would under the general land laws, including regulations implementing the be authorized only when necessary to the mining and mineral material sales procedural provisions of the National accommodate valid existing rights and law, subject to valid existing rights, Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the previously authorized actions. unless the proposal is canceled or MMS is announcing its intent to prepare New Mexico Principal Meridian unless the withdrawal is finalized prior an EIS on FPSO systems on the GOM T. 35 N., R. 16 W., to the end of the segregation. Further, OCS. This NOI also serves to announce Sec. 6. the segregation does not preclude the scoping process for this DEIS. T. 35 N., R. 17 W., issuance of land use permits, rights-of- Throughout the scoping process, Secs. 1, 12, and 13. way or other authorizations that are Federal and State agencies, local T. 35 N., R. 19 W., needed to accommodate valid existing governments, and other interested Secs. 3 to 10, inclusive, secs.15 to 22, rights and previously authorized actions parties will have the opportunity to aid inclusive, and secs. 28 to 30, inclusive. under the Mineral Leasing Act and other the MMS in determining the scope of T. 35 N., R. 20 W., public land laws. All previously the DEIS, significant issues that should Secs. 1 to 3, inclusive, secs.10 to 15, authorized activities and permitted uses be addressed, and alternatives to be inclusive, secs. 22 to 27, inclusive, secs. of the segregated lands may be considered. 34 and 35. 2. Proposed Action. FPSO’s may be T. 36 N., R. 16 W., continued in accordance with the terms of the authorization. used as production facilities to develop Secs. 18 to 20, inclusive, and secs. 29 to marginally economic or remote oil fields 32, inclusive. Dated: June 8, 1999. in the deepwater areas of the GOM OCS. T. 36 N., R. 17 W., Ray Brady, This DEIS will consider scenarios that Secs. 4, secs. 8 to11, inclusive, secs. 13 to Manager, Lands and Realty Group. represent the potential range of FPSO 30, inclusive, and sec. 36. T. 36 N., R. 18 W., [FR Doc. 99–14917 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] activities that could occur if the proposed action were implemented. The Secs. 1 to 32, inclusive; sec. 36, N1⁄2. BILLING CODE 4310±JB±P T. 36 N., R. 19 W., ‘‘base case’’ of the proposed action to be Secs. 1 to 34, inclusive, and sec. 36. evaluated is a permanently moored, T. 36 N., R. 20 W., DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR double-hulled, shipshaped FPSO with Secs. 1 to 3, inclusive, secs. 10 to 15, up to 1 million barrels of crude oil inclusive, secs. 22 to 27, inclusive, and Minerals Management Service storage capability. The seafloor well secs. 34 to 36, inclusive. equipment and on-board production T. 37 N., R. 17 W., Prepation of a Draft Environmental equipment will be the same types as Secs. 3, 4, secs. 8 to 10, inclusive, secs. 16 Impact Statement on Floating those used with other deepwater to 20, inclusive, and secs. 30 and 31. Production, Storage, and Offloading production facilities. Produced oil will T. 37 N., R. 18 W., Systems on the Gulf of Mexico Outer be offloaded to nondynamically Secs. 1 to 36, inclusive. Continental Shelf positioned, 500,000-barrel-capacity T. 37 N., R. 19 W., shuttle tankers for transport to ports in Secs. 1 to 36, inclusive. AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, T. 37 N., R. 20 W., Interior. Texas or Louisiana or to the Louisiana Secs. 1 to 3, inclusive, secs. 10 to 15, ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare Offshore Oil Port (LOOP). Associated or inclusive, secs. 22 to 27, inclusive, and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement produced gas will be transferred to secs. 34 to 36, inclusive. (DEIS). shore via a gas pipeline. T. 38 N., R. 17 W., The range of the proposed action will Secs. 33 and 34. SUMMARY: The Minerals Management include technical variations such as the T. 38 N., R. 18 W., Service (MMS) will prepare an use of disconnectable moorings, single

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.252 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31289 hull or single bottom design variations, geographic areas of the Central and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE non-shipshaped FPSO systems, Western Planning Areas of the GOM increased crude oil storage up to 2.3 OCS; or (d) a decision for no action. The Drug Enforcement Administration million barrels, dynamically positioned no action alternative will mean that [Docket No. 98±11] shuttle tankers, reinjection of natural FPSO systems will not be permitted in gas for later recovery, and gas-to-liquids the Central and Western Planning Areas Alfred Khalily, Inc. d.b.a. Alfa conversion. of the GOM OCS. Chemical; Grant of Restricted 3. Alternatives. One of the alternatives FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Questions Registration to be considered in the DEIS is the concerning the NEPA process and the exclusion of FPSO systems from the DEIS should be directed to Minerals On January 8, 1998, the Deputy ‘‘lightering prohibited area’’ established Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Assistant Administrator, Office of by the U.S. Coast Guard at 33 CFR part OCS Region, Attention: Ms. Deborah Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 156 subpart C. Other alternatives may be Cranswick (MS 5410), 1201 Elmwood Administration (DEA) issued on Order identified during the scoping process. Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana to Show Cause to Alfred Khalily, Inc., 4. Scoping. Scoping is an open and 70123–2394, telephone (504) 736–2744. d.b.a. Alfa Chemical (Respondent) of New York, notifying it of an opportunity early process for determining the scope Dated: June 4, 1999. of the DEIS and for identifying to show cause as to why DEA should Chris C. Oynes, significant issues related to a proposed not deny its applications for registration action. Scoping also provides an Regional Director, Gulf of Mexico, OCS as an importer and as a distributor of Region. opportunity for interested parties to List I chemicals, for reason that such help identify alternatives to the [FR Doc. 99–14704 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] registration would be inconsistent with proposed action. For this DEIS, public BILLING CODE 4310±MR±M the public interest as determined scoping meetings will be held from 7 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(h). p.m. to 10 p.m. on June 21, 1999, at the Respondent, through counsel, filed a Natural Resources Center—Room 1003, INTERNATIONAL TRADE request for a hearing on the issues raised Texas A&M University in Corpus COMMISSION by the Order to Show Cause. Following Christi, Texas; on June 22, 1999, at the prehearing procedures, a hearing was Sunshine Act Meeting Radisson Hotel and Conference Center, held in Uniondale, New York on May 19 9100 Gulf Freeway, Houston, Texas; on AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United and 20, 1998, before Administrative June 23, 1999, at the Beaumont Hilton States International Trade Commission. Law Judge Gail A. Randall. At the hearing, both parties called witnesses to in Beaumont, Texas; on June 24, 1999, TIME AND DATE: June 18, 1999 at 11:00 at the Players Island Hotel in Lake a.m. testify and introduced documentary evidence. After the hearing, both parties Charles, Louisiana; and on June 28, PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street S.W., filed proposed findings of fact, 1999, at the Radisson Inn Airport in Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: conclusions of law and argument. On Kenner (New Orleans), Louisiana. (202) 205–2000. Additional information on the scoping October 30, 1998, Judge Randall issued STATUS: Open to the public. meetings will be distributed to her Opinion and Recommended Ruling, interested parties. Details on the times MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: recommending that Respondent’s and locations for the public scoping 1. Agenda for future meeting: none. applications be granted subject to two 2. Minutes. conditions. On November 23, 1998, the meetings will also be advertised in local 3. Ratification List. Government filed exceptions to the media and are available on the MMS 4. Inv. No. AA1921–111 (Review) Administrative Law Judge’s Opinion website at http://www.mms.gov or (Roller Chain from Japan)—briefing and and Recommended Ruling and on through the MMS Public Information vote. (The Commission will transmit its December 15, 1998, Respondent filed its Office at 1–800–200–GULF or determination to the Secretary of reply to the Government’s exceptions. [email protected]. Commerce on July 1, 1999.) 5. Comments on the NOI. In addition 5. Outstanding action jackets: Thereafter, on December 16, 1998, Judge to participation at the scoping meetings, (1) Document No. EC–99–011: Randall transmitted the record of these Federal and State agencies, local Approval of study objectives, annotated proceedings to the Deputy governments, and other interested study outline, final staffing plan, and Administrator. parties are invited to send their written final work schedule in Inv. No. 332–406 The Deputy Administrator has comments on the scope of the DEIS, (Overview and Analysis of the considered the record in its entirety, significant issues to be addressed, and Economic Impact of U.S. Sanctions with and pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby alternatives that should be considered Respect to India and Pakistan). issues his final order based upon in the DEIS to the contact person at the (2) Document No. GC–99–047; Inv. findings of fact and conclusions of law address listed below. Comments should Nos. 751–TA–17–20 (Titanium Sponge as hereinafter set forth. The Deputy be enclosed in an envelope labeled from Japan, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Administrator adopts, in full, the ‘‘Comments on the NOI to Prepare a Ukraine). Opinion and Recommended Ruling of DEIS on FPSO’s’’ and should be In accordance with Commission the Administrative Law Judge, and his submitted no later than 45 days after policy, subject matter listed above, not adoption is in no manner diminished by publication of this NOI in the Federal disposed of at the scheduled meeting, any recitation of facts, issues and Register. may be carried over to the agenda of the conclusions herein, or of any failure to 6. Decisions. The MMS will make following meeting. mention a matter of fact or law. several decisions based on the analysis Alfred Khalily started Respondent in in the EIS; (a) whether FPSO systems Issued: June 8, 1999. 1990, and is Respondent’s president, will be permitted in the Central and By order of the Commission. only officer, and only employee. In Western Planning Areas of the GOM Donna R. Koehnke, 1991, Respondent merged with another OCS; (b) the range of acceptable FPSO Secretary. company named American Roland operations; and (c) the potential [FR Doc. 99–14891 Filed 6–8–99; 2:57 pm] pursuant to a two-year contract. This exclusion of FPSO systems in certain BILLING CODE 7020±02±M company was involved in the

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.207 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31290 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices importation, brokering, and contract in the pigment, and petroleum acid was shipped from Ajay and was manufacturing of controlled substances acidification. It was Mr. Khalily’s consigned to R.J. Meyer c/o Sky Harbor and chemicals. Mr. Khalily was an understanding that R.J. Meyer was Delivery, Attention: Jose Gutierrez. assistant manager at American Roland. engaged in ‘‘contract manufacturing’’ Air freight Door to Door receipts In 1992, the president of R.J. Meyer, whereby R.J. Meyer would supply a showed a transfer fee of $92.75 for the a Mexican company, visited American manufacturer with the ‘‘synthesizing May 1994 shipment, and a transfer fee Roland. Mr. Khalily was not a part of path’’ and the necessary raw materials, of $166.25 for the October 1994 that meeting. However he met R.J. and the contractor would return the shipment. Sky Harbor billed Meyer’s president in June of 1993, when finished product to R.J. Meyer. Respondent for these fees. The Respondent company split from Based on price, Respondent selected Government alleges that these fees American Roland and Respondent took Ajay Chemicals, Inc. (Ajay), as the indicate that Respondent rented the over the R.J. Meyer account. manufacturer to supply this order. space from Sky Harbor. However, Mr. In October 1994, DEA’s Long Island Respondent ultimately engaged in five Khalily testified that R.J. Meyer leased office received information from DEA’s transactions with R.J. Meyer for the space at Sky Harbor for the Atlanta office regarding three ‘‘very hydriotic acid. In general, when deliveries. According to Mr. Khalily, large shipments’’ of hydriotic acid, a Respondent received an R.J. Meyer some of the containers of hydriotic acid List I chemical, from Ajay Chemical in purchase order, it would then send a leaked because there were not properly Georgia to Respondent in New York. purchase order to Ajay. Mr. Khalily sealed by Ajay. Respondent paid the Hydriotic acid can be used in the illegal would call Sky Harbor warehouse, R.J. transfer fees to Sky Harbor so that the manufacture of methamphetamine and Meyer’s warehouse, to notify them that warehouse would accept the shipment it takes at least one gallon of hydriotic a shipment would be arriving. The and place the containers outside with acid to manufacture one kilogram of shipments were sent by Ajay via Yellow container material around them so as methamphetamine. Further Freight, directly to Sky Harbor. Ajay not to damage the warehouse facility. investigation revealed two additional paid Yellow Freight and R.J. Meyer paid According to Sky Harbor employees, shipments of hydriotic acid from Ajay Sky Harbor. Ajay would send an invoice all of the shipments were picked up by Chemical to Respondent. These to Respondent and Respondent would the same Hispanic male in a rental truck shipments occurred in late December then send a check to Ajay. Respondent and on one or two occasions, the 1993, March 1994, May 1994, July 1994, would send an invoice to R.J. Meyer, shipment would be loaded into two and October 1994 for a total of over who would in turn send a check to trucks because the cargo was so large. 11,000 kilograms (kgs.) of hydriotic Respondent. Mr. Khalily would call Sky During the course of the investigation acid. Harbor to check to see if the shipment of these shipments, a DEA investigator On November 8, 1994, DEA personnel was received and would later call to see questioned an employee of R.J. Meyer visited Respondent’s business which is if the shipment had been picked up. who indicated that Respondent was a located in Mr. Khalily’s home in a Specifically, in December 1993 ‘‘customer’’ of R.J. Meyer and that they residential area. Mr. Khalily told a DEA Respondent sold R.J. Meyer 3,080 kgs. of had a long-standing relationship. investigator that R.J. Meyer was a hydriotic acid; 1,686 kgs. in March Regarding these five shipments, the regular customer of Respondent; that 1994; 1,686 kgs. in May 1994; 1,686 kgs. employee indicated that R.J. Meyer had Respondent has sold R.J. Meyer in July 1994; and 6,650 pounds or ‘‘brokered’’ the transactions for pharmaceutical products other than approximately 3,016 kgs. in October Respondent. However, Mr. Khalily hydriotic acid in the past; and that R.J. 1994. A review of R.J. Meyer’s purchase acknowledged that while R.J. Meyer Meyer was a paint manufacturer that orders revealed that shipments were sometimes participated in transactions used the hydriotic acid as a disinfectant either consigned to Jose Gutierrez, and with Respondent where R.J. Meyer acted in the manufacture of paint. During this sometimes Gus Pimental c/o Sky Harbor as the broker, R.J. Meyer was the visit, Mr. Khalily gave the investigator a Delivery in Tucson, Arizona, or to Jose customer in these five transactions. All Purchase Authorization Form from R.J. Gutierrez c/o Gus Pimentel at a of the purchase orders for these Meyer which indicated that R.J. Meyer warehouse in Phoenix, Arizona. transactions submitted to Respondent intended to use the hydriotic acid it Ajay’s invoices showed that the by R.J. Meyer indicated that R.J. Meyer purchased from Respondent as a hydriotic acid was sold to Respondent, was the customer. disinfectant and a cleaner of metals. but was to be shipped to R.J. Meyer at The employee of R.J. Meyer indicated In July or August 1993, R.J. Meyer’s Sky Harbor Delivery c/o Jose Gutierrez. that R.J. Meyer never received any of the president first contacted Mr. Khalily According to these invoices Respondent five shipments; the shipments had not regarding the purchase of hydriotic acid. was billed approximately $42,000 for come into Mexico; and that she had no In approximately 1993, R.J. Meyer sent the first shipment, approximately information regarding the final Respondent a purchase order for $41,500 for the last shipment, and destination of the shipment. DEA has hydriotic acid. Mr. Khalily then sent R.J. $22,086 for the other three shipments. not been able to determine the Meyer a Purchase Authorization Form According to Respondent’s invoices, disposition of the shipment after they which detailed the provisions of the Respondent sold the hydriotic acid to left the Sky Harbor warehouse. ‘‘Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988,’’ R.J. Meyer, but it was shipped to Jose Specifically, DEA does not know if the regarding the reporting of suspicious Gutierrez at Sky Harbor Delivery. These shipments ever entered Mexico. orders and the need to establish the shipments were ‘‘FOB Destination,’’ According to a DEA investigator who identity of the purchaser, and which which according to Mr. Khalily means testified at the hearing in this matter, requested that R.J. Meyer ‘‘please that the shipper’s responsibility ends Respondent is considered to be the identify the general use you intend for when the product is delivered to the exporter of the hydriotic acid because it all Hydriotic Acid purchased from Alfa specified location. Respondent billed was ‘‘the principal party of interest that Chem.’’ In response to this request, R.J. R.J. Meyer approximately $63,000 for is arranging to have the chemical Meyer listed the following proposed the first and last shipments, and $33,720 exported out of the country.’’ A review uses for the hydriotic acid: agents for for the other three shipments. of DEA’s records indicated that no reducing fabrications of iodides, Bills of Lading for two of the export declarations were filed by any disinfectants, metal finishing, reducing transactions indicated that the hydriotic party to the five transactions at issue.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.032 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31291

Mr. Khalily testified that because the happened to the five shipments after Respondent violated 21 U.S.C. transactions were ‘‘FOB Destination,’’ they were delivered to Arizona. 841(d)(2), since Respondent knew or his responsibilities ended when the In October 1995, Respondent had reasonable cause to believe that the shipments were delivered to the Sky submitted an application to be listed chemical it was distributing Harbor warehouse in Arizona. registered as an importer of various List would be used to unlawfully In a letter to DEA dated May 24, 1995, I chemicals. The address listed on the manufacture methamphetamine. The in response to a subpoena for application is also Mr. Khalily’s Government also contends that the information regarding these shipments, residence. Respondent submitted a transactions involved the following Mr. Khalily stated that prior to the second application in October 1995 to regulatory violations by Respondent: (1) shipments, ‘‘The local DEA was notified be registered as a distributor of various Failure to report an extraordinary and they gave their O.K. The shipment List I chemicals. The address on this quantity of a listed chemical; (2) failure was made directly to our application is for a public warehouse to identify the other party to the customer. * * * From our background where individuals can lease space to transaction; (3) failure to keep and checking we know our customer has store goods. DEA did not conduct a maintain records of regulated been in the chemical and preregistration investigation at either of transactions; and (4) failure to notify the pharmaceutical business for the past 30 these locations. DEA 15 days in advance of an export of years.’’ Accordingly to Mr. Khalily, the a listed chemical. The Government At the hearing, Mr. Khalily testified warehouse address listed on the notes that Respondent’s experience in that in his opinion the five transactions distributor application is a public the chemical industry made him aware did not involve extraordinary amounts bonded warehouse that he has used for of the regulatory requirements, but that of hydriotic acid. He believed that the 18 years. He explained that he does not Respondent ‘‘was more concerned with chemical was being used as a have any specific space leased, but that seeking a profitable venture rather than disinfectant and testified that: we will be charged based on the square ensuring the integrity of the regulated footage his product(s) takes up. In transactions in which he was involved.’’ [W]hen you are starting a production run response to a question regarding of disinfectant you probably use about maybe In arguing in favor of its registration, 30 or 40 55-gallon drums, approximately, a security at the warehouse, Mr. Khalily Respondent alleges that the term regular run, to start the production. Then stated: ‘‘extraordinary quantity’’ is vague, and later on, for other productions, you just It is a public, bonded warehouse. United that the quantities involved in the replenish—a little bit less. May about 20 or States Customs leave their goods over there. transactions at issue were not 30 55-gallon drums is (sic) used to be able What other provision [do] I have to extraordinary, and the transactions were to achieve that. have? * * * I talked to the conducted in the normal course of According to Mr. Khalily, an initial manager * * * and he would allow me to international commerce, and were ‘‘[f]ar build a cage, sort of the same way that the from being a series of secretive and start-up of a product run would require controlled substance are controlled. There is approximately 7,000 to 10,000 pounds a fenced in area which two people would unreported sales.’’ As to the of hydriotic acid. The Government did have * * * the key to that cage. And also, identification requirement, Respondent not present any evidence to dispute it has an alarm and is very much contained, argues that R.J. Meyer was the only Respondent’s explanation for the within the same facility. party Respondent was required to quantity of hydriotic acid that it sold to Although there are currently no security identify. Respondent also contends that R.J. Meyer. arrangements specifically established it was not required to file any export Mr. Khalily also testified that the for Respondent at the warehouse, Mr. documentation since it was merely method of delivery of these transactions Khalily explained that he would make acting as a broker and therefore was not was not unusual. The same method of the necessary arrangements when he considered a ‘‘regulated person’’ at that delivery was used for these transactions anticipated receiving any regulated time. Respondent points out that its as was used for other transactions with substances. principal officer ‘‘has substantial R.J. Meyer. According to Mr. Khalily, an Mr. Khalily testified that listed experience in the chemical industry and unusual method of delivery would chemicals have comprised less than one is fully aware of the regulatory include: ‘‘Picking up from you, from percent of his business, and that he requirements.’’ your warehouse or picking up from a subsequently ceased listed chemical Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(c)(2)(A), third party or drop shipping into some transactions with R.J. Meyer because it ‘‘[t]he Attorney General shall register an other place which you don’t know ‘‘was a kind of service that I was applicant to import or export a list I about,’’ Mr. Khalily explained that a supplying to them, and it wasn’t really chemical unless the Attorney General drop ship is when ‘‘you are sending to our main business.’’ Mr. Khalily further determines that registration of the a third party which is not part of the testified that since 1994, his practice in applicant is inconsistent with the public transaction.’’ selling listed chemicals has become to interest.’’ Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(h), At the hearing, Mr. Khalily admitted ask which state the customer is calling ‘‘[t]he Attorney General shall register an that he does not know Jose Gutierrez or from; to ask for the customer’s DEA applicant to distribute a list I chemical Gus Pimentel, however he believed that number, the product they are seeking, unless the Attorney General determines they were representatives of R.J. Meyer, and their phone number; and to call that registration of the applicant is who would be responsible for the export DEA in Washington to double-check the inconsistent with the public interest.’’ of the hydriotic acid. When told that R.J. accuracy of the DEA number of the Section 823(h) requires that the Meyer’s president indicated that Jose customer. following factors be considered in Gutierrez was not an R.J. Meyer In arguing against Respondent’s determining the public interest: representative, Mr. Khalily stated that, registration, the Government contends (1) Maintenance by the applicant of ‘‘[t]his was the first time I heard of that. that Respondent has not maintained effective controls against diversion of All the purchase orders that they have, adequate controls against diversion, as listed chemicals into other than they have the name of their evidenced by the disappearance of over legitimate channels; representatives on it.’’ Mr. Khalily 1,750 gallons of hydriotic acid. The (2) Compliance by the applicant with admitted that he did not know what Government further argues that applicable Federal, State, and local law;

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.033 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31292 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

(3) Any prior conviction record of the relating to listed chemicals. A has failed to present any evidence applicant under Federal or State laws ‘‘regulated person’’ engaged in a regarding the adequacy of Respondent’s relating to controlled substances or to ‘‘regulated transaction’’ is subject to records. Therefore, the Government has chemicals controlled under Federal or various recordkeeping, reporting and failed to prove by a preponderance of State law; identification requirements. Respondent the evidence that Respondent violated (4) Any past experience of the was a regulated person pursuant to 21 the recordkeeping provisions found in applicant in the manufacture and U.S.C. 802(38), since it distributed a 21 U.S.C. 830(a) and 21 CFR 1310.03, distribution of chemicals; and listed chemical when it caused the 1310.04, and 1310.06. (5) Such other factors as are relevant hydriotic acid to be delivered, ‘‘FOB Next, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. to and consistent with the public health destination’’ to Sky Harbor warehouse 830(b)(1)(A) and 21 CFR 1310.05(a)(1), a and safety. in Arizona. regulated person is required to report to These factors are to be considered in Respondent seems to suggest that it DEA ‘‘[a]ny regulated transaction the disjunctive; the Deputy was not a regulated person at the time involving an extraordinary quantity of a Administrator may properly rely on any of the transactions at issue in 1993 and listed chemical, an uncommon method one or a combination of these factors, 1994, because it was acting as a broker, of payment or delivery, or any other and give each factor the weight he and ‘‘brokers’’ were not added to the circumstance that the regulated person deems appropriate in determining definition of ‘‘regulated person’’ until believes may indicate that the listed whether an application should be 1995. However, like Judge Randall, the chemical will be used in violation of denied. See Jacqueline Lee Pierson, Deputy Administrator rejects this part.’’ Energy Outlet, 56 FR 14,269 (1999); Respondent’s argument. Starting in The phrase ‘‘extraordinary quantity’’ Henry J. Schwarz, Jr. M.D., 54 FR 16,422 1995, a broker engaged in an is not defined in the regulations. Judge (1989). international transaction is a regulated Randall noted that ‘‘[b]y merely As a preliminary matter, DEA has person pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 802(38), comparing the threshold of 1.7 consistently held that a retail store (42), and (43). ‘‘International kilograms to each of the five sales, operates under the control of its owners, transaction’’ is defined in 21 U.S.C. whose quantities ranged from 1,686 stockholders, or other employees, and 802(42) as ‘‘a transaction involving the kilograms to 3,080 kilograms, the therefore the conduct of these shipment of a listed chemical across an quantities would seem to be individuals is relevant in evaluating the international border (other than a extraordinary.’’ However, Mr. Khalily fitness of an applicant or registrant for United States border) in which a broker testified that he did not believe that registration. See, e.g., Rick’s Pharmacy, or trader located in the United States these quantities were excessive because 62 FR 42,595 (1997); Big T Pharmacy, participates.’’ Although Respondent R.J. Meyer indicated that it was using Inc., 47 FR 51,830 (1982). Since Mr. entered into a contract with a Mexican the chemical as a disinfectant for Khalily is the owner of Respondent, his company for hydriotic acid, these were contract manufacturing and that these conduct is relevant in determining not ‘‘international transactions’’ because amounts were reasonable for the stated whether or not to grant Respondent’s Respondent only arranged for the purpose. The Government did not applications for registration. chemicals to be delivered to Arizona. present any evidence at the hearing as Regarding factor one, the Government Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 802(39), a sale to why it believed that these were alleged that the fact that over 1,750 or distribution of above a threshold extraordinary quantities, nor did it gallons of a listed chemical disappeared amount of a listed chemical is a present any evidence to dispute Mr. is evidence that Respondent failed to regulated transaction. In 1993 and 1994, Khalily’s explanation of the amounts maintain effective controls against the the threshold for hydriotic acid was 1.7 needed by R.J. Meyer for its stated diversion of listed chemicals. However, kgs. Each of the transactions at issue in purpose. The Deputy Administrator the Government did not provide any this proceeding were above the agrees with Judge Randall that ‘‘[g]iven specific argument under this factor to threshold amount and were therefore this alternate explanation for the large support its allegation. The Deputy regulated transactions. amounts of hydriotic acid being Administrator concludes that The Deputy Administrator concludes shipped, the lack of evidence to the Respondent’s failure to properly that since Respondent was a regulated contrary, and the lack of any further identify Jose Gutierrez, which will be person engaged in regulated guidance in the regulations, * * * the discussed in more detail under factor transactions at the times at issue in this quantities alone in these transactions two, clearly shows that Respondent proceeding, it was subject to various are not sufficient to trigger the reporting failed to maintain effective controls recordkeeping, reporting and requirements of section 1310.05 as they against the diversion of listed identification requirements. pertain to the Respondent.’’ chemicals. The Government alleged that Likewise the phrase ‘‘uncommon Pursuant to 21 CFR 1309.71, there are Respondent violated these regulatory method of payment or delivery’’ is not general security requirements that List I requirements by failing to maintain defined in the regulations. Regarding chemical handlers must meet. The records of these transactions; to report the method of payment for these Deputy Administrator agrees with Judge these transactions to DEA; to properly shipments, Respondents was paid by a Randall that the Government failed to identify the other party to the business account check drawn on R.J. prove by a preponderance of the transactions; and to file required export Meyer’s bank and Respondent used a evidence that the physical security at declarations. In addition, the business check to pay Ajay from its own both locations is inadequate. DEA did Government alleged that Respondent checking account. The Deputy not conduct a preregistration inspection violated 21 U.S.C. 824(d)(2) because it Administrator agrees with Judge at either location to determine whether knew or had reasonable cause to believe Randall’s conclusion that there is no or not the facilities lacked adequate that the listed chemical that it was evidence that there was an uncommon security. distributing would be used to method of payment for these shipments. As to factor two, Respondent’s unlawfully manufacture As to the method of delivery, Mr. compliance with applicable law, it must methamphetamine. Khalily testified that the method of first be determined whether Respondent First, the Deputy Administrator agrees delivery used for these transaction was was subject to the laws and regulations with Judge Randall that the Government the same as was used by Respondent in

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.034 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31293 non-listed chemical transactions. He export documentation, the Deputy transactions and his lack of concern further testified that he believed that Administrator agrees with Judge Randall regarding the disappearance of the five Jose Gutierrez was R.J. Meyer’s that pursuant to the regulations shipments. Further, Mr. Khalily did not representative, and the transaction Respondent was not required to file present adequate assurances that documents support this interpretation. such documentation. Pursuant to 21 Respondent will implement better As Judge Randall noted, ‘‘[t]hese CFR 1313.21(a) (1993 & 1994), DEA procedures for properly identifying documents, prepared in 1993 and 1994, must be notified at least 15 days in other patties to listed chemical weigh heavily in favor of finding advance of any export of threshold or transactions. credible Mr. Khalily’s interpretation of above threshold quantities of a listed Judge Randall concluded that ‘‘[t]he Mr. Gutierrez’s role in these transactions chemical. The term ‘‘chemical export’’ Government has not proven by a on behalf of R.J. Meyer.’’ is defined in 21 CFR 1313.02(a) (1993 & preponderance of the evidence that the However, with the benefit of 1994) 1 as ‘‘transferring ownership or Respondent is conducting five regulated hindsight, the method of delivery for control, or the sending or taking of transactions of hydriotic acid, failed to these transactions was suspicious. Mr. threshold quantities of listed chemicals comply with any record-keeping or Gutierrez signed for the hydriotic acid at out of the United States * * *.’’ The reporting requirements.’’ Further, the Sky Harbor warehouse, and loaded it regulations further define ‘‘chemical Government has failed to prove that into a rental truck. DEA has been unable exporter’’ as ‘‘a regulated person who, as Respondent was required to file export to determine the whereabouts of the the principal party in interest in the documents. But, the Deputy hydriotic acid after it was picked up by export transaction, has the power and Administrator agrees with Judge Randall Mr. Guiterrez. But as Judge Randall responsibility for determining and that the evidence does support the noted, ‘‘at the time the transaction[s] controlling the sending of the listed conclusion that Respondent failed to arose, Mr. Khalily did not have the chemical out of the United States.’’ 21 properly identify Mr. Gutierrez thereby benefit of this hindsight.’’ CFR 1313.02(b) (1993 & 1994).2 allowing over 11,000 kgs. of a listed Therefore, the Deputy Administrator While Respondent was selling above chemical that can be used in the illicit agrees with Judge Randall’s conclusion threshold quantities of hydriotic acid to manufacture of methamphetamine to ‘‘that preponderating evidence supports a Mexican company, these sales were disappear. Mr. Khalily’s interpretation of Mr. ‘‘FOB Destination’’ transactions and Judge Randall concluded that ‘‘[t]he Gutierrez’s relationship to R.J. Meyer therefore Respondent’s responsibility Government has proven by a ** *.’’ However, the Deputy ended when the chemicals were preponderance of the evidence that the Administrator shares Judge Randall’s delivered to the warehouse in Arizona. Respondent’s failure to comply with concern ‘‘that Mr. Khalily failed to Respondent did not send or take the identification regulations contributed to ascertain Mr. Guiterrez’s role in the listed chemicals out of the United the ultimate loss of the shipments, transaction prior to shipping the listed States, nor was it the ‘‘principal party in chemicals to him as the named recipient leading to a greater likelihood that they interest’’ with the power and control could have been diverted to illicit use, on behalf of R.J. Meyer.’’ over sending the chemicals out of the Next, the Government alleged that the very evil addressed by this United States. Therefore, it was not Respondent failed to properly identify regulatory and statutory scheme.’’ Judge responsible for filing any export the other party to the transactions at Randall also concluded that documentation. issue as required by 21 CFR 1310.07(a). ‘‘Respondent has done nothing to assure As to factor three, there is no evidence While Mr. Khalily and Respondent’s the DEA that it will act more that Respondent or its owner, Mr. predecessor has a long-standing responsibly in future transactions.’’ Khalily, has been convicted of any business relationship with R.J. Meyer, Nonetheless, after considering all of the criminal acts related to controlled he had never met Mr. Gutierrez before. facts and circumstances of this case, substances or listed chemicals. Judge Randall concluded that complete Mr. Khalily testified that he assumed Regarding Respondent’s past that Mr. Gutierrez was a representative denial of Respondent’s applications is experience in the manufacture or of R.J. Meyer because ‘‘[a]ll purchase not warranted. However, Judge Randall distribution of chemicals, Mr. Khalily orders that they have, they have the further concluded that Respondent’s has been involved with the importation, name of their representatives on it.’’ prior conduct warrants closer contract manufacturing, and brokering But, pursuant to 21 CFR 1310.07(c), monitoring than in other cases. of transactions involving controlled ‘‘[w]hen transacting business with a Therefore, Judge Randall substances and listed chemicals for a new representative of a firm, the recommended that Respondent’s number of years. As a result, he has regulated person must verify the applications be granted with the been aware of the regulatory claimed agency status of the following conditions: requirements regarding listed chemicals. representative.’’ Mr. Khalily failed to do (1) The Respondent be required to Nonetheless, Mr. Khalily distributed a this. Judge Randall found that ‘‘[b]ased maintain a log of all listed chemical listed chemical on five occasions on his own testimony, it appears that transactions he engages in for a period without properly identifying the other Mr. Khalily merely assumed that Mr. of three years from the date of issuance party to the transaction in violation of Gutierrez was a representative of R.J. of these DEA Certificates of Registration. the regulations which allowed over Meyer, rather than to verify his identity At a minimum, the log shall indicate the 11,000 kgs. of hydriotic acid to with R.J. Meyer, prior to shipping the date that the shipment occurred, the disappear. listed chemicals to him.’’ Therefore, the name and address of all the parties As to other factors relevant to the Deputy Administrator agrees with Judge involved in the transaction, the public health and safety, Judge Randall Randall that the preponderance of the destination of the shipments, and the noted Mr Khalily’s failure to take evidence shows that Mr. Khalily failed name and quantity of the listed responsibility for his role in the to properly identify the other party to chemical shipped. Upon request by the the five transactions as required by 21 Special Agent in Charge of the local 1 This regulation has since been renumbered and CFR 1310.07. can now be found in 21 CFR 1300.02(5). DEA Field Division, or his designee, the As to the Government’s allegation that 2 This regulation has since been renumbered and Respondent shall submit or otherwise Respondent failed to file the appropriate can now be found in 21 CFR 1300.02(6). make available his log for inspection.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.035 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31294 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

(2) For three years from the date of The chemical industry is expected to chemical out of the United States.’’ 21 issuance of the DEA Certificates of understand the nature of its legitimate CFR 1313.02(b) (1993 & 1994). Registration, the Respondent shall business transactions and must make Finally, the government took informed decisions as to whether the above exception to Judge Randall’s conclusion consent to periodic inspections at its terms apply to any of their transactions. registered locations by DEA personnel that despite Respondent’s failure to based on a Notice of Inspection rather See 54 FR 31,657,31,659 (1989). properly identify the other party to than an Administrative Inspection Based upon the record before him, the these transactions, Respondent’s Warrant. Deputy Administrator finds that the applications should not be denied. The In its exceptions to Judge Randall’s Government has not established that the Government argued that Respondent’s Opinion and Recommended Ruling, the quantities of these shipments were failure to determine the identity of Mr. Government argued that the extraordinary. While these shipments Gutierrez resulted in the disappearance Administrative Law Judge gave undue seem large to the Deputy Administrator, of over 11,000 kgs. of hydriotic acid weight to Mr. Khalily’s testimony that the Respondent’s explanation based which could be used to produce over upon the intended use of the hydriotic Respondent had no obligation to report 1,700 kgs. of methamphetamine. The acid for the quantities shipped was the transactions as a result of the Government further argued that unrebutted by the Government. The proposed use for the hydriotic acid. Respondent has distanced itself from Deputy Administrator would like to Further, the Government argued that the transactions; has accepted no have considered evidence of whether Respondent had an obligation to report culpability for its actions; and ‘‘thus has R.J. Meyer’s intended use for the these shipments since they were for not shown that it can be depended upon hydriotic acid was legitimate and what extraordinary quantities and there was to carry out DEA regulations in the the usual quantities are in the industry an uncommon method of delivery. future.’’ for the intended use, however no such In its response to the Government’s Specifically, the Government evidence was presented by the exceptions, Respondent contended that contended that Respondent’s Government. Therefore, the Deputy it is not distancing itself from its own explanation of the quantities distributed Administrator is left with nothing but conduct, however it argues that the was self-serving, and that Judge Randall Respondent’s explanation, and as stated Government also bears some gave too much significance to the above the industry is expected to responsibility for failing to prevent the intended uses listed on R.J. Meyer’s understand the nature of its business. listed chemical from disappearing. purchase authorization form. ‘‘The Consequently, based upon the evidence Respondent asserted that ‘‘[t]he Government believes that this form, in the record before him the Deputy Government must provide expert standing alone, is inadequate to prove Administrator concludes that assistance to the chemical industry. It that the listed uses were intended, or Respondent was not required to report should provide information to assist the even valid, uses.’’ The Government these transactions in light of the chemical handlers in recognizing disagreed with the Administrative Law quantities shipped. potential problem transactions.’’ Judge’s conclusion that mere quantities The Deputy Administrator has Specifically, Respondent argued that it of shipments alone are not sufficient to considered the Government’s contention would have benefited from knowing require reporting and that the method of that these shipments should have been that in 1993, ‘‘the Southwest was the delivery was reasonable based upon Mr. reported based upon an uncommon home for the illegal production of Khalily’s mistaken impression that Mr. method of delivery. However as stated amphetamines and [hydriotic acid] was Gutierrez was an agent of R.J. Meyer. above, the method of delivery employed the main ingredient.’’ In addition, The Government argued that the for these transactions was the same as Respondent argued that had they known quantities of these shipments were had been employed by Respondent with of Ajay’s concerns regarding the first extraordinary because they each greatly R.J. Meyer in previous non-listed four of the transactions, ‘‘the final sale exceeded the threshold for hydriotoc chemical transactions, and based upon in October 1994 would have occurred.’’ acid; ‘‘the physical size of the product the transaction documents, According to Respondent, Mr. Khalily shipment was bulky and large’’; and Respondent’s assumption that Mr. ‘‘believes that he did everything the law ‘‘the amount of illicit methamphetamine Gutierrez was a representative of R.J. required in 1993 and 1995 and that he that could ostensibly be made from this Meyer was not unreasonable. should not be held solely accountable product was immense.’’ The In its exceptions, the government also when there were other parties involved Government also argued that an disagreed with the Administrative Law in these transactions, including the uncommon method of delivery was Judge’s conclusion that Respondent was DEA, who were equally unable to used for these shipments because Mr. not required to file any export prevent the listed chemical from Khalily ‘‘did not know the persons to documents. Essentially the Government disappearing.’’ whom he shipped the [hydriotic acid,] argued that by selling hydriotic acid to The Deputy Administrator agrees with ** * [t]he shipments were picked up a Mexican company Respondent was Respondent that such information may by rental truck * * * [and] [n]o one exporting the chemical, and therefore have been helpful to Respondent. knows where the [hydriotic acid] went.’’ was responsible for filing the However, in 1993 and 1994 Respondent The Government further contended appropriate documents. However as was experienced in the handling of that ‘‘the burden of establishing whether previously noted, the Deputy listed chemicals and Mr. Khalily any given shipment is required to be Administrator agrees with Judge Randall testified that he was familiar with the reported falls heavily upon the that since these were ‘‘FOB Destination’’ provisions of the law relating to listed regulated industry.’’ In support of its transactions, Respondent responsibility chemicals. Consequently, he knew that position, the Government cites to the ended when the shipments were he had to properly identify the other final rule implementing the chemical received at the warehouse in Arizona. party to any transaction involving a Diversion and Trafficking Act wherein Therefore, Respondent did not meet the listed chemical. While it is true that DEA declined to define either definition of a chemical exporter since Respondent and its predecessor had a ‘‘extraordinary quantity’’ or it did not have ‘‘the power and long-standing business relationship ‘‘uncommon method of delivery’’, but responsibility for determining and with R.J. Meyer, he had never before rather stated: controlling the sending of the listed dealt with Mr. Gutierrez.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.037 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31295

The Deputy Administrator is Administration, pursuant to the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE extremely concerned by Mr. Khalily’s authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823 failure to properly identify Mr. and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, Drug Enforcement Administration; Gutierrez and verify whether he was a hereby orders that the applications for Manufacturer of Controlled representative of R.J. Meyer. This is registration as an importer and a Substances; Notice of Application particularly troubling given that Mr. distributor of various listed chemicals, Pursuant to section 1301.33(a) of title Khalily knew that hydriotic acid was a submitted by Alfred Khalily, Inc., d.b.a. 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations listed chemical; that he had not seen Alfa Chemical, be, and they hereby are, (CFR), this is notice that on February 24, Mr. Gutierrez’s name on previous granted subject to the above described 1999, Los Angeles Cannabis Resources invoices; and that R.J. Meyer had not conditions. This order is effective upon Center, Inc., 7494 Santa Monica Blvd., previously purchased hydriotic acid issuance of the DEA Certificates of #215, West Hollywood, California from Respondent. All of these things Registration, but not later than July 12, combined should have caused Mr. 90046, made application to the Drug 1999. Khalily to recognize the need to Enforcement Administration (DEA) for ascertain whether Mr. Gutierrez was in Dated: June 1, 1999. registration as a bulk manufacturer of marihuana (7360), a basic class of fact a representative of R.J. Meyer. Donnie R. Marshall, controlled substance. Nontheless, the Deputy Administrator Deputy Administrator. agrees with Judge Randall that denial of The firm plans to develop single- [FR Doc. 99–14650 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Respondent’s applications is not cannabinoid strains of marihuana and to warranted in this case. Although BILLING CODE 4410±09±M provide cannabis and naturally Respondent was clearly not as careful as extracted plant-derived cannabionids he should have been in identifying Mr. for use in pharmaceutical research and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Gutierrez, Respondent did follow its cannabionoid-based drug development. normal business practices regarding Any other such applicant and any Drug Enforcement Administration; person who is presently registered with these shipments and there has been no Manufacturer of Controlled other evidence of any wrongdoing by DEA to manufacture such substance Substances; Notice of Registration Respondents. However, chemicals are may file comments or objections to the designated as listed chemicals because issuance of the proposed registration. By Notice dated December 14, 1998, they have the potential to be used to Any such comments or objections and published in the Federal Register manufacture dangerous substances. may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to on December 23, 1998, (63 FR 71155), Consequently those who deal with these the Deputy Assistant Administrator, chemicals have to be ever vigilant to Chattem Chemicals, Inc., 3801 St. Elmo Office of Diversion Control, Drug ensure that they are not diverted for Avenue, Building 18, Chattanooga, Enforcement Administration, United illegal purposes. Therefore, the Deputy Tennessee 37409, made application to States Department of Justice, Administrator agrees with Judge Randall the Drug Enforcement Administration Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA that Respondent’s prior conduct (DEA) to be registered as a bulk Federal Register Representative (CCR), warrants that Respondent should be manufacturer of methamphetamine and must be filed no later than August more closely monitored than other (1105), a basic class of controlled 9, 1999. registrants. substance listed in Schedule II. Dated: May 28, 1999. The Deputy Administrator agrees with The firm plans to bulk manufacture John H. King, Judge Randall’s recommendation that methamphetamine to produce products Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Respondent’s applications be granted for distribution to its customers. Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement with the following conditions: DEA has considered the factors in title Administration. (1) The Respondent be required to [FR Doc. 99–14649 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] maintain a log of all listed chemical 21, United States Code, section 823(a) BILLING CODE 4410±09±M transactions he engages in for a period and determined that the registration of of three years from the date of issuance Chattem Chemicals, Inc. to manufacture the listed controlled substance is of these DEA Certificates of Registration. FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT consistent with the public interest at At a minimum, the log shall indicate the COMMISSION date that the shipment occurred, the this time. DEA has investigated Chattem name and address of all the parties Chemicals, Inc. to ensure that the Sunshine Act Meeting involved in the transaction, the company’s registration is consistent destination of the shipments, and the with the public interest. Therefore, [F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 4–99] The Foreign Claims Settlement name and quantity of the listed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR Commission, pursuant to its regulations chemical shipped. Upon request by the 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant (45 CFR part 504) and the Government Special Agent in Charge of the local Administrator, Office of Diversion in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), DEA Field Division, or his designee, the Control, hereby orders that the hereby gives notice in regard to the Respondent shall submit or otherwise application submitted by the above firm scheduling of meetings and oral make available his log for inspection. for registration as a bulk manufacturer (2) For three years from the date of of the basic class of controlled substance hearings for the transaction of issuance of the DEA Certificates of listed above is granted. Commission business and other matters Registration, the Respondent shall specified, as follows: Dated: May 25, 1999. consent to periodic inspections at its DATE AND TIME: Thursday, June 17, 1999, registered locations by DEA personnel John H. King, 1:30 p.m. based on a Notice of Inspection rather Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of SUBJECT MATTER: Consideration of a than an Administrative Inspection Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Request for Reopening of the Final Warrant. Administration. Decision on a claim against Albania, as Accordingly, the Deputy [FR Doc. 99–14651 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] follows: Claim No. ALB–075 Haritini Administrator of the Drug Enforcement BILLING CODE 4410±09±M Poulos.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.038 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31296 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

STATUS: Open. records in other systems or otherwise CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE All meetings are held at the Foreign had become superfluous. SYSTEM: Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1999. Maintained on all individuals who Street, NW, Washington, DC. Requests ADDRESSES: 600 E Street, NW, Room filed claims for compensation under the for information, or advance notices of 6002, Washington, DC 20579. statutes administered by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. intention to observe an open meeting, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: may be directed to: Administrative Judith H. Lock, Administrative Officer, CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Tel. 202–616–6986, FAX 202–616–6993. Microfilm copies of index cards and Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4), the computer-generated paper indexes 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission containing names of claimants, claim Telephone: (202) 616–6988. hereby publishes the systems of records and decision numbers, date and Dated at Washington, DC, June 7, 1999. as currently maintained by the agency. disposition of claims, addresses and Judith H. Lock, Table of Contents dates of birth. Administrative Officer. Indexes of Claimants (Alphabetical)—Justice/ AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: [FR Doc. 99–14838 Filed 6–8–99; 11:07 am] FCSC–1 5 U.S.C. 301. BILLING CODE 4410±BA±M Bulgaria, Claims Against (2nd Program)— Justice/FCSC–2 PURPOSES: Certifications of Awards—Justice/FCSC–3 To enable Commission personnel and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE China, Claims Against—Justice/FCSC–4 interested members of the public to Civilian Internees (Vietnam)—Justice/FCSC– ascertain whether any named Foreign Claims Settlement 5 individual, corporation, or other legal Commission Correspondence (General)—Justice/FCSC–6 Correspondence (Inquiries Concerning entity has submitted a claim to the Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Claims in Foreign Countries)—Justice/ Commission. Records FCSC–7 Cuba, Claims Against—Justice/FCSC–8 ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE Czechoslovakia, Claims Against—Justice/ SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND AGENCY: Foreign Claims Settlement THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: Commission, Justice. FCSC–9 East Germany, Registration of Claims —Used by authorized Commission ACTION: Notice of Privacy Act systems of Against—Justice/FCSC–10 personnel for identification of records. Federal Republic of Germany, Questionnaire individual claims and to obtain Inquiries from—Justice/FCSC–11 information concerning disposition of SUMMARY: The Foreign Claims Hungary, Claims Against (2nd Program)— claims. Settlement Commission of the United Justice/FCSC–12 —The information contained in this Italy, Claims Against (2nd Program)—Justice/ States herewith publishes an updated system of records (except for that Notice of its Privacy Act Systems of FCSC–13 Micronesia, Claims Arising in—Justice/ pertaining to the system ‘‘Justice/ Records. Publication of such notice is FCSC–14 FCSC–27: Germany, Holocaust required under subsection (e)(4) of the Poland, Claims Against—Justice/FCSC–15 Survivors Claims Against’’, described Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4). Prisoners of War (Pueblo)—Justice/FCSC–16 below) is considered by the This update is necessary in order to Prisoners of War (Vietnam)—Justice/FCSC– Commission to be public information reflect changes in the location of some 17 which may be disclosed as a routine of the Commission’s records systems, Rumania, Claims Against (2nd Program)— use to interested persons who make and the deletion of seven systems Justice/FCSC–18 inquiries about the claims program or Soviet Union, Claims Against—Justice/ (Justice/FCSC–2, ‘‘Bulgaria, Claims individual claims therein, including Against (1st Program),’’ Justice/FCSC– FCSC–19 Yugoslavia, Claims Against (2nd Program)— but not limited to Members of 10, ‘‘Czechoslovakia, Claims Against,’’ Justice/FCSC–20 Congress or congressional staff, staff Justice/FCSC–16, ‘‘Hungary, Claims German Democratic Republic, Claims of the Office of Management and Against (1st Program),’’ Justice/FCSC– Against—Justice/FCSC–21 Budget, other persons interested in 18, ‘‘Italy, Claims Against (1st General War Claims Program—Justice/FCSC– the work of the Commission, and Program),’’ Justice/FCSC–21, ‘‘Panama, 22 members of the news media. Claims Against,’’ Justice/FCSC–26, Vietnam, Claims for Losses Against—Justice/ —The information contained in this ‘‘Rumania, Claims Against (1st FCSC–23 system of records will be disclosed to Program),’’ and Justice/FCSC–29, Ethiopia, Claims for Losses Against—Justice/ the Office of Management and Budget, ‘‘Yugoslavia, Claims Against (1st FCSC–24 Egypt, Claims Against—Justice/FCSC–25 in connection with the review of Program)’’), due to the release of the Albania, Claims Against—Justice/FCSC–26 private relief legislation as set forth in records in those systems to the National Germany, Holocaust Survivors’ Claims OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage Archives for permanent retention. In Against—Justice/FCSC–27 of the legislative coordination and addition, as part of the review of Privacy Iraq, Registration of Potential Claims clearance process as set forth in that Act systems of records mandated by the Against—Justice/FCSC–28 circular. President’s Memorandum on Privacy —A record from this system of records JUSTICE/FCSC±1 and Personal Information in Federal may be disclosed as a routine use to Records of May 14, 1998, the SYSTEM NAME: a Member of Congress or to a Commission has deleted three other Indexes of Claimants (Alphabetical)— congressional staff member in systems (Justice/FCSC–13, ‘‘Payroll FCSC. response to an inquiry of the Records,’’ Justice/FCSC–14, ‘‘General congressional office made at the Personnel Records,’’ and Justice/FCSC– SYSTEM LOCATION: request of the individual about whom 15, ‘‘General Financial Records’’), based Foreign Claims Settlement the record is maintained. on a determination that the records in Commission, 600 E Street, Northwest, —A record, or any facts derived those systems were duplicative of Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. therefrom, may be disclosed in a

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.240 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31297

proceeding before a court or JUSTICE/FCSC±2 indicates a violation or potential adjudicative body before which the violation of law, whether civil, SYSTEM NAME: FCSC is authorized to appear or to the criminal or regulatory in nature, and Department of Justice for use in such Bulgaria, Claims Against (2nd whether arising by general statute or proceeding when: Program)—FCSC. particular program statute, or by i. The FCSC, or any subdivision SYSTEM LOCATION: regulation, rule or order issued thereof, Washington National Records Center, pursuant thereto, the relevant records ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC in the system of records may be or her official capacity, 20409. referred, as a routine use, to the iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his appropriate agency, whether Federal, CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE State, local or foreign, charged with or her individual capacity where the SYSTEM: the responsibility of investigating or Department of Justice has agreed to U.S. nationals who suffered property represent the employee, or prosecuting such violation or charged losses in Bulgaria between August 9, with enforcing or implementing the iv. The United States, where the FCSC 1955, and July 2, 1963. determines that the litigation is likely to statute, or rule, regulation or order affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: issued pursuant thereto. party to litigation or has an interest in Claim application form containing —The information contained in this litigation and such records are name and address of claimant and system of records will be disclosed to determined by the FCSC to be arguably representative, if any, date and place of the Office of Management and Budget, relevant and necessary to the litigation birth or naturalization; nature and in connection with the review of and such disclosure is determined by amount of claim; description, private relief legislation as set forth in the FCSC to be a use compatible with ownership, and value of property; and OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage the purpose for which the records were evidence to support claim for the of the legislative coordination and collected. purpose of receiving compensation. clearance process as set forth in that circular. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: —A record from this system of records RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND Title III, International Claims DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: may be disclosed as a routine use to Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, a Members of Congress or to a STORAGE: and U.S.-Bulgarian Claims Agreement of congressional staff member in Microfilm rolls stored in steel July 2, 1963. response to an inquiry of the drawers. Computer-generated paper PURPOSE: congressional office made at the indexes stored on shelves in cardboard To enable the Commission to carry request of the individual about whom binders. out its statutory responsibility to the record is maintained. —A record, or any facts derived RETRIEVABILITY: determine the validity and amount of the claims submitted to it. therefrom, may be disclosed in a By name of individual. proceeding before a court or ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SAFEGUARDS: adjudicative body before which the SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND FCSC is authorized to appear or to the Security guards in building. Records THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: Department of Justice for use in such maintained in locked rooms accessible —Records were used for the purpose of proceeding when: only to authorized Commission adjudicating claims of individuals; personnel. issuance of decisions concerning i. The FCSC, or any subdivision eligibility to receive compensation thereof, or RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: under the Act; notifications to ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his Permanent records. Disposition will claimants of rights to appeal; and or her official capacity, or be made in accordance with 44 U.S.C. preparation of certifications of iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his 3301–3314 when such records are awards, if any, to the Treasury or her individual capacity where the determined no longer useful. Department for payment by Department of Justice has agreed to SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: authorized FCSC personnel. Names represent the employee, or and other data furnished by claimants Administrative Office, Foreign Claims iv. The United States, where the FCSC used for verifying citizenship status determines that the litigation is likely to Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, with INS. Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a —The information contained in this party to litigation or has an interest in 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6986 Fax: system of records is considered by the 202/616–6993. litigation and such records are Commission to be public information determined by the FCSC to be arguably NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: which may be disclosed as a routine relevant and necessary to the litigation use to interested persons who make Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code and such disclosure is determined by inquiries about the claims program or of Federal Regulations. the FCSC to be a use compatible with individual claims therein, including the purpose for which the records were CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: but not limited to Members of collected. Same as above. Congress or congressional staff, staff of the Office of Management and POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Budget, other persons interested in RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND Individual on whom the record is the work of the Commission, and DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: maintained and information obtained by members of the news media. actions taken by the Foreign Claims —Law enforcement: In the event that a STORAGE: Settlement Commission as a result of system of records maintained by Paper records maintained in file adjudication of individual claims. FCSC to carry out its functions folders.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.044 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31298 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

RETRIEVABILITY: individuals in the Commission’s claims the FCSC to be a use compatible with Filed numerically by claim number. programs. the purpose for which the records were File folders retrieved from Records collected. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE Center by claim number. Alphabetical SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, index used for identification of claim THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND (see system ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). —Award certifications prepared by DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: SAFEGUARDS: authorized FCSC personnel and STORAGE: Under security safeguards at forwarded to Treasury Department for Contained in file folders. Washington National Records Center. payment in accordance with statutory authority and Treasury Department RETRIEVABILITY: RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: regulations and procedures. By voucher number and date of Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. —The information contained in this certification. 301. Disposal of records will be made in system of records (except for that accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 pertaining to the system ‘‘Justice/ SAFEGUARDS: when such records are determined no FCSC–27: Germany, Holocaust Building has building guards. Records longer useful. This system of records Survivors Claims Against’’) is are maintained in file cabinets in locked was retired to the Washington National considered by the Commission to be rooms. Records Center after the completion of public information which may be RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: the claims program on December 24, disclosed as a routine use to Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. 1971. interested persons who make 301. Disposal of records will be made in inquiries about a claims program or SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 individual claims therein, including when such records are determined no Administrative Office, Foreign Claims but not limited to Members of longer useful. Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, Congress or congressional staff, staff Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC of the Office of Management and SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: Budget, other persons interested in Administrative Office, Foreign Claims 202/616–6993. the work of the Commission, and Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: members of the news media. Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC —The information contained in this Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: system of records will be disclosed to of Federal Regulations. 202/616–6993. Notification Procedure: the Office of Management and Budget, Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code of CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: in connection with the review of Federal Regulations. Same as above. private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: of the legislative coordination and Same as above. Individual on whom the record is clearance process as set forth in that maintained. circular. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: —A record from this system of records From award portion of decisions as JUSTICE/FCSC±3 may be disclosed as a routine use to determined by FCSC. SYSTEM NAME: a member of Congress or to a JUSTICE/FCSC±4 Certification of Awards—FCSC. congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the SYSTEM NAME: SYSTEM LOCATION: congressional office made at the China, Claims Against—FCSC. Foreign Claims Settlement request of the individual about whom Commission, 600 E Street, Northwest, the record is maintained. SYSTEM LOCATION: Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. —A record, or any facts derived Washington National Records Center, CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED therefrom, may be disclosed in a 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC BY THE SYSTEM: proceeding before a court or 20409. Individuals receiving awards under adjudicative body before which the the International Claims Settlement Act CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE FCSC is authorized to appear or to the SYSTEM: of 1949, as amended, and War Claims Department of Justice for use in such U.S. nationals with claims for Act of 1948, as amended. proceeding when: property losses, death and disability in CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: i. The FCSC, or any subdivision mainland China arising between Names and addresses of claimants thereof, or October 1, 1949, and May 11, 1979. and amounts of awards certified to ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Treasury Department for payment. or her official capacity, or iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his Name and address of claimant’s Claim application form containing or her individual capacity where representative, if any, also included in name and address of claimant and the Department of Justice has agreed certification voucher. representative, if any; date and place of to represent the employee, or birth or naturalization of claimant; AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: iv. The United States, where the FCSC nature and amount of claim; International Claims Settlement Act of determines that the litigation is likely to description, ownership and value of 1949, as amended, and War Claims Act affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a property; and evidence to support of 1948, as amended. party to litigation or has an interest in claim. litigation and such records are PURPOSES: determined by the FCSC to be arguably AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: Maintained as a record of the names, relevant and necessary to the litigation Titles I and V, International Claims addresses, and amounts awarded to and such disclosure is determined by Settlement Act of 1949, as amended,

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31299 and the U.S.-China Claims Settlement request of the individual about whom JUSTICE/FCSC±5 Agreement of May 11, 1979. the record is maintained. —A record, or any facts derived SYSTEM NAME: PURPOSE: therefrom, may be disclosed in a Civilian Internees (Vietnam)—FCSC. To enable the Commission to carry proceeding before a court or SYSTEM LOCATION: out its statutory responsibility to adjudicative body before which the determine the validity and amount of FCSC is authorized to appear or to the Washington National Records Center, the claims submitted to it. Department of Justice for use in such 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC 20409. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE proceeding when: SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND i. The FCSC, or any subdivision CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: thereof, or SYSTEM: —Adjudication of claims, issuance of ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his American citizens held by a hostile decisions as to the validity and or her official capacity, or force in Southeast Asia during Vietnam amounts of claims and issuance of iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his Conflict. certifications to each individual or her individual capacity where the CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: claimant as to amount determined by Department of Justice has agreed to FCSC officials and personnel. Such represent the employee, or Claim application form contains name iv. The United States, where the FCSC amounts and copies of FCSC and address, date and place of birth, determines that the litigation is likely to decisions were certified to the birth certificates. Verification of affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a Secretary of State and to the Secretary internment furnished by State party to litigation or has an interest in of the Treasury. Department contains names, addresses litigation and such records are —The information contained in this and inclusive dates of internment. determined by the FCSC to be arguably system of records is considered by the relevant and necessary to the litigation AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: Commission to be public information and such disclosure is determined by Section 5(i), War Claims Act of 1948, which may be disclosed as a routine the FCSC to be a use compatible with as amended. use to interested persons who make the purpose for which the records were inquiries about the claims program or collected. PURPOSE(S): individual claims therein, including To enable the Commission to carry but not limited to Members of POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, out its statutory responsibility to Congress or congressional staff, staff RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND determine the validity and amount of DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: of the Office of Management and the claims submitted to it. Budget, other persons interested in STORAGE: the work of the Commission, and Paper records maintained in file ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND members of the news media. folders. —Law enforcement: In the event that a THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: system of records maintained by RETRIEVABILITY: —Adjudication of claims of American FCSC to carry out its functions Filed numerically by claim number. citizens and certification of awards by indicates a violation or potential File folders retrieved from Records authorized FCSC personnel to violation of law, whether civil, Center by claim number. Alphabetical Treasury Department for payment. criminal or regulatory in nature, and index used for identification of claim —The information contained in this whether arising by general statute, (see system ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). system of records is considered by the particular program statute, or by Commission to be public information SAFEGUARDS: regulation, rule or order issued which may be disclosed as a routine pursuant thereto, the relevant records Under security safeguards at use to interested persons who make in the system of records may be Washington National Records Center. inquiries about the claims program or referred, as a routine use, to the RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: individual claims therein, including appropriate agency, whether Federal, Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. but not limited to Members of State, local or foreign, charged with 301. Disposal of records will be made in Congress or congressional staff, staff the responsibility of investigating or accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 of the Office of Management and prosecuting such violation or charged when such records are determined no Budget, other persons interested in with enforcing or implementing the longer useful. the work of the Commission, and statute, or rule, regulation or order members of the news media. issued pursuant thereto. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: —Law enforcement: In the event that a —The information contained in this Administrative Office, Foreign Claims system of records maintained by system of records will be disclosed to Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, FCSC to carry out its functions the Office of Management and Budget, Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC indicates a violation or potential in connection with the review of 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975, Fax: violation of law, whether civil, private relief legislation as set forth in 202/616–6993. criminal or regulatory in nature, and OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage whether arising by general statute or NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: of the legislative coordination and particular program statute, or by clearance process as set forth in that Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code regulation, rule or order issued circular. of Federal Regulations. pursuant thereto, the relevant records —A record from this system of records CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: in the system of records may be may be disclosed as a routine use to Same as above. referred, as a routine use, to the a member of Congress or to a appropriate agency, whether federal, congressional staff member in RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: state, local or foreign, charged with response to an inquiry of the Individual on whom the record is the responsibility of investigating or congressional office made at the maintained. prosecuting such violation or charged

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31300 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

with enforcing or implementing the SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: —A record from this system of records statute, or rule, regulation or order Administrative Office, Foreign Claims may be disclosed as a routine use to issued pursuant thereto. Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, a member of Congress or to a —The information contained in this Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC congressional staff member in system of records will be disclosed to 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: response to an inquiry of the the Office of Management and Budget, 202/616–6993. congressional office made at the in connection with the review of request of the individual about whom NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: private relief legislation as set forth in the record is maintained. OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code —A record, or any facts derived of the legislative coordination and of Federal Regulations. therefrom, may be disclosed in a clearance process as set forth in that CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: proceeding before a court or circular. Same as above. adjudicative body before which the —A record from this system of records FCSC is authorized to appear or to the may be disclosed as a routine use to RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Department of Justice for use in such a member of Congress or to a Individual on whom record is proceeding when: congressional staff member in maintained, or his or her survivor(s), i. The FCSC, or any subdivision response to an inquiry of the where applicable. thereof, or congressional office made at the ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his request of the individual about whom JUSTICE/FCSC±6 or her official capacity, or the record is maintained. SYSTEM NAME: iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his or her individual capacity where the —A record, or any facts derived Correspondence (General)–FCSC. therefrom, may be disclosed in a Department of Justice has agreed to proceeding before a court or SYSTEM LOCATION: represent the employee, or adjudicative body before which the Foreign Claims Settlement iv. The United States, where the FCSC FCSC is authorized to appear or to the Commission, 600 E Street, Northwest, determines that the litigation is likely to Department of Justice for use in such Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a proceeding when: party to litigation or has an interest in CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE litigation and such records are i. The FCSC, or any subdivision SYSTEM: determined by the FCSC to be arguably thereof, or Generally, U.S. nationals suffering relevant and necessary to the litigation ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his property or financial losses in foreign and such disclosure is determined by or her official capacity, or countries. the FCSC to be a use compatible with iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: the purpose for which the records were or her individual capacity where the collected. Department of Justice has agreed to Correspondence containing names represent the employee, or and addresses of individuals, POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, iv. The United States, where the FCSC description and location of property or RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND determines that the litigation is likely to other types of losses. Inquiries generally DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a are related to claims, Commission STORAGE: party to litigation or has an interest in procedures and other related matters not Alphabetical in file folders. litigation and such records are included under the ‘‘Correspondence determined by the FCSC to be arguably (Inquiries concerning claims in foreign RETRIEVABILITY: relevant and necessary to the litigation countries)’’ system, JUSTICE/FCSC–7. By name. and such disclosure is determined by AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: the FCSC to be a use compatible with SAFEGUARDS: the purpose for which the records were 5 U.S.C. 301. Security guards in building. Records collected. PURPOSE(S): maintained in file cabinets in locked rooms accessible only to authorized To enable the Commission to POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, Commission personnel. RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND maintain a record of the correspondence DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: it processes. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

STORAGE: ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. 301. Disposal of records will be made in Paper records maintained in file SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 folders. —For dissemination of requested when such records are determined no RETRIEVABILITY: information to individuals by FCSC longer useful. Filed by claim number. (see system personnel. Correspondence may be SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: referred to other concerned agencies ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). Administrative Office, Foreign Claims on matters not within the jurisdiction Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, SAFEGUARDS: of FCSC. Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC —The information contained in this Under security safeguards at 20579. Telephone:202/616–6975. system of records will be disclosed to Washington National Records Center. Fax:202/616–6993. the Office of Management and Budget, RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: in connection with the review of NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. private relief legislation as set forth in Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code 301. Disposal of records will be made in OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage of Federal Regulations. accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 of the legislative coordination and when such records are determined no clearance process as set forth in that CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: longer useful. circular. Same as above.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31301

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: congressional staff member in JUSTICE/FCSC±8 response to an inquiry of the Individual on whom the record is SYSTEM NAME: maintained. congressional office made at the request of the individual about whom Cuba, Claims Against—FCSC. JUSTICE/FCSC±7 the record is maintained. SYSTEM LOCATION: SYSTEM NAME: —A record, or any facts derived therefrom, may be disclosed in a Washington National Records Center, Correspondence (Inquiries proceeding before a court or 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC Concerning Claims in Foreign adjudicative body before which the 20409. Countries)—FCSC. FCSC is authorized to appear or to the CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM LOCATION: Department of Justice for use in such SYSTEM: Foreign Claims Settlement proceeding when: U.S. nationals with claims for Commission, 600 E Street, Northwest, i. The FCSC, or any subdivision property losses, death and disability in Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. thereof, or Cuba arising on or after January 1, 1959. ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE or her official capacity, or CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: SYSTEM: iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his Claim application form containing U.S. nationals with claims for or her individual capacity where the name and address of claimant and property losses in foreign countries. Department of Justice has agreed to representative, if any; date and place of represent the employee, or birth or naturalization; nature and CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: iv. The United States, where the FCSC amount of claim; description, Correspondence containing names determines that the litigation is likely to ownership, and value of property; and and addresses of individuals and affect it or any of its subdivision, is a evidence to support claim, including description and location of property or party to litigation or has an interest in medical and death records in claims other types of losses. Inquiries generally litigation and such records are involving death and disability. are related to claims programs determined by the FCSC to be arguably administered by FCSC. Records also relevant and necessary to the litigation AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: include those transferred from State and such disclosure is determined by Title V, International Claims Department which may relate to such the FCSC to be sense use compatible Settlement Act of 1949, as amended. programs. with the purpose for which the records were collected. PURPOSES: AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: To enable the Commission to carry 5 U.S.C. 301, sec. 4(d), International POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, out its statutory responsibility to Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND determine the validity and amount of DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: amended, and sec. 216, War Claims Act the claims against Cuba submitted to it. of 1948, as amended. STORAGE: Alphabetical in file cabinets. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE PURPOSE: SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND To enable the Commission to RETRIEVABILITY: THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: maintain a record of the correspondence By name. —Adjudication of claims, issuance of it has processed. decisions as to the validity and SAFEGUARDS: amounts of claims and issuance of ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE Security guards in building. Records certifications to each individual SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND maintained in file cabinets in locked claimant as to amount determined by THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: rooms accessible only to authorized FCSC officials and personnel. Such —For dissemination of information by Commission personnel. amounts and copies of FCSC authorized FCSC personnel to RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: decisions were certified to the individuals making inquiries Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. Secretary of State pending conclusion concerning various claims programs 301. Disposal of records will be made in of any claims settlement agreement authorized under the International accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 between US and Cuba. Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as when such records are determined no —The information contained in this amended, the War Claims Act of 1948, longer useful. system of records is considered by the as amended, international claims Commission to be public information agreements, and for notification SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: which may be disclosed as a routine purposes for newly authorized claims Administrative Office, Foreign Claims use to interested persons who make programs in which individuals may Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, inquiries about the claims program or be eligible to participate. Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC individual claims therein, including —The information contained in this 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: but not limited to Members of system of records will be disclosed to 202/616–6993. Congress or congressional staff, staff the Office of Management and Budget, of the Office of Management and NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: in connection with the review of Budget, other persons interested in private relief legislation as set forth in Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code the work of the Commission, and OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage of Federal Regulations. members of the news media. of the legislative coordination and CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: —Law enforcement: In the event that a clearance process as set forth in that Same as above. system of records maintained by circular. FCSC to carry out its functions —A record from this system of records RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: indicates a violation or potential may be disclosed as a routine use to Individual on whom the record is violation of law, whether civil, a member of Congress or to a maintained. criminal or regulatory in nature, and

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31302 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

whether arising by general statute or index used for identification of claim ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE particular program statute, or by (see system ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND regulation, rule or order issued THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: SAFEGUARDS: pursuant thereto, the relevant records —Records were used for the purpose of in the system of records may be Under security safeguards at adjudicating claims of individuals; referred, as a routine use, to the Washington National Records Center. issuance of decisions concerning eligibility to receive compensation appropriate agency, whether Federal, RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: under the Act; notifications to State, local or foreign, charged with Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. the responsibility for investigating or claimants of rights to appeal; and 301. Disposal of records will be made in preparation by authorized FCSC prosecuting such violation or charged accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 with enforcing or implementing the personnel of certifications of awards when such records are determined no to Treasury Department for payment. statute, or rule, regulation or order longer useful. issued pursuant thereto. Names and other data furnished by —The information contained in this SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: claimants used for verifying citizenship status with INS. system of records will be disclosed to Administrative Office, Foreign Claims the Office of Management and Budget, —The information contained in this Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, system of records is considered by the in connection with the review of Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC private relief legislation as set forth in Commission to be public information 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: which may be disclosed as a routine OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage 202/616–6993. use to interested persons who make of the legislative coordination and inquiries about the claims program or clearance process as set forth in that NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: individual claims therein, including circular. Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code but not limited to Members of —A record from this system of records of Federal Regulations. Congress or congressional staff, staff may be disclosed as a routine use to CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: of the Office of Management and a member of Congress or to a Budget, other persons interested in congressional staff member in Same as above. the work of the Commission, and response to an inquiry of the RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: members of the news media. congressional office made at the Individual on whom the record is —Law enforcement: In the event that a request of the individual about whom maintained. system of records maintained by the record is maintained. FCSC to carry out its functions JUSTICE/FCSC±9 —A record, or any facts derived indicates a violation or potential therefrom, may be disclosed in a SYSTEM NAME: violation of law, whether civil, proceeding before a court or criminal or regulatory in nature, and adjudicative body before which the Czechoslovakia, Claims Against (2nd Program)—FCSC. whether arising by general statute or FCSC is authorized to appear or to the particular program statute, or by Department of Justice for use in such SYSTEM LOCATION: regulation, rule or order issued proceeding when: Washington National Records Center, pursuant thereto, the relevant records i. The FCSC, or any subdivision 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC in the system of records may be thereof, or 20409. referred, as a routine use, to the ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his appropriate agency, whether Federal, or her official capacity, or CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: State, local or foreign, charged with iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his the responsibility of investigating or U.S. nationals with claims for or her individual capacity where the prosecuting such violation or charged property losses in Czechoslovakia from Department of Justice has agreed to with enforcing or implementing the August 9,1958, to February 2, 1982. represent the employee, or statute, or rule, regulation or order iv. The United States, where the FCSC CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: issued pursuant thereto. determines that the litigation is likely to Claim application form containing —The information contained in this affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a name and address of claimant and system of records will be disclosed to party to litigation or has an interest in representative, if any; date and place of the Office of Management and Budget, litigation and such records are birth or naturalization; nature and in connection with the review of determined by the FCSC to be arguably amount of claim; description, private relief legislation as set forth in relevant and necessary to the litigation ownership, and value of property; and OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage and such disclosure is determined by evidence to support claim for the of the legislative coordination and the FCSC to be a use compatible with purpose of receiving compensation. clearance process as set forth in that the purpose for which the records were circular. collected. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: —A record from this system of records Czechoslovakian Claims Settlement may be disclosed as a routine use to POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, Act of 1981 (22 U.S.C. note prec. 1642), a member of Congress or to a RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND congressional staff member in DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: and the U.S.-Czechoslovakian Claims Settlement Agreement of February 2, response to an inquiry of the STORAGE: 1982. congressional office made at the Paper records maintained in file request of the individual about whom folders. PURPOSE: the record is maintained. To enable the Commission to carry —A record, or any facts derived RETRIEVABILITY: out its statutory responsibility to therefrom, may be disclosed in a Filed numerically by claim number. determine the validity and amount of proceeding before a court or File Folders retrieved from Records the claims against Czechoslovakia adjudicative body before which the Center by claim number. Alphabetical submitted to it. FCSC is authorized to appear or to the

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.051 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31303

Department of Justice for use in such SYSTEM LOCATION: ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his proceeding when: Washington National Records Center, or her official capacity, or i. The FCSC, or any subdivision 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his thereof, or 20409. or her individual capacity where the ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his Department of Justice has agreed to CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE represent the employee, or or her official capacity, or SYSTEM: iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his iv. The United States, where the FCSC U.S. nationals who suffered certain determines that the litigation is likely to or her individual capacity where the property losses in East Germany. Department of Justice has agreed to affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a represent the employee, or CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: party to litigation or has an interest in iv. The United States, where the FCSC Claims registration form containing litigation and such records are determines that the litigation is likely to name and address of claimant and determined by the FCSC to be arguably affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a representative, if any; date and place of relevant and necessary to the litigation party to litigation or has an interest in birth or naturalization; nature and and such disclosure is determined by litigation and such records are amount of claim; and description, the FCSC to be a use compatible with determined by the FCSC to be arguably ownership, and value of property. the purpose for which the records were relevant and necessary to the litigation collected. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: and such disclosure is determined by Title I, International Claims POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, the FCSC to be a use compatible with RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND Settlement Act of 1949, as amended. the purpose for which the records were DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: collected. PURPOSE: STORAGE: To enable the Commission to conduct POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, Numerical order in file folders. Cross- RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND an evaluation of potential claims against reference alphabetical index (see system DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: the former German Democratic ‘‘JUSTICE/FCSC–1’’ above). Republic, in order to determine whether STORAGE: sufficient claims existed to justify RETRIEVABILITY: Paper records maintained in file enactment of legislation authorizing a By name. (see system ‘‘JUSTICE/ folders. formal claims adjudication program. FCSC–1’’ above).

RETRIEVABILITY: ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SAFEGUARDS: Filed numerically by claim number. SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND Under security safeguards at File folders retrieved from Records THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: Washington National Records Center. Center by claim number. Alphabetical —Information received from individuals RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: index used for identification of claim on registration forms was used to (see system ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). evaluate whether to propose Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. enactment of legislation to authorize a 301. Disposal of records will be made in SAFEGUARDS: formal claims adjudication program. accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 Under security safeguards at —Registration forms filed were also when such records are determined no Washington National Records Center. used by FCSC personnel in the longer useful. System manager(s) and distribution of formal claim address: Administrative Office, Foreign RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: application forms once a formal Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. claims adjudication program was Street, Northwest, Suite 6002, 301. Disposal of records will be made in authorized. Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: 202/ accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 —The information contained in this 616–6975. Fax: 202/616–6993. when such records are determined no system of records will be disclosed to NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: longer useful. the Office of Management and Budget, in connection with the review of Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: private relief legislation as set forth in of Federal Regulations. Administrative Office, Foreign Claims OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, of the legislative coordination and Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC clearance process as set forth in that Same as above. 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: circular. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: 202/616–6993. —A record from this system of records Individual on whom the record is may be disclosed as a routine use to maintained. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: a member of Congress or to a Set forth in part 504 of Title 45, Code congressional staff member in JUSTICE/FCSCÐ11 of Federal Regulations. response to an inquiry of the SYSTEM NAME: congressional office made at the CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: request of the individual about whom Federal Republic of Germany, Same as above. the record is maintained. Questionnaire Inquiries From—FCSC. —A record, or any facts derived RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: SYSTEM LOCATION: therefrom, may be disclosed in a Washington National Records Center, Individual on whom the record is proceeding before a court or 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC maintained. adjudicative body before which the 20409. JUSTICE/FCSCÐ10 FCSC is authorized to appear or to the Department of Justice for use in such CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM NAME: proceeding when: SYSTEM: East Germany, Registration of Claims i. The FCSC, or any subdivision Individuals suffering losses in Eastern Against—FCSC. thereof, or European countries, including Germany.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31304 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: iv. The United States, where the FCSC representative, if any; date and place of Questionnaires from Federal Republic determines that the litigation is likely to birth or naturalization; nature and of Germany (Ausgleichsamt) containing affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a amount of claim; description, name, address, date and place of birth party to litigation or has an interest in ownership, and value of property; and or naturalization; description and litigation and such records are evidence to support claim for the location of property. Such information determined by the FCSC to be arguably purpose of receiving compensation. was furnished to Federal Republic of relevant and necessary to the litigation AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: Germany by U.S. residents who filed and such disclosure is determined by claims under the West German Federal the FCSC to be a use compatible with Title III, International Claims Compensation Laws (BEG). the purpose for which the records were Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, collected. and U.S.-Hungarian Claims Agreement AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: of March 6, 1973. 5 U.S.C. 301. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND PURPOSES: PURPOSE: DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: To enable the Commission to carry To maintain a file on requests for STORAGE: out its statutory responsibility to information from Germany that have Paper records in file folders. determine the validity and amount of been received and acted upon. the claims against Hungary submitted to RETRIEVABILITY: it. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE By name. SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: SAFEGUARDS: SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: —To inform Federal Republic Of Under security safeguards at Germany (FRG) Equalization of Washington National Records Center. —Records were used for the purpose of Burdens offices whether individuals adjudicating claims of individuals; who filed claims for losses RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: issuance of decisions concerning compensable under the West German Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. eligibility to receive compensation Federal Compensation Laws also filed 301. Disposal of records will be made in under the Act; notifications to claims with the Foreign Claims accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 claimants of rights to appeal; and Settlement Commission under U.S. when such records are determined no preparation by authorized FCSC claims statutes and received longer useful. personnel of certifications of awards, compensation under such statutes for if any, to Treasury Department for the same losses. Information SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: payment. Names and other data furnished to FRG obtained from FCSC Administrative Office, Foreign Claims furnished by claimants used for decisions or claim applications from Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, verifying citizenship status with INS. individuals who filed claims with Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC —The information contained in this FCSC. 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. system of records is considered by the —The information contained in this Commission to be public information NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: system of records will be disclosed to which may be disclosed as a routine the Office of Management and Budget, Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code use to interested persons who make in connection with the review of of Federal Regulations. inquiries about the claims program or private relief legislation as set forth in CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: individual claims therein, including OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage but not limited to Members of Same as above. of the legislative coordination and Congress or congressional staff, staff clearance process as set forth in that RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: of the Office of Management and circular. Questionnaire from Federal Republic Budget, other persons interested in —A record from this system of records of Germany (Equalization of Burdens the work of the Commission, and may be disclosed as a routine use to Offices). members of the news media. a member of Congress or to a —Law enforcement: In the event that a congressional staff member in JUSTICE/FCSCÐ12 system of records maintained by response to an inquiry of the FCSC to carry out its functions SYSTEM NAME: congressional office made at the indicates a violation or potential request of the individual about whom Hungary, Claims Against (2nd violation of law, whether civil, the record is maintained. Program)—FCSC. criminal or regulatory in nature, and —A record, or any facts derived SYSTEM LOCATION: whether arising by general statute or therefrom, may be disclosed in a particular program statute, or by Washington National Records Center, proceeding before a court or regulation, rule or order issued 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC adjudicative body before which the pursuant thereto, the relevant records 20409. FCSC is authorized to appear or to the in the system of records may be Department of Justice for use in such CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE referred, as a routine use, to the proceeding when: SYSTEM: appropriate agency, whether Federal, i. The FCSC, or any subdivision U.S. nationals with claims for State, local or foreign, charged with thereof, or property losses in Hungary that arose the responsibility of investigating or ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his between August 9, 1955, and March 6, prosecuting such violation or charged or her official capacity, or 1973. with enforcing or implementing the iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his statute, or rule, regulation or order or her individual capacity where the CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: issued pursuant thereto. Department of Justice has agreed to Claim application form containing —The information contained in this represent the employee, or name and address of claimant and system of records will be disclosed to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31305

the Office of Management and Budget, Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC claimants of rights to appeal; and in connection with the review of 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: preparation by authorized FCSC private relief legislation as set forth in 202/616–6993. personnel of certifications of awards, OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage if any, to Treasury Department for of the legislative coordination and NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: payment. Names and other data clearance process as set forth in that Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code furnished by claimants used for circular. of Federal Regulations. verifying citizenship status with INS. —The information contained in this —A record from this system of records CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: may be disclosed as a routine use to system of records is considered by the a member of Congress or to a Same as above. Commission to be public information congressional staff member in RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: which may be disclosed as a routine use to interested persons who make response to an inquiry of the Individual on whom the record is inquiries about the claims program or congressional office made at the maintained. request of the individual about whom individual claims therein, including the record is maintained. JUSTICE/FCSCÐ13 but not limited to Members of —A record, or any facts derived Congress or congressional staff, staff therefrom, may be disclosed in a SYSTEM NAME: of the Office of Management and proceeding before a court or Italy, Claims Against (2nd Program)— Budget, other persons interested in adjudicative body before which the FCSC. the work of the Commission, and members of the news media. FCSC is authorized to appear or to the SYSTEM LOCATION: Department of Justice for use in such —Law enforcement: In the event that a Washington National Records Center, proceeding when: system of records maintained by 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC FCSC to carry out its functions i. The FCSC, or any subdivision 20409. indicates a violation or potential thereof, or violation of law, whether civil, ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE criminal or regulatory in nature, and or her official capacity, or SYSTEM: whether arising by general statute or iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his U.S. nationals with claims against particular program statute, or by or her individual capacity where the Italy for certain property losses regulation, rule or order issued Department of Justice has agreed to attributable to military action by Italian pursuant thereto, the relevant records represent the employee, or forces during World War II. Benefits in the system of records may be iv. The United States, where the FCSC extended to U.S. nationals who acquired referred, as a routine use, to the determines that the litigation is likely to their U.S. citizenship after the date of appropriate agency, whether federal, affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a their property losses, to individuals who state, local or foreign, charged with party to litigation or has an interest in did not file under the 1st Italian Claims the responsibility of investigating or litigation and such records are Program, and to individuals with claims prosecuting such violation or charged determined by the FCSC to be arguably for property losses arising in territory with enforcing or implementing the relevant and necessary to the litigation ceded pursuant to the Treaty of Peace statute, or rule, regulation or order and such disclosure is determined by with Italy, which claims had been issued pursuant thereto. the FCSC to be a use compatible with excluded under the 1st program. —The information contained in this the purpose for which the records were CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: system of records will be disclosed to collected. the Office of Management and Budget, Claim application forms containing POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, in connection with the review of name and address of claimant and private relief legislation as set forth in RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND representative, if any; date and place of DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage birth or naturalization; nature and of the legislative coordination and STORAGE: amount of claim; description, clearance process as set forth in that Paper records maintained in file ownership, and value of property; and circular. folders. evidence to support claim for the —A record from this system of records purpose of receiving compensation. RETRIEVABILITY: may be disclosed as a routine use to a member of Congress or to a Filed numerically by claim number. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: congressional staff member in Alphabetical index used for Title III, International Claims response to an inquiry of the identification of claim (see system Settlement Act of 1949, as amended by congressional office made at the ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). Pub. L. 85–604. request of the individual about whom SAFEGUARDS: PURPOSES: the record is maintained. Under security safeguards at To enable the Commission to carry —A record, or any facts derived Washington National Records Center. out its statutory responsibility to therefrom, may be disclosed in a determine the validity and amount of proceeding before a court or RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: the claims against Italy submitted to it. adjudicative body before which the Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. FCSC is authorized to appear or to the 301. Disposal of records will be made in ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE Department of Justice for use in such accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND proceeding when: when such records are determined no THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: i. The FCSC, or any subdivision longer useful. —Records were used for the purpose of thereof, or adjudicating claims of individuals; ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: issuance of decisions concerning or her official capacity, or Administrative Office, Foreign Claims eligibility to receive compensation iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, under the Act; notifications to or her individual capacity where the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31306 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Department of Justice has agreed to CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE adjudicative body before which the represent the employee, or SYSTEM: FCSC is authorized to appear or to the iv. The United States, where the FCSC Inhabitants of Micronesia, including Department of Justice for use in such determines that the litigation is likely to U.S. nationals, who suffered damages to proceeding when: affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a property, disability and death arising i. The FCSC, or any subdivision party to litigation or has an interest in out of military operations during World thereof, or litigation and such records are War II, and arising during the period ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his determined by the FCSC to be arguably from the dates of the securing of the or her official capacity, or relevant and necessary to the litigation various islands of Micronesia by Allied iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his and such disclosure is determined by forces up until July 1, 1951. or her individual capacity where the the FCSC to be a use compatible with CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Department of Justice has agreed to the purpose for which the records were Claim application forms containing represent the employee, or collected. name and address of claimant and iv. The United States, where the FCSC representative, if any; date and place of determines that the litigation is likely to POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND birth or naturalization; nature and party to litigation or has an interest in DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: amount of claim; description, ownership, and value of property; and litigation and such records are STORAGE: Paper records maintained in file determined by the FCSC to be arguably folders. evidence to support claim for the purpose of receiving compensation. relevant and necessary to the litigation RETRIEVABILITY: and such disclosure is determined by AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: the FCSC to be a use compatible with Filed numerically by claim number. Micronesian Claims Act of 1971. the purpose for which the records were File folders retrieved from Records collected. Center by claim number. Alphabetical PURPOSE(S): index used for identification of claim To enable the Micronesian Claims POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, (see system ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). Commission (MCC), under the RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND supervision of the FCSC, to carry out its DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: SAFEGUARDS: statutory responsibility to determine the STORAGE: Under security safeguards at validity and amount of the claims Paper records maintained in file Washington National Records Center. against Italy submitted to it. folders. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE RETRIEVABILITY: Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: Filed numerically by claim number. 301. Disposal of records will be made in Alphabetical index used to identify accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 —Records were used for the purpose of adjudicating claims of individuals; claim (see system ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ when such records are determined no above). longer useful. This system of records issuance of decisions concerning was retired to the Washington National eligibility to receive compensation SAFEGUARDS: Records Center after the completion of under authority of the Micronesian Under security safeguards at the claims program on December 24, Claims Act of 1971; notifications to Washington National Records Center. 1971. claimants of rights to appeal; and preparation by authorized personnel RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: of Foreign Claims Settlement Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. Administrative Office, Foreign Claims Commission assigned to duty in the 301. Disposal of records will be made in Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC and locally hired employees of the when such records are determined no 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: MCC of certifications of awards, if longer useful. 202/616–6993. any, to Secretary of the Interior for payment. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: —The information contained in this Administrative Office, Foreign Claims Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code system of records will be disclosed to Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, of Federal Regulations. the Office of Management and Budget, Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC in connection with the review of 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: private relief legislation as set forth in 202/616–6993. Same as above. OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage of the legislative coordination and NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: clearance process as set forth in that Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code Individual on whom the record is circular. of Federal Regulations. —A record from this system of records maintained. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: may be disclosed as a routine use to JUSTICE/FCSC±14 a member of Congress or to a Same as above. congressional staff member in RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: SYSTEM NAME: response to an inquiry of the Individual on whom the record is Micronesia, Claims Arising In—FCSC. congressional office made at the maintained. request of the individual about whom SYSTEM LOCATION: the record is maintained. JUSTICE/FCSC±15 Washington National Records Center, —A record, or any facts derived 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC therefrom, may be disclosed in a SYSTEM NAME: 20409. proceeding before a court or Poland, Claims Against—FCSC.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.056 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31307

SYSTEM LOCATION: particular program statute, or by SAFEGUARDS: Washington National Records Center, regulation, rule or order issued Under security safeguards at 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC pursuant thereto, the relevant records Washington National Records Center. 20409. in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the RETENTION AND DISPOSAL CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE appropriate agency, whether Federal, Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. SYSTEM: State, local or foreign, charged with 301. Disposal of records will be made in U.S. nationals with claims for the responsibility of investigating or accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 property losses in Poland due to prosecuting such violation or charged when such records are determined no nationalization or other taking of such with enforcing or implementing the longer useful. This system of records property. statute, or rule, regulation or order was retired to the Washington National CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: issued pursuant thereto. Records Center after the completion of the claims program on March 31, 1966. Claim application form containing —The information contained in this system of records will be disclosed to name and address of claimant and SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: the Office of Management and Budget, representative, if any; date and place of Administrative Office, Foreign Claims birth or naturalization; nature and in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, amount of claim; description, Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC ownership, and value of property; and OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage of the legislative coordination and 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: evidence to support claim for the 202/616–6993. purpose of receiving compensation. clearance process as set forth in that circular. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: —A record from this system of records may be disclosed as a routine use to Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code Title I, International Claims of Federal Regulations. Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, a member of Congress or to a and U.S.-Poland Claims Agreement of congressional staff member in CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: July 16, 1960. response to an inquiry of the Same as above. congressional office made at the PURPOSE(S): request of the individual about whom RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: To enable the Commission to carry the record is maintained. Individual on whom the record is out its statutory responsibility to —A record, or any facts derived maintained. determine the validity and amount of therefrom, may be disclosed in a the claims against Poland submitted to proceeding before a court or JUSTICE/FCSC±16 it. adjudicative body before which the SYSTEM NAME: FCSC is authorized to appear or to the ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE Department of Justice for use in such Prisoners of War (Pueblo)—FCSC. SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: proceeding when: SYSTEM LOCATION: —Records were used for the purpose of i. The FCSC, or any subdivision Washington National Records Center, adjudicating claims of individuals; thereof, or 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC issuance of decisions concerning ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his 20409. eligibility to receive compensation or her official capacity, or iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE under the Act; notifications to or her individual capacity where the SYSTEM: claimants of rights to appeal; and Department of Justice has agreed to preparation by authorized FCSC Members of the U.S. Armed Forces represent the employee, or and civilian employees of the U.S. personnel of certifications of awards, iv. The United States, where the FCSC if any, to Treasury Department for Government assigned to duty on the determines that the litigation is likely to USS Pueblo who were captured by payment. Names and other data affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a furnished by claimants used for military forces of North Korea on party to litigation or has an interest in January 23, 1968, and held prisoner by verifying citizenship status with INS. litigation and such records are —The information contained in this such forces. determined by the FCSC to be arguably system of records is considered by the relevant and necessary to the litigation CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Commission to be public information and such disclosure is determined by Claim application form containing which may be disclosed as a routine the FCSC to be a use compatible with name and address of claimant, date and use to interested persons who make the purpose for which the records were places of birth, branch of service and inquiries about the claims program or collected. military service number. In case of individual claims therein, including death, date, place and name of spouse, but not limited to Members of POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, names, address and date of birth of RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND Congress or congressional staff, staff surviving children, name and address of DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: of the Office of Management and parents and Veterans Administration Budget, other persons interested in STORAGE: (VA) claim number. Proof of death if no the work of the Commission, and Paper records maintained in file VA claim. members of the news media. folders. —Law enforcement: In the event that a AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: system of records maintained by RETRIEVABILITY: Section 6(e), War Claims Act of 1948, FCSC to carry out its functions Filed numerically by claim number. as amended. indicates a violation or potential File folders retrieved from Records violation of law, whether civil, Center by claim number. Alphabetical PURPOSES: criminal or regulatory in nature, and index used for identification of claim To enable the Commission to carry whether arising by general statute or (see system ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). out its statutory responsibility to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31308 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices determine the validity and amount of relevant and necessary to the litigation names, addresses and dates of birth of the claims submitted to it. and such disclosure is determined by surviving children, name and address of the FCSC to be a use compatible with parents and Veterans Administration ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE the purpose for which the records were claim number. SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND collected. THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: —Records were used for adjudication of POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, Sect. 6(f), War Claims Act of 1948, as claims for detention benefits, issuance RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND amended. of decisions concerning eligibility of DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: PURPOSES: claimant to receive compensation; STORAGE: notifications to claimants of rights to To enable the Commission to carry Paper records in file folders. appeal; and preparation by authorized out its statutory responsibility to Commission personnel of RETRIEVABILITY: determine the validity and amount of the claims submitted to it. certifications of awards to Treasury By claim number. Cross-referenced by Department for payment. Verifications alphabetical index cards which contain ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE from State Department include names claim numbers (see system ‘‘Justice/ SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND and addresses and inclusive dates of FCSC–1’’ above). THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: detention. —Records used for adjudication of —The information contained in this SAFEGUARDS: claims for detention benefits; issuance system of records is considered by the Under security safeguards at the of decisions concerning eligibility of Commission to be public information Washington National Records Center. claimants to receive compensation; which may be disclosed as a routine notifications to claimants of rights of RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: use to interested persons who make appeal; and preparation of inquiries about the claims program or Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. certification of awards to Treasury individual claims therein, including 301. Disposal of records will be made in Department for payment by but not limited to Members of accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 authorized Commission personnel. Congress or congressional staff, staff when such records are determined no Verification of captured status of the Office of Management and longer useful. obtained from rosters or casualty Budget, other persons interested in SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: reports furnished by the respective the work of the Commission, and armed service branches. members of the news media. Administrative Office, Foreign Claims —The information contained in this —The information contained in this Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, system of records is considered by the system of records will be disclosed to Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC Commission to be public information the Office of Management and Budget, 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: which may be disclosed as a routine in connection with the review of 202/616–6993. use to interested persons who make private relief legislation as set forth in NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: inquiries about the claims program or OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage individual claims therein, including Set forth in part 504 of Title 45, Code of the legislative coordination and but not limited to Members of of Federal Regulations. clearance process as set forth in that Congress or congressional staff, staff circular. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: of the Office of Management and —A record from this system of records Same as above. Budget, other persons interested in may be disclosed as a routine use to the work of the Commission, and a member of Congress or to a RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: members of the news media. congressional staff member in Individual on whom the record is —The information contained in this response to an inquiry of the maintained. system of records will be disclosed to congressional office made at the the Office of Management and Budget, request of the individual about whom JUSTICE/FCSC±17 in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in the record is maintained. SYSTEM NAME: —A record, or any facts derived OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage therefrom, may be disclosed in a Prisoners of War (Vietnam)—FCSC. of the legislative coordination and proceeding before a court or SYSTEM LOCATION: clearance process as set forth in that adjudicative body before which the circular. Washington National Records Center, FCSC is authorized to appear or to the —A record from this system of records 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC Department of Justice for use in such may be disclosed as a routine use to 20409. proceeding when: a member of Congress or to a i. The FCSC, or any subdivision CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE congressional staff member in thereof, or SYSTEM: response to an inquiry of the ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his Members of Armed Forces of the congressional office made at the or her official capacity, or United States who were captured and request of the individual about whom iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his held by a hostile force during the the record is maintained. or her individual capacity where the Vietnam conflict beginning February 28, —A record, or any facts derived Department of Justice has agreed to 1961. therefrom, may be disclosed in a represent the employee, or proceeding before a court or iv. The United States, where the FCSC CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: adjudicative body before which the determines that the litigation is likely to Claim application form containing FCSC is authorized to appear or to the affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a name and address of claimant; date and Department of Justice for use in such party to litigation or has an interest in place of birth, branch of service and proceeding when: litigation and such records are military service number. In case of i. The FCSC, or any subdivision determined by the FCSC to be arguably death, date, place, name of spouse, thereof, or

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31309

ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE appropriate agency, whether Federal, or her official capacity, or SYSTEM: State, local or foreign, charged with iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his U.S. nationals with claims for the responsibility of investigating or or her individual capacity where the property losses in Rumania which arose prosecuting such violation or charged Department of Justice has agreed to between August 9, 1955 and March 30, with enforcing or implementing the represent the employee, or 1960. statute, or rule, regulation or order iv. The United States, where the FCSC issued pursuant thereto. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: determines that the litigation is likely to —The information contained in this Claim application form containing affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a system of records will be disclosed to name and address of claimant and party to litigation or has an interest in the Office of Management and Budget, representative, if any; date and place of litigation and such records are in connection with the review of birth or naturalization; nature and determined by the FCSC to be arguably private relief legislation as set forth in amount of claim; description, relevant and necessary to the litigation OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage ownership, and value of property; and and such disclosure is determined by of the legislative coordination and evidence to support claim for the the FCSC to be a use compatible with clearance process as set forth in that purpose of receiving compensation. the purpose for which the records were circular. collected. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: —A record from this system of records may be disclosed as a routine use to POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, Title III, International Claims RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, a member of Congress or to a DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: and the US-Rumania Claims Agreement congressional staff member in of March 30, 1960. response to an inquiry of the STORAGE: congressional office made at the Paper records maintained in file PURPOSE: request of the individual about whom folders. To enable the Commission to carry the record is maintained. out its statutory responsibility to RETRIEVABILITY: —A record, or any facts derived determine the validity and amount of therefrom, may be disclosed in a Filed numerically by claim number. the claims against Rumania submitted to proceeding before a court or File folders retrieved from Records it. adjudicative body before which the Center by claim number. Alphabetical ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE FCSC is authorized to appear or to the index used for identification of claim Department of Justice for use in such (see system ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: proceeding when: SAFEGUARDS: —Records were used for the purpose of i. The FCSC, or any subdivision Under security safeguards at adjudicating claims of individuals; thereof, or Washington National Records Center. issuance of decisions concerning ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his eligibility to receive compensation or her official capacity, or RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: under the Act; notifications to iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. claimants of rights to appeal; and or her individual capacity where the 301. Disposal of records will be made in preparation by authorized FCSC Department of Justice has agreed to accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 personnel of certifications of awards, represent the employee, or when such records are determined no if any, to the Treasury Department for iv. The United States, where the FCSC longer useful. payment. Names and other data determines that the litigation is likely to furnished by claimants used for SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a verifying citizenship status with INS. party to litigation or has an interest in Administrative Office, Foreign Claims —The information contained in this litigation and such records are Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, system of records is considered by the determined by the FCSC to be arguably Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC Commission to be public information relevant and necessary to the litigation 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: which may be disclosed as a routine and such disclosure is determined by 202/616–6993. use to interested persons who make the FCSC to be a use compatible with NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: inquiries about the claims program or the purpose for which the records were Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code individual claims therein, including collected. of Federal Regulations. but not limited to Members of Congress or congressional staff, staff POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: of the Office of Management and DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Same as above. Budget, other persons interested in the work of the Commission, and STORAGE: RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: members of the news media. Paper records maintained in file Individual on whom the record is —Law enforcement: In the event that a folders. maintained. system of records maintained by FCSC to carry out its functions RETRIEVABILITY: JUSTICE/FCSC'18 indicates a violation or potential Filed numerically by claim number. SYSTEM NAME: violation of law, whether civil, File folders retrieved from Records Rumania, Claims Against (2nd criminal or regulatory in nature, and Center by claim number. Alphabetical Program)—FCSC. whether arising by general statute or index used for identification of claim particular program statute, or by (see system ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). SYSTEM LOCATION: regulation, rule or order issued Washington National Records Center, pursuant thereto, the relevant records SAFEGUARDS: 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC in the system of records may be Under security safeguards at 20409. referred, as a routine use, to the Washington National Records Center.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31310 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE Department of Justice for use in such Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND proceeding when: THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: 301. Disposal of records will be made in i. The FCSC, or any subdivision —Records were used for the purpose of accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 thereof, or adjudicating claims of individuals; when such records are determined no ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his longer useful. This system of records issuance of decisions concerning eligibility to receive compensation or her official capacity, or was retired to the Washington National iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his Records Center after the completion of under the Act; notifications to claimants of rights to appeal; and or her individual capacity where the the claims program on December 25, Department of Justice has agreed to 1971. preparation by authorized FCSC personnel of certifications of awards, represent the employee, or SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: if any, to the Treasury Department for iv. The United States, where the FCSC Administrative Office, Foreign Claims payment. Names and other data determines that the litigation is likely to Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, furnished by claimants used for affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC verifying citizenship status with INS. party to litigation or has an interest in 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: —The information contained in this litigation and such records are 202/616–6993. system of records is considered by the determined by the FCSC to be arguably Commission to be public information relevant and necessary to the litigation NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: which may be disclosed as a routine and such disclosure is determined by Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code use to interested persons who make the FCSC to be a use compatible with of Federal Regulations. inquiries about the claims program or the purpose for which the records were individual claims therein, including collected. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: but not limited to Members of Same as above. Congress or congressional staff, staff POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, of the Office of Management and RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Budget, other persons interested in DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Individual on whom the record is the work of the Commission, and STORAGE: maintained. members of the news media. —Law enforcement: In the event that a Paper records maintained in file JUSTICE/FCSC±19 system of records maintained by folders. SYSTEM NAME: FCSC to carry out its functions RETRIEVABILITY: indicates a violation or potential Soviet Union, Claims Against—FCSC. violation of law, whether civil, Filed numerically by claim number. File folders retrieved from Records SYSTEM LOCATION: criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or Center by claim number. Alphabetical Washington National Records Center, particular program statute, or by index used for identification of claim 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC regulation, rule or order issued (see system ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). 20409. pursuant thereto, the relevant records SAFEGUARDS: CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE in the system of records may be SYSTEM: referred, as a routine use, to the Under security safeguards at Washington National Records Center. U.S. nationals with claims for loss of appropriate agency, whether Federal, property in the Soviet Union prior to State, local or foreign, charged with RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: November 16, 1933, and claims by the responsibility of investigating or Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. individuals based upon liens acquired prosecuting such violation or charged 301. Disposal of records will be made in with respect to property in the U.S. with enforcing or implementing the accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 assigned to U.S. Government by the statute, or rule, regulation or order when such records are determined no Soviet Government under Litvinov issued pursuant thereto. longer useful. This system of records Assignment of November 16, 1933. —The information contained in this system of records will be disclosed to was retired to the Washington National CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: the Office of Management and Budget, Records Center after the completion of Claim application form containing in connection with the review of the claims program on August 9, 1959. private relief legislation as set forth in name and address of claimant and SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: representative, if any; date and place of OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage birth or naturalization; nature and of the legislative coordination and Administrative Office, Foreign Claims amount of claim; description, clearance process as set forth in that Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, ownership, and value of property; and circular. Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC evidence to support claim for the —A record from this system of records 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: purpose of receiving compensation. may be disclosed as a routine use to 202/616–6993. a member of Congress or to a NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: congressional staff member in Title III, International Claims response to an inquiry of the Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code Settlement Act of 1949, as amended. congressional office made at the of Federal Regulations. request of the individual about whom PURPOSE(S): the record is maintained. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: To enable the Commission to carry —A record, or any facts derived Same as above. out its statutory responsibility to therefrom, may be disclosed in a determine the validity and amount of proceeding before a court or RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: the claims against the Soviet Union adjudicative body before which the Individual on whom the record is submitted to it. FCSC is authorized to appear or to the maintained.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.062 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31311

JUSTICE/FCSCÐ20 FCSC to carry out its functions RETRIEVABILITY: indicates a violation or potential SYSTEM NAME: Filed numerically by claim number. violation of law, whether civil, File folders retrieved from Records Yugoslavia, Claims Against (2nd criminal or regulatory in nature, and Center by claim number. Alphabetical Program)—FCSC. whether arising by general statute or index used for identification of claim SYSTEM LOCATION: particular program statute, or by (see system ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). Washington National Records Center, regulation, rule or order issued SAFEGUARDS: 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC pursuant thereto, the relevant records 20409. in the system of records may be Under security safeguards at referred, as a routine use, to the Washington National Records Center. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE appropriate agency, whether Federal, RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: SYSTEM: State, local or foreign, charged with U.S. nationals with claims for the responsibility of investigating or Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. property losses in Yugoslavia which prosecuting such violation or charged 301. Disposal of records will be made in arose between July 19,1948, and with enforcing or implementing the accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 November 5, 1964. statute, or rule, regulation or order when such records are determined no issued pursuant thereto. longer useful. This system of records CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: was retired to the Washington National Claim application form containing —The information contained in this system of records will be disclosed to Records Center after the completion of name and address of claimant and the claims program on July 15, 1969. representative, if any; date and place of the Office of Management and Budget, birth or naturalization; nature and in connection with the review of SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: amount of claim; description, private relief legislation as set forth in Administrative Office, Foreign Claims ownership, and value of property; and OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, evidence to support claim for the of the legislative coordination and Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC purpose of receiving compensation. clearance process as set forth in that 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: circular. 202/616–6993. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: —A record from this system of records Title I, International Claims may be disclosed as a routine use to NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, a member of Congress or to a Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code and U.S.-Yugoslavia Claims Agreement congressional staff member in of Federal Regulations. of November 5, 1964. response to an inquiry of the congressional office made at the CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: PURPOSE: request of the individual about whom Same as above. To enable the Commission to carry the record is maintained. out its statutory responsibility to RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: —A record, or any facts derived determine the validity and amount of Individual on whom the record is therefrom, may be disclosed in a the claims against Yugoslavia submitted maintained. proceeding before a court or to it. adjudicative body before which the JUSTICE/FCSC±21 ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE FCSC is authorized to appear or to the SYSTEM NAME: SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND Department of Justice for use in such THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: proceeding when: German Democratic Republic, Claims —Records were used for the purpose of i. The FCSC, or any subdivision Against—FCSC. adjudicating claims of individuals; thereof, or SYSTEM LOCATION: issuance of decisions concerning ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his Washington National Records Center, eligibility to receive compensation or her official capacity, or under the Act; notifications to 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his claimants of rights to appeal; and 20409. or her individual capacity where the preparation by authorized FCSC Department of Justice has agreed to CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE personnel of certifications of awards, represent the employee, or SYSTEM: if any, to Treasury Department for U.S. nationals with claims for payment. Names and other data iv. The United States, where the FCSC determines that the litigation is likely to property losses in the German furnished by claimants used for Democratic Republic which arose verifying citizenship status with INS. affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a party to litigation or has an interest in between May 8, 1945, and October 18, —The information contained in this 1976. system of records is considered by the litigation and such records are Commission to be public information determined by the FCSC to be arguably CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: relevant and necessary to the litigation which may be disclosed as a routine Claim application form containing and such disclosure is determined by use to interested persons who make name and address of claimant and the FCSC to be a use compatible with inquiries about the claims program or representative, if any; date and place of the purpose for which the records were individual claims therein, including birth or naturalization; nature and collected. but not limited to Members of amount of claim; description, Congress or congressional staff, staff POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, ownership and value of property; and of the Office of Management and RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND evidence to support claim for the Budget, other persons interested in DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: purpose of receiving compensation. the work of the Commission, and members of the news media. STORAGE: AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: —Law enforcement: In the event that a Paper records maintained in file Title VI, International Claims system of records maintained by folders. Settlement Act of 1949, as amended.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.064 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31312 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

PURPOSE: i. The FCSC, or any subdivision CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE To enable the Commission to carry thereof, or SYSTEM: out its statutory responsibility to ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his U.S. nationals with claims for determine the validity and amount of or her official capacity, or property losses during World War II. the claims against the German iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Democratic Republic submitted to it. or her individual capacity where the Claim application forms containing Department of Justice has agreed to ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE name and address of claimant and represent the employee, or SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND representative, if any; date and place of iv. The United States, where the FCSC THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: birth or naturalization; nature and is determines that the litigation is likely —Records were used for the purpose of amount of claim; description, to affect it or any of its subdivisions, is adjudicating claims of individuals; ownership, and value of property; and a party to litigation or has an interest in issuance of decisions concerning evidence to support claim for the litigation and such records are eligibility to receive compensation purpose of receiving compensation. under the Act; notification to determined by the FCSC to be arguably claimants of rights to appeal; and relevant and necessary to the litigation AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: preparation of certifications of and such disclosure is determined by Title II of War Claims Act of 1948, as awards, if any, to Treasury the FCSC to be a use compatible with amended. Department for payment. Names and the purpose for which the records were collected. PURPOSE(S): other data furnished by claimants To enable the Commission to carry used for verifying citizenship status POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, out its statutory responsibility to with INS. RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND determine the validity and amount of —The information contained in this DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM : the claims submitted to it. system of records is considered by the STORAGE: Commission to be public information ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE which may be disclosed as a routine Paper records maintained in file SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND use to interested persons who make folders. THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: inquiries about the claims program or RETRIEVABILITY: —Records were used for the purpose of individual claims therein, including adjudicating claims; issuance of but not limited to Members of Filed numerically by claim number. decisions concerning eligibility to Congress or congressional staff, staff Alphabetical index used for receive compensation under the Act; of the Office of Management and identification of claim (see system notifications to claimants of rights to Budget, other persons interested in ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). appeal; and preparation by authorized the work of the Commission, and SAFEGUARDS: FCSC personnel of transmittals of awards, if any, to Treasury members of the news media. Under security safeguards at —Law Enforcement: In the event that a Department for payment. Names and Washington National Records Center. system of records maintained by other data furnished by claimants FCSC to carry out its functions RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: used for verifying citizenship status indicates a violation or potential Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. with INS. violation of law, whether civil or 301. Disposal in accordance with 44 —The information contained in this criminal or regulatory in nature, and U.S.C. 3301–3314 when such records system of records is considered by the whether arising by general statute or are determined no longer useful. Commission to be public information particular program statute or order which may be disclosed as a routine issued pursuant thereto, the relevant SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: use to interested persons who make records in the system of records may Administrative Office, Foreign Claims inquiries about the claims program or be referred, as a routine use, to the Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, individual claims therein, including appropriate agency, whether Federal, Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC but not limited to Members of State, local or foreign, charged with 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: Congress or congressional staff, staff the responsibility of investigating or 202/616–6993. of the Office of Management and prosecuting such violation or charged Budget, other persons interested in with enforcing or implementing the NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: the work of the Commission, and statute, or rule, regulation, or order Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code members of the news media. issued pursuant thereto. of Federal Regulations. —Law enforcement: In the event that a —The information contained in this system of records maintained by system of records will be disclosed to CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: FCSC to carry out its functions the Office of Management and Budget Same as above. indicates a violation or potential in connection with the review of violation of law, whether civil, RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: private relief legislation as set forth in criminal or regulatory in nature, and OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage Claimant on whom the record is whether arising by general statute or of the legislative coordination and maintained. particular program statute, or by clearance process as set forth in that JUSTICE/FCSC±22 regulation, rule or order issued circular. pursuant thereto, the relevant records —A record, or any facts derived SYSTEM NAME: in the system of records may be therefrom, may be disclosed in a General War Claims Program—FCSC. referred, as a routine use, to the proceeding before a court or appropriate agency, whether federal, adjudicative body before which the SYSTEM LOCATION: state, local or foreign, charged with FCSC is authorized to appear or to the Washington National Records Center, the responsibility of investigating or Department of Justice for use in such 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC prosecuting such violation or charged proceeding when: 20409. with enforcing or implementing the

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.066 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31313

statute, or rule, regulation or order SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: —The information contained in this issued pursuant thereto. Administrative Office, Foreign Claims system of records is considered by the —The information contained in this Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, Commission to be public information system of records will be disclosed to Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC which may be disclosed as a routine the Office of Management and Budget, 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: use to interested persons who make in connection with the review of 202/616–6993. inquiries about the claims program or private relief legislation as set forth in individual claims therein, including OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: but not limited to members of of the legislative coordination and Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code Congress, Congressional staff, staff of clearance process as set forth in that of Federal Regulations. the Office of Management and Budget, circular. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: other persons interested in the work —A record from this system of records Same as above. of the Commission, and members of may be disclosed as a routine use to the news media. a member of Congress or to a RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: —Law Enforcement: In the event that a Congressional staff member in Claimant on whom the record is system of records maintained by response to an inquiry of the maintained. FCSC to carry out its functions congressional office made at the indicates a violation or potential JUSTICE/FCSC±23 request of the individual about whom violation of law, whether civil, the record is maintained. SYSTEM NAME: criminal or regulatory in nature, and —A record, or any facts derived Vietnam, Claims for Losses Against— whether arising by general statute or therefrom, may be disclosed in a FCSC. particular program statute, or by proceeding before a court or regulation, rule or order issued adjudicative body before which the SYSTEM LOCATION: pursuant thereto, the relevant records FCSC is authorized to appear or to the Washington National Records Center, in the system of records may be Department of Justice for use in such 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC referred, as a routine use, to the proceeding when: 20409. appropriate agency, whether federal, i. The FCSC, or any subdivision state, local or foreign, charged with CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE thereof, or SYSTEM: the responsibility of investigating or ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his prosecuting such violation or charged U.S. nationals with claims for or her official capacity, or with enforcing or implementing the property losses in Vietnam arising iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his statute, or rule, regulation or order between April 29, 1975, and December or her individual capacity where the issued pursuant thereto. 28, 1980. Department of Justice has agreed to —The information contained in this represent the employee, or CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: system of records will be disclosed to iv. The United States, where the FCSC Claim application forms containing the Office of Management and Budget, determines that the litigation is likely to name and address of claimant and in connection with the review of affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a representative, if any; date and place of private relief legislation as set forth in party to litigation or has an interest in birth or naturalization; nature and OMB Circular No. A–19, at any stage litigation and such records are amount of claim; description, of the legislative coordination and determined by the FCSC to be arguably ownership, and value of property; and clearance process as set forth in that relevant and necessary to the litigation evidence to support claim for the circular. and such disclosure is determined by purpose of receiving compensation. —A record, or any facts derived the FCSC to be a use compatible with therefrom, may be disclosed in a AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: the purpose for which the records were proceeding before a court or collected. Title VII, International Claims adjudicative body before which the Settlement Act of 1949, as amended. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, FCSC is authorized to appear or to the RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND PURPOSE(S): Department of Justice for use in such DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: To enable the Commission to carry proceeding when: STORAGE: out its statutory responsibility to i. The FCSC, or any subdivision Paper records maintained in file determine the validity and amount of thereof, or folders. the claims against Vietnam submitted to ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his it. or her official capacity or RETRIEVABILITY: iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his Filed numerically by claim number. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND or her individual capacity where the Alphabetical index used for THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: Department of Justice has agreed to identification of claim (see system —Records were used for the purpose of represent the employee, or ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). adjudicating claims of individuals; iv. The United States, where the FCSC SAFEGUARDS: issuance of decisions concerning determines that the litigation is likely to Under security safeguards at eligibility to receive compensation affect it or any of its subdivisions is a Washington National Records Center. under the Act; notifications to party to litigation or has an interest in claimants of rights to appeal; and litigation and such records are RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: preparation of certifications of determined by the FCSC to be arguably Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. awards, if any, to Treasury relevant and necessary to the litigation 301. Disposal of records will be made in Department for payment. Names and and such disclosure is determined by accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 other data furnished by claimants the FCSC to be a use compatible with when such records are determined no used for verifying citizenship status the purpose for which the records were longer useful. with INS. collected.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.067 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31314 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, and the December 19, 1985 ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND Compensation Agreement between the or her official capacity or DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Government of the United States of iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his STORAGE: America and the Provisional Military or her individual capacity where the Paper records maintained in file Government of Socialist Ethiopia. Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee, or folders. PURPOSE(S): iv. The United States, where the FCSC RETRIEVABILITY: To enable the Commission to carry determines that the litigation is likely to Filed numerically by claim number. out its statutory responsibility to affect it or any of its subdivisions is a Alphabetical index used for determine the validity and amount of party to litigation or has an interest in identification of claim (see system the claims against Ethiopia submitted to litigation and such records are ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). it. determined by the FCSC to be arguably ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE relevant and necessary to the litigation SAFEGUARDS: SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND and such disclosure is determined by Under security safeguards at THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: the FCSC to be a use compatible with Washington National Records Center. —Records are used for the purpose of the purpose for which the records were RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: adjudicating claims of individuals; collected. Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. issuance of decisions concerning eligibility to receive compensation POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, 301. Disposal of records will be made in RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND under the Act; notifications to accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: when such records are determined no claimants of rights to appeal; and STORAGE: longer useful. preparation of certifications of awards, if any, to the Treasury Paper records maintained in file SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Department for payment. Names and folders. Administrative Office, Foreign Claims other data furnished by claimants Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, used for verifying citizenship status RETRIEVABILITY: Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC with INS. Filed numerically by claim number. 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: —The information contained in this Alphabetical index used for 202/616–6993. system of records is considered by the identification of claim (see system Commission to be public information ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: which may be disclosed as a routine Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code use to interested persons who make SAFEGUARDS: of Federal Regulations. inquiries about the claims program or Under security safeguards at individual claims therein, including Washington National Records Center. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: but not limited to members of Same as above. Congress, Congressional staff, staff of RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: the Office of Management and Budget, other persons interested in the work 301. Disposal of records will be made in Individual on whom the record is of the Commission, and members of accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 maintained. the news media. when such records are determined no JUSTICE/FCSC±24 —Law Enforcement: In the event that a longer useful. system of records maintained by SYSTEM NAME: FCSC to carry out its functions SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Ethiopia, Claims for Losses Against— indicates a violation or potential Administrative Office, Foreign Claims FCSC. violation of law, whether civil, Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, criminal or regulatory in nature, and Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC SYSTEM LOCATION: whether arising by general statute or 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: Washington National Records Center, particular program statute, or by 202/616–6993. 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC regulation, rule or order issued NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: 20409. pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE of Federal Regulations. SYSTEM: referred, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency, whether federal, U.S. nationals with claims for CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: state, local or foreign, charged with property losses in Ethiopia. the responsibility of investigating or Same as above. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: prosecuting such violation or charged RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Claims information including name with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation or order Claimant on whom the record is and address of claimant and maintained. representative, if any; date and place of issued pursuant thereto. birth or naturalization; nature and —A record, or any facts derived JUSTICE/FCSC±25 amount of claim; description, therefrom, may be disclosed in a ownership, and value of property; and proceeding before a court or SYSTEM NAME: evidence to support claim for the adjudicative body before which the Egypt, Claims Against. purpose of receiving compensation. FCSC is authorized to appear or to the Department of Justice for use in such SYSTEM LOCATION: AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: proceeding when: Washington National Records Center, Title I, International Claims i. The FCSC, or any subdivision 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, thereof, or 20409.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31315

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE records in the system of records may RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: SYSTEM: be referred, as a routine use, to the Claimant on whom the record is U.S. nationals with claims for appropriate agency, whether Federal, maintained. property losses in Egypt. State, local or foreign, charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, JUSTICE/FCSC±26 CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: or rule, regulation or order issued Claim information, including name SYSTEM NAME: pursuant thereto. Albania, Claims Against. and address of claimant and —A record, or any facts derived representative, if any; date and place of therefrom, may be disclosed in a SYSTEM LOCATION: birth or naturalization; nature and proceeding before a court or Washington National Records Center, amount of claim; description, adjudicative body before which the 4205 Suitland Road, Washington, DC ownership, and value of property; other FCSC is authorized to appear or to the 20409. evidence establishing entitlement to Department of Justice for use in such compensation of claim. proceeding when: CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: i. The FCSC, or any subdivision thereof, or U.S. nationals with claims for Title I, International Claims property losses in Albania. Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his or her official capacity, or and the Agreement Between the CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his Government of the United States of or her official capacity where the Claim information, including name America and the Government of the Department of Justice has agreed to and address of claimant and Arab Republic of Egypt Concerning represent the employee, or representative, if any; date and place of Claims of Nationals of the United States iv. The United States, where the FCSC birth or naturalization; nature and of May 1, 1976. determines that the litigation is likely to amount of claim; description, PURPOSES: affect it or any of its subdivisions is a ownership, and value of property; other evidence establishing entitlement to To enable the Commission to carry party to litigation or has an interest in compensation of claim. out its statutory responsibility to litigation and such records are determine the validity and amount of determined by the FCSC to be arguably AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: the claims against Egypt submitted to it. relevant and necessary to the litigation Title I, International Claims and such disclosure is determined by Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE the FCSC to be a use compatible with SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND and the Agreement Between the the purpose for which the records were Government of the United States of THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: collected. —Records are used for the purpose of America and the Government of Albania adjudicating claims of individuals; POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, on the Settlement of Certain issuance of decisions concerning RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND Outstanding Claims of March 10, 1995 eligibility to receive compensation DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: (went into force April 18, 1995). STORAGE: under the Act and Agreement; PURPOSE: notifications to claimants of rights to Paper records maintained in file To enable the Commission to carry appeal; and preparation of folders. out its statutory responsibility to certifications of awards, if any, to the RETRIEVABILITY: determine the validity and amount of Treasury Department for payment. Filed numerically by claim number. the claims against Albania submitted to Names and other information it. furnished by claimants may be used Alphabetical index used for for verifying citizenship status with identification of claim (see system ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE the Immigration and Naturalization ‘‘Justice/FCSC’1’’ above). SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: Service. SAFEGUARDS: —The information contained in this Under security safeguards at the —Records are used for the purpose of system of records is considered by the Washington National Records Center. adjudicating claims of individuals; Commission to be public information issuance of decisions concerning which may be disclosed as a routine RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: eligibility to receive compensation use to interested persons who make Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. under the Act and Agreement; inquiries about the claims program or 301. Disposal of records will be in notifications to claimants of rights to individual claims therein including accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 appeal; and preparation of but not limited to Members of when such records are determined no certifications of awards, if any, to the Congress or Congressional staff, staff longer useful. Treasury Department for payment. of the Office of Management and Names and other information SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Budget, other persons interested in furnished by claimants may be used the work of the Commission, and Administrative Office, Foreign Claims for verifying citizenship status with members of the news media. Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, the Immigration and Naturalization —Law Enforcement In the event that a Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC Service. system of records maintained by 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: —The information contained in this FCSC to carry out its functions 202/616–6993. system of records is considered by the indicates a violation or potential NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Commission to be public information violation of law, whether civil or Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code which may be disclosed as a routine criminal or regulatory in nature and of Federal Regulations. use to interested persons who make whether arising by general statute or inquiries about the claims program or particular program statute or order CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: individual claims therein including issued pursuant thereto, the relevant Same as above. but not limited to Members of

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.071 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31316 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Congress or Congressional staff, staff when such records are determined no eligibility to receive compensation of the Office of Management and longer useful. under the claims statute and Agreement; Budget, other persons interested in notifications to claimants of rights to SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: the work of the Commission, and appeal; preparation of decisions for members of the news media. Administrative Office, Foreign Claims certification to the Secretary of State for —Law Enforcement: In the event that a Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, use in diplomatic settlement system of records maintained by Northwest, Suite 6002, Washington, DC negotiations with Germany; and FCSC to carry out its functions 20579. Telephone: 202/616–6975. Fax: preparation of certifications of awards to indicates a violation or potential 202/616–6993. the Secretary of the Treasury for violation of law, whether civil or NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: payment. Names and other information criminal or regulatory in nature and Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code furnished by claimants may be used for whether arising by general statute or of Federal Regulations. verifying citizenship status with the particular program statute or order INS. As required by the authorizing issued pursuant thereto, the relevant CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: statute, the information contained in records in the system of records may Same as above. this system of records will be be referred, as a routine use, to the maintained as confidential information appropriate agency, whether Federal, RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: which will be exempt from disclosure to State, local or foreign, charged with Claimant on whom the record is the public. enforcing or implementing the statute, maintained. —Law Enforcement: In the event that a or rule, regulation or order issued JUSTICE/FCSC±27 system of records maintained by the pursuant thereto. FCSC to carry out its functions —A record, or any facts derived SYSTEM NAME: indicates a violation or potential therefrom, may be disclosed in a Germany, Holocaust Survivors’ violation of law, whether civil or proceeding before a court or Claims Against. criminal or regulatory in nature and adjudicative body before which the whether arising by general statute or FCSC is authorized to appear or to the SYSTEM LOCATION: particular program statute or order Department of Justice for use in such Foreign Claims Settlement issued pursuant thereto, the relevant proceeding when: Commission, 600 E Street, Northwest, records in the system of records may i. The FCSC, or any subdivision Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. be referred, as a routine use, to the thereof, or CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE appropriate agency, whether Federal, ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his SYSTEM: State, local or foreign, charged with or her official capacity, or Natural persons who assert claims for enforcing or implementing the statute, iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his loss of liberty or damage to body or rule, regulation or order issued or her official capacity where the health as a result of National Socialist pursuant thereto. Department of Justice has agreed to measures of persecution conducted —A record, or any facts derived represent the employee, or directly against them. therefrom, may be disclosed in a iv. The United States, where the FCSC proceeding before a court or determines that the litigation is likely to CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: adjudicative body before which the affect it or any of its subdivisions is a Claim information, including name FCSC is authorized to appear or to the party to litigation or has an interest in and address of claimant and Department of Justice for use in such litigation and such records are representative, if any; date and place of proceeding when: determined by the FCSC to be arguably birth or naturalization; nature and i. The FCSC, or any subdivision relevant and necessary to the litigation valuation of claim, including thereof, or and such disclosure is determined by description of measures of persecution; the FCSC to be a use compatible with ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his other evidence establishing entitlement or her official capacity, or the purpose for which the records were to compensation for claim. collected. iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: or her official capacity where the POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, Pub. L. 104–99, and the Agreement Department of Justice has agreed to RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND Between the Government of the United represent the employee, or DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: States of America and the Government iv. The United States, where the FCSC STORAGE: of the Federal Republic of Germany determines that the litigation is likely to Paper records maintained in file Concerning Final Benefits to Certain affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a folders. United States Nationals Who Were party to litigation or has an interest in Victims of National Socialist Measures litigation and such records are RETRIEVABILITY: of Persecution of September 19, 1995. determined by the FCSC to be arguably Filed numerically by claim number. relevant and necessary to the litigation Alphabetical index used for PURPOSE(S): and such disclosure is determined by identification of claim (see system To enable the Commission to carry the FCSC to be a use compatible with ‘‘Justice/FCSC–1’’ above). out its statutory responsibility to the purpose for which the records were determine the validity and amount of collected. SAFEGUARDS: the claims before it. Under security safeguards at the POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, Washington National Records Center. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: THE PURPOSES OF THE USES: Records maintained under 5 U.S.C. Records were used for the purpose of STORAGE: 301. Disposal of records will be in determining the validity and amount of Paper records maintained in file accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3301–3314 claims; issuance of decisions concerning folders.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 19:35 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31317

RETRIEVABILITY: the drafting of legislation to authorize RETRIEVABILITY: Filed numerically by claim number. formal adjudication of claims against Filed numerically by registration Alphabetical index used for Iraq. number. Alphabetical index used for identification of claim. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE identification of registrant. SAFEGUARDS: SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND SAFEGUARDS: At FCSC: Building employees security THE PURPOSES OF THE USES: guards. Records are maintained in a —Records are used for the purpose of At FCSC: Building employs security locked room accessible to authorized determining the validity and amount guards. Records are maintained in a FCSC personnel and other persons of potential claims, to facilitate locked room accessible to authorized when accompanied by such personnel. planning for adjudication of such FCSC personnel and other persons claims in the future. Names and other when accompanied by such personnel. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: information furnished by registrants Records are maintained in accordance may be used for verifying citizenship RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: with 5 U.S.C. 301. Disposal of records status with the INS. Names and Records are maintained in accordance will be in accordance with 44 U.S.C. addresses of individual registrants with 5 U.S.C. 301. Disposal of records 3301–3314 when such records are will be subject to public disclosure. will be in accordance with 44 U.S.C. determined no longer useful. Other information provided by the 3301–3314 when such records are SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: individual registrants will be determined no longer useful. Administrative Officer, Foreign maintained as confidential Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E information which will be exempt SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, from disclosure to the public. Administrative Officer, Foreign DC 20579; telephone 202–616–6975, fax —Law Enforcement: In the event that a Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E 202–616–6993. system of records maintained by the Street, NW, Room 6002, Washington, FCSC to carry out its functions NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: DC 20579; telephone 202–616–6975, fax indicates a violation or potential 202–616–6993. Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code violation of law, whether civil or of Federal Regulations. criminal or regulatory in nature and NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: whether arising by general statute or Set forth in part 504 of title 45, Code Same as above. particular program statute or order of Federal Regulations. issued pursuant thereto, the relevant RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: records in the system of records may CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: Claimant on whom the record is be referred, as a routine use, to the Same as above. maintained. appropriate agency, whether Federal, JUSTICE/FCSC±28 State, local or foreign, charged with RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: enforcing or implementing the statute, Registrant on whom the record is SYSTEM NAME: rule, regulation or order issued maintained. Iraq, Registration of Potential Claims pursuant thereto. Against. —A record, or any facts derived Dated at Washington, DC. therefrom, may be disclosed in a Judith H. Lock, SYSTEM LOCATION: proceeding before a court or Foreign Claims Settlement Administrative Officer. adjudicative body before which the Commission, 600 E Street NW, Room [FR Doc. 99–14638 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] FCSC is authorized to appear or to the 6002, Washington, DC 20579. BILLING CODE 4410±BA±P Department of Justice for use in such CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE proceeding when: SYSTEM: i. The FCSC, or any subdivision DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Natural and juridical persons with thereof, or potential claims against Iraq that are ii. Any employee of the FCSC in his [OJP (NIJ)±1234] outside the jurisdiction of the United or her official capacity, or Nations Compensation Commission. iii. Any employee of the FCSC in his RIN 1121±ZB67 or her official capacity where the CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Department of Justice has agreed to Claim information, including name National Institute of Justice; represent the employee, or and address of claimant and Announcement of the Availability of iv. The United States, where the FCSC the National Institute of Justice representative, if any; date and place of determines that the litigation is likely to birth or naturalization; nature and Solicitation for Evaluation of a Multi- affect it or any of its subdivisions, is a Site Demonstration for Enhanced valuation of claim, including party to litigation or has an interest in description of property or other asset or Judicial Oversight of Domestic litigation and such records are Violence Cases interest that is the subject of the claim; determined by the FCSC to be arguably other evidence establishing entitlement relevant and necessary to the litigation AGENCY: to compensation for claim. Office of Justice Programs, and such disclosure is determined by National Institute of Justice, Justice. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: the FCSC to be a use compatible with ACTION: Notice of solicitation. Information in the system was the purpose for which the records were collected under the Foreign Claims collected. SUMMARY: Announcement of the Settlement Commission’s general POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, availability of the National Institute of authority to adjudicate claims conferred RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND Justice ‘‘Evaluation of a Multi-site by 22 U.S.C. 1621 et seq. DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Demonstration for Enhanced Judicial PURPOSE: STORAGE: Oversight of Domestic Violence Cases.’’ To enable the Commission to Paper records maintained in file DATES: Due date for receipt of proposals formulate recommendations concerning folders. is close of business, Friday, July 9, 1999.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31318 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

ADDRESSES: National Institute of Justice, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and anticipates awarding up to 4 grants 810 Seventh Street, NW, Washington, for a period of 24 months. DC 20531. National Institute of Justice Interested organizations should call [OJP (NIJ)±1233] the National Criminal Justice Reference FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Service (NCJRS) at 1–800–851–3420 to a copy of the solicitation, please call RIN 1121±ZB66 obtain a copy of ‘‘Research on Violence NCJRS 1–800–851–3420. For general Against Indian Women’’ (refer to information about application Announcement of the Availability of document no. SL000359). For World procedures for solicitations, please call the National Institute of Justice Wide Web access, connect to either NIJ the U.S. Department of Justice Response Solicitation for Research on Violence at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/ Center 1–800–421–6770. Against Indian Women funding.htm, or the NCJRS Justice Information Center at http:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Justice. www.ncjrs.org/fedgrant.htm#nij. Authority ACTION: Notice of Solicitation. Jeremy Travis, Director, National Institute of Justice. This action is authorized under the SUMMARY: Announcement of the [FR Doc. 99–14665 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets availability of the National Institute of BILLING CODE 4410±18±P Act of 1968, §§ 201–03, as amended, 42 Justice ‘‘Research on Violence Against U.S.C. 3721–23 (1994). Indian Women.’’ Background DATES: Due date for receipt of proposals DEPARTMENT OF LABOR is close of business, Friday, July 9, 1999. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) ADDRESSES: National Institute of Justice, Employment and Training is soliciting proposals for an evaluation 810 Seventh Street, NW, Washington, Administration, Unemployment of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration DC 20531. Insurance Service: Proposed Initiative. The Judicial Oversight FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Information Collection Request Demonstration Initiative, a collaboration a copy of the solicitation, please call Submitted for Public Comment and between NIJ and the Violence Against NCJRS 1–800–851–3420. For general Recommendations; State Quality Women Office (VAWO), is a program information about application Service Plan designed to reduce domestic violence procedures for solicitations, please call ACTION: Notice. through enhanced judicial oversight, the U.S. Department of Justice Response victim safety, and offender Center 1–800–421–6770. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as accountability. This solicitation calls for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: part of its continuing effort to reduce a single evaluation to measure the paperwork and respondent burden, Authority added value resulting from the changes conducts a preclearance consultation and enhancements made at each of the This action is authorized under the program to provide the general public demonstration sites. Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets and Federal agencies with an Act of 1968, §§ 201–03, as amended, 42 opportunity to comment on proposed The evaluation will consist of four U.S.C. 3721–23 (1994). and/or continuing collections of phases—Methodological Refinement information in accordance with the and Baseline Data Collection, Formative Background Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Evaluation, Process Evaluation, and The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program Outcome/Impact Evaluation. in collaboration with the Office of helps to ensure that requested data can This solicitation makes $500,000 Justice Programs’ Violence Against be provided in the desired format, available for the first stage of the multi- Women Office (VAWO), is soliciting reporting burden (time and financial site evaluation. Up to $2.5 million is proposals for research on violence resources) is minimized, collection anticipated for the entire multi-year against women issues among Native instruments are clearly understood, and evaluation expected to extend to five Americans. Grants will be awarded in the impact of collection requirements on years. conjunction with the S.T.O.P. (Services/ respondents can be properly assessed. Training/Officers/Prosecutors) Violence Currently, the Employment and Interested organizations should call Against Indian Women Discretionary Training Administration (ETA) is the National Criminal Justice Reference Grant Program. soliciting comments concerning the new Service (NCJRS) at 1–800–851–3420 to Recommended study areas include, State Quality Service Plan (SQSP), obtain a copy of ‘‘Evaluation of a Multi- but are not limited to: Instrumentation which was designed in consultation site Demonstration for Enhanced development for measuring prevalence with end users, and will replace the Judicial Oversight of Domestic Violence and incidence rates of violence against Program Budget Plan (PBP), which has Cases’’ (refer to document no. Indian women with and understanding been used for more than a decade. SL000357). For World Wide Web access, and sensitivity to Native cultures; Guidelines for completion and connect to either NIJ at http:// enforcing the provisions of the VAWA submittal of the SQSP are contained in www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/funding.htm, or in Tribal Courts; factors affecting the a handbook, which has been designed the NCJRS Justice Information Center at safety of Indian women in Public Law not to become obsolete annually, as was http://www.ncjrs.org/fedgrant.htm#nij. 280 States; effectiveness of batterer the case with the PBP. Fiscal year- Jeremy Travis, reeducation; level of shelter services specific information such as Federal provided; patterns of abuse; and the Program Focus, or additional budget Director, National Institute of Justice. impact of domestic violence training on allocations, will be provided annually [FR Doc. 99–14666 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] tribal response to violence. in an implementation memorandum BILLING CODE 4410±18±P NIJ encourages both qualitative and that will initiate the planning process quantitative research proposals. NIJ has each year. The requirements of the allocated $450,000 for this solicitation reporting and data collection process

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.097 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31319 itself will remain unchanged from year SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: LOCATION: The Westin Hotel, 1672 to year. I. Background Lawrence Street, Denver, CO 80202– 2010. The SQSP introduces a process which The SQSP is the planning instrument STATUS OF MEETING: Open, except that a allows the State partner to provide a for the Unemployment Insurance (UI) portion of the meeting may be closed narrative summary of the State focus for system nationwide. The statutory basis pursuant to a vote of the Board of the coming fiscal year called the State for the SQSP is Title III of the Social Directors to hold an executive session. Program Narrative. In addition, the Security Act, which establishes At the closed session, the Corporation’s SQSP introduces a Tier I/Tier II concept conditions for each State to receive General Counsel will report to the Board for performance measures which grant funds to administer its UI on litigation to which the Corporation is reduces from the PBP the number of program. Plans are prepared annually, or may become a party, and the Board measures with the potential to require since funds for UI operations are may act on the matters reported. The mandatory Corrective Action Plans for appropriated each year. ETA’s annual closing is authorized by the relevant failure to meet criterioned measures budget request for State UI operations provisions of the Government in the (Tier I). At the same time, continuous contains workload assumptions for Sunshine Act [5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (10)] and program improvement is enhanced with which a State must plan in order for the the corresponding provisions of the an expanded array of measures for Secretary of Labor to carry out her Legal Services Corporation’s which program performance may be responsibilities under Title III. ETA implementing regulation [45 CFR negotiated between a State and ETA issues financial planning targets based § 1622.5(h)]. A copy of the General (Tier II). Finally, the number of required on the budget request. States make plans Counsel’s Certification that the closing based on these assumptions and targets. forms has been reduced, and some is authorized by law will be available replaced with formats that can be II. Current Actions upon request. transmitted electronically. Because of its CHANGES TO THE MEETING: length, the SQSP Handbook is not ETA proposes to replace the PBP with The following item has been added to the open session included with the notice. Copies of the the State Quality Service Plan. Type of Review: Revised Process. of the meeting: handbook may be obtained by Specifically, we propose the 7. Approval of minutes of the Board’s contacting the addressee below. The following: teleconference meeting of May 27, 1999. handbook also is available on the Agency: Employment and Training The remainder of the Board of Internet at http://www.itsc.state.md.us/. Administration. Directors’ agenda will be as follows: The proposed information collection Title: SQSP Handbook. 8. Chairman’s Report. request follows. Record keeping: States are required to 9. Members’ Report. keep records consistent with retention 10. President’s Report. DATES: Written comments must be and access requirements at 29 CFR 11. Inspector General’s Report. submitted on or before August 9, 1999. 97.42. 12. Consider and act on the Board’s Written comments should: Affected Public: State Employment meeting schedule, including designation —Evaluate whether the proposed Security Agencies (SESA’s). of locations, for year 2000. Total Respondents: 53. collection of information is necessary Frequency: Annually. 13. Consider and act on the report of for the proper performance of the Total Responses: 53 plans. the Board’s Operations and Regulations functions of the agency, including Average Time Per Response: 40 hours. Committee. whether the information will have Estimated Total Burden Hours: 2098. • Consider and act on the practical utility; Estimated Total Burden Cost: $61,324. Committee’s recommendation regarding Comments submitted in response to —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s proposed final rule, 45 CFR Part 1641, this notice will be summarized and/or Debarment, Suspension and Removal of estimate of the burden of the included in the request for Office of proposed collection of information, Recipient Auditors. Management and Budget approval of the • Consider and act on the including the validity of the information collection request; they also Committee’s recommendation regarding methodology and assumptions used; will become a matter of public record. final rule, 45 CFR Part 1628, Recipient —Enhance the quality, utility, and Dated: June 4, 1999. Fund Balances. clarity of the information to be • Grace A. Kilbane, Consider and act on the collected; and Director, Unemployment Insurance Service. Committee’s recommendation regarding proposed amendment(s) to the —Minimize the burden of the collection [FR Doc. 99–14756 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] of information on those who are to Corporation’s 403(b) Thrift Plan that are BILLING CODE 4510±30±P respond, including through the use of intended to increase the Corporation’s appropriate automated, electronic, employer contribution level to match the Civil Service Retirement System. mechanical, or other technological LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION collection techniques, or other forms 14. Consider and act on the report of of information technology, e.g., Sunshine Act Meeting; Change to the Board’s Committee on Provision for permitting electronic submission of Sunshine Act Meeting of the Board of the Delivery of Legal Services. responses. Directors 15. Report on the status of the work of the special panel established to study ADDRESSES: William N. Coyne, FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS and report to the board on issues Unemployment Insurance Service, ANNOUNCEMENT: 64.FR.30367, June 7, relating to LSC grantees’ representation Employment and Training 1999. of legal alien workers and the Administration, U.S. Department of PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF requirement that they be ‘‘present in the Labor, Room S–4522, 200 Constitution THE MEETING: The Board of Directors of United States.’’ Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20210, the Legal Services Corporation will meet 16. Appointment of Acting Vice 202–219–5223, Ext. 142 (this is not a on June 12, 1999. The meeting will President of Programs. toll-free number); FAX, 202–219–8506; begin at 1:00 p.m. and continue until 17. Consider and act on proposed Internet: [email protected]. conclusion of the Board’s agenda. resolution ratifying the adoption of the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31320 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices new corporate logo for LSC’s 25th STATUS: Closed. programs, as well as with the advice and Anniversary. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: guidance of key stakeholders in the CLOSED SESSION: 1. Administrative Action under workforce development, family literacy, 18. Briefing 1 by the Inspector General Section 205 or Section 208 of the and civic participation movements in on the activities of the OIG. Federal Credit Union Act. Closed this country. By September of 1999 19. Consider and act on the General pursuant to exemption (8). NIFL will have completed the major Counsel’s report on potential and 2. Administrative Action under Part development work on the standards and pending litigation involving the 704 of NCUA’s Rules and Regulations. will release a Users Guide designed to Corporation. Closed pursuant to exemption (8). introduce key constituencies to the OPEN SESSION: 3. Request from a Corporate Credit Standards and how they can be used for 20. Consider and act on other Union for a National Field of teaching and learning, program business. Membership. Closed pursuant to improvement, accountability, and 21. Public Comment. exemption (8). system reform. CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: 4. Five (5) Personnel Actions. Closed The EFF Center for Training, Victor M. Fortuno, General Counsel and pursuant to exemptions (2) and (6). Technical Assistance and Materials Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Development will work collaboratively 336–8810. Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, and with National Institute for Literacy Telephone (703) 518–6304. SPECIAL NEEDS: Upon request, meeting (NIFL) to assure the effective integration notices will be made available in Becky Baker, of EFF into on-going adult education, alternate formats to accommodate visual Secretary of the Board. family literacy, welfare-to-work, skill and hearing impairments. Individuals [FR Doc. 99–14822 Filed 6–7–99; 4:40 pm] standards voluntary partnerships, and who have a disability and need an BILLING CODE 7535±01±M other workforce development systems. accommodation to attend the meeting may notify Shannon Nicko Adaway, at Dated: June 7, 1999. (202) 336–8810. NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY Sharyn M. Abbott, Dated: June 7, 1999. Executive Officer, NIFL. Victor M. Fortuno, Submission for OMB Review; [FR Doc. 99–14748 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] General Counsel. Comment Request BILLING CODE 6055±01±M [FR Doc. 99–14815 Filed 6–7–99; 4:40 pm] ACTION: Notice. BILLING CODE 7050±01±P On May 28, 1999, the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) published a NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION NATIONAL CREDIT UNION notice requesting comments for the ADMINISTRATION Office of Management and Budget’s Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and review of NIFL’s Information Collection Mechanical Systems; Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting Request. In that notice, the title and Meeting abstract of the notice were inadvertently TIME AND DATE: 1:00 p.m., Monday, June omitted. The correction should be In accordance with the Federal 14, 1999. inserted after DATES, as follows: Advisory Committee Act Pub. L. 92– PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room Title: Equipped for the Future (EFF) 463, as amended), the National Science 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Center for Training, Technical Foundation announces the following Virginia 22314–3428. Assistance and Materials Development. meeting: STATUS: Open. Abstract: The National Institute For Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Literacy (NIFL) was created by the Mechanical Systems (1205). 1. Two (2) Requests from Federal National Literacy Act of 1991 to provide Date & Time: June 10 and 11, 1999; 8:30 Credit Unions to Convert to Community a national focal point for literacy a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Charters. activities and to facilitate the pooling of Place: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 2. Final Rule: Amendment to Part 707, ideas and expertise across a fragmented Rooms 580, Arlington, Virginia 22230. NCUA’s Rules and Regulations, Truth In field. NIFL is authorized to carry out a Contact Person: Dr. Alison Flatau, Control, Savings—Disclosure of the Annual wide range of activities that will Materials and Mechanics Cluster, Division of Percentage Yield. improve and expand the system for Civil and Mechanical Systems, Room 545, 3. Final Rule: Amendments to Part delivery of adult literacy services NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 712, NCUA’s Rules and Regulations, nationwide. 22230. 703/306–1361, x5069. Credit Union Service Organization For the past four years, the NIFL has Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and (CUSOs). been working with a range of partners recommendations concerning proposals RECESS: 2:15 p.m. in states across the country to develop submitted to NSF for financial support. TIME AND DATE: 2:30 p.m., Monday, June a customer-driven, standards-based, Agenda: To review and evaluate research 14, 1999. collaborative approach to adult literacy proposals as part of the selection process for PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room system reform. The EFF standards that awards. 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, have been developed through this effort Reason for Closing: The proposals being Virginia 22314–3428. define the critical skills and knowledge reviewed include information of a that enable adults to effectively carry proprietary or confidential nature, including 1 Any portion of the closed session consisting out their responsibilities as workers, technical information; financial data, such as solely of staff briefings does not fall within the parents and family members, and salaries; and personal information Sunshine Act’s definition of the term ‘‘meeting’’ citizens and community members. The concerning individuals associated with the and, therefore, the requirements of the Sunshine Act do not apply to any such portion of the closed standards have been developed and proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 session. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(a)(2) and (b). See also 45 refined with the assistance of a broad U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) of the Government CFR § 1622.2 & 1622.3 cross section of literacy and basic skills Sunshine Act.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.099 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31321

Dated: June 4, 1999. Date/Time: July 8–9, 1999, 7:30 a.m.–5:30 concerning individuals associated with the Karen J. York, p.m. proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 Committee Management Officer. Place: National Science Foundation, Room U.S.C. 5552b(c), (4) and (6) of the 375, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA Government in the Sunshine Act. [FR Doc. 99–14705 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] 22230. Dated: June 4, 1999. BILLING CODE 7555±01±M Type of Meeting: Closed. Karen J. York, Contact Person: Mary Poats, Program Manager, Engineering Education and Centers Committee Management Officer. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Division, National Science Foundation, [FR Doc. 99–14711 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Room 585 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, BILLING CODE 7555±01±M Advisory Committee for Education and VA 22230. Human Resources; Committee of Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and Visitors; Notice of Meeting recommendations concerning proposals NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION submitted to NSF for financial support. In accordance with the Federal Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals Special Emphasis Panel for Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– submitted to the Combined Research- Geosciences: Notice of Meeting 463, as amended), the National Science Curriculum Development Program. Reason for Closing: The proposals being Foundation announces the following In accordance with the Federal meeting. reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– Name: Advisory Committee for Education technical information; financial data, such as 463, as amended), the National Science and Human Resources (1119). salaries; and personal information Foundation announces the following Date and Time: June 21, 1999 (8:30 a.m. to concerning individuals associated with the meeting. 6:00 p.m.); June 22, 1999 (8:30 a.m. to 6:00 proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 p.m. and June 23, 1999 (8:30 a.m. to 2:00 U.S.C. 552b.(c) (4) and (6) of the Government Name: Special Emphasis Panel for p.m.). in the Sunshine Act. Geosciences (1756). Date & Time: June 22 & 23, 1999. Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Dated: June 4, 1999. Wilson Boulevard, Suite 320, Arlington, Place: Arlington Hilton, 8th Floor, 950 Virginia. Karen J. York, North Stafford St., Arlington, VA 22203. Type of Meeting: Closed. Committee Management Officer. Type of Meeting: Closed. Contact Person: Celeste Pea, National [FR Doc. 99–14706 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Contact Person: Dr. Reeve, Section Head, Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson BILLING CODE 7555±01±M Arlington, Virginia 22230. Telephone: (703) Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306–1682. 306–1587. Purpose of Meeting: To carry out Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and Committee of Visitors (COV) review, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION recommendations concerning proposals including examination of decisions on submitted to NSF for financial support. proposals, reviewer comments, and other Special Emphasis Panel in Agenda: To review and evaluate CoOP privileged materials. Experimental and Integrative Program as part of the selection process for Agenda: To review and evaluate the Urban Activities: Notice of Meeting awards. Systemic Initiatives (USI) Program and In accordance with the Federal Reason for Closing: The proposals being provide an assessment of program-level reviewed include information of a technical and managerial matters pertaining Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– proprietary or confidential nature, including to proposal decisions and program 463, as amended), the National Science technical information; financial data, such as operations. Foundation announces the following salaries; and personal information Reason for Closing: The meeting is closed meeting. concerning individuals associated with the to the public because the Committee is Name: Special Emphasis Panel in proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 reviewing proposal actions that will include U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government privileged intellectual property and personal Experimental and Integrative Activities # in The Sunshine Act. information that could harm individuals if ( 1193). they were disclosed. If discussions were open Date/Time: June 24, 1999; 8:45 a.m. to 5:30 Dated: June 4, 1999. to the public, these matters that are exempt p.m. Karen J. York, under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) of the Place: National Science Foundation, Room Committee Management Officer. 1105.17, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, government in the Sunshine Act would be [FR Doc. 99–14707 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] improperly disclosed. VA 22230. BILLING CODE 7555±01±M Dated: June 4, 1999. Type of Meeting: Closed. Contact Person: Dr. Rita V. Rodriguez, Karen J. York, Program Director for Minority Institutions Committee Management Officer. Infrastructure Program, Division of NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION [FR Doc. 99–14709 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Experimental and Integrative Activities, BILLING CODE 7555±01±M National Science Foundation, Room 1160, Special Emphasis Panel for 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA Geosciences: Notice of Meeting 22230. Telephone: (703) 306–1980. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Purpose of Meeting: To provide further In accordance with the Federal evaluation and final recommendation of Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– Special Emphasis Panel in Engineering submitted Minority Institutions 463, as amended), the National Science Education and Centers; Notice of Infrastructure proposals submitted to NSF for Foundation announces the following Meeting financial support. Agenda: To review and discuss meeting. In accordance with Federal Advisory recommendations concerning CISE Minority Name: Special Emphasis Panel for Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as Institutions Infrastructure proposals as part Geosciences (1756). amended), the National Science of the selection process for awards. Date and Time: June 23 and 24, 1999. Foundation announces the following Reason for Closing: The proposals being Place: Arlington Hilton, 8th Floor, 950 reviewed include information of a North Stafford St., Arlington, VA 22203. meeting: proprietary or confidential nature, including Type of Meeting: Closed. Name: Special Emphasis Panel Engineering technical information; financial data, such as Contact Person: Dr. Reeve, Section Head, Education and Centers (#153). salaries; and personal information National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31322 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) NUCLEAR REGULATORY regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means 306–1587. COMMISSION that operation of the facility in Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and accordance with the proposed [Docket No. 50±398] recommendations concerning proposals amendment would not (1) involve a submitted to NSF for financial support. Florida Power & Light Co., Orlando significant increase in the probability or Agenda: To review and evaluate MARGINS consequences of an accident previously Program as part of the selection process for Utilities Commission of the City of Orlando, Florida and Florida Municipal evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of awards. a new or different kind of accident from Reason for closing: The proposals being Power Agency; Notice of any accident previously evaluated; or reviewed include information of a Consideration of Issuance of proprietary or confidential nature, including Amendment to Facility Operating (3) involve a significant reduction in a technical information; financial data, such as License, Proposed No Significant margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR salaries; and personal information Hazards Consideration Determination, 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its concerning individuals associated with the and Opportunity for a Hearing analysis of the issue of no significant proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 hazards consideration, which is U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory presented below: in the Sunshine Act. Commission (the Commission) is (1) Operation of the facility in Dated: June 4, 1999. considering issuance of an amendment accordance with the proposed to Facility Operating License No. NPF– amendment would not involve a Karen J. York, 16, issued to the Florida Power & Light significant increase in the probability or Committee Management Officer. Company, et al. (the licensee), for consequences of an accident previously [FR Doc. 99–14708 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] operation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2, evaluated. BILLING CODE 7555±01±M located in St. Lucie County, Florida. The proposed amendment does not The proposed amendment would involve an increase in the probability or revise the Unit 2 Technical consequences of any accident NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Specifications (TS) to clarify the previously evaluated. There are no nonconservative wording of TS 3/4.5.1, physical changes to plant equipment or Advisory Panel for Microbial ‘‘Safety Injection Tanks,’’ Surveillance changes in plant operation that could Observatories; Notice of Meeting Requirement 4.5.1.1.d.1 and would initiate an accident or adversely affect revise TS 3/4.5.2, ‘‘ECCS Subsystems— accident mitigation or consequences. In accordance with the Federal Tavg Greater Than or Equal to 325°F,’’ This PLA [proposed license Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– Surveillance Requirement 4.5.2.e.1. The amendment] provides a wording 463, as amended), the National Science proposed changes would align the clarification of the Technical Foundation announces the following surveillance specification with the Specification Surveillance 4.5.1.1.d.1 meeting. intent and design bases requirements requirements for verifying that each SIT Name: Advisory Panel for Microbial intended to be verified. [safety injection tank] isolation valve Observations, a sub-panel of the Advisory On May 24, 1999, FPL staff submitted (V–3614, V–3624, V–3634, and V–3644) Panel for Genetics (1149). a license amendment request, described opens automatically prior to exceeding Date and Time: Monday & Tuesday, June above, to amend their TS. On June 3, an actual or simulated RCS [reactor 21–22, 1999, 9:00 A.M.–5:00 P.M. 1999, St. Lucie, Unit 2, began to coolant system] pressure of 515 psia, Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 experience problems unrelated to such that design bases functions and Wilson Blvd., Room 310, Arlington, VA systems in the previously mentioned TS safety are assured. This PLA also 22230. sections. These problems ultimately provides a wording clarification Type of Meeting: Closed. resulted in the plant entering TS Mode (Surveillance 4.5.2.e.1) for the automatic Contact Person: Drs. Philip Harriman, 3, ‘‘Hot Standby,’’ on June 4, 1999, in isolation and interlock action of the SDC Program Director, and Charles Liarakos, order to repair and troubleshoot these [shutdown cooling] system (V–3480, V– Deputy Division Director for Microbial unrelated equipment problems. Due to 3481, V–3651, and V–3652) from the Observatories, Room 655, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, the nature of these repairs, the RCS prior to exceeding an RCS pressure Arlington, Virginia 22230. (703/306–1440). possibility that other emerging work (actual or simulated) of 515 psia, such Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and activities may require a lower mode, that design bases functions and safety recommendations concerning proposals and the desire of the NRC to avoid are assured. These clarifications submitted to NSF for financial support. granting a notice of enforcement explicitly align the surveillance Agenda: To review and evaluate research discretion, the staff has decided to requirements with the intent and design proposals submitted to the Microbial pursue this exigent TS amendment. basis functions for the valves being Observations Program as part of the selection Without this amendment, St. Lucie verified. As such, this change is process for awards. Plant, Unit 2, could not resume power considered administrative. Reason for Closing: The proposals being operation if they were to enter Mode 4, (2) Operation of the facility in reviewed include information of a or ‘‘Hot Shutdown.’’ accordance with the proposed proprietary or confidential nature, including Before issuance of the proposed amendment would not create the technical information; financial data, such as license amendment, the Commission possibility of a new or different kind of salaries; and personal information will have made findings required by the accident from any accident previously concerning individuals associated with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended evaluated. proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 The proposed amendment will not U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government (the Act) and the Commission’s in the Sunshine Act. regulations. create the possibility of a new or Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for different kind of accident from any Dated: June 4, 1999 amendments to be granted under accident previously evaluated. There are Karen York, exigent circumstances, the NRC staff no physical changes to plant equipment Committee Management Officer. must determine that the amendment or changes in plant operation that could [FR Doc. 99–14710 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] request involves no significant hazards create a new or different kind of BILLING CODE 7555±01±M consideration. Under the Commission’s accident. This PLA does not result in

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31323 any plant configuration changes or new determination will consider all public with particular reference to the failure modes. This PLA provides a and State comments received. Should following factors: (1) the nature of the wording clarification of the Technical the Commission take this action, it will petitioner’s right under the Act to be Specification Surveillance 4.5.1.1.d.1 publish in the Federal Register a notice made a party to the proceeding; (2) the requirements for verifying that each SIT of issuance. The Commission expects nature and extent of the petitioner’s isolation valve (V–3614, V–3624, V– that the need to take this action will property, financial, or other interest in 3634, and V–3644) opens automatically occur very infrequently. Written the proceeding; and (3) the possible prior to exceeding an actual or comments may be submitted by mail to effect of any order which may be simulated RCS pressure of 515 psia. the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, entered in the proceeding on the This PLA also provides a wording Division of Administrative Services, petitioner’s interest. The petition should clarification (Surveillance 4.5.2.e.1) for Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear also identify the specific aspect(s) of the the automatic isolation and interlock Regulatory Commission, Washington, subject matter of the proceeding as to action of the SDC system (V–3480, V– DC 20555–0001, and should cite the which petitioner wishes to intervene. 3481, V–3651, and V–3652) from the publication date and page number of Any person who has filed a petition for RCS prior to exceeding an RCS pressure this Federal Register notice. Written leave to intervene or who has been (actual or simulated) of 515 psia. These comments may also be delivered to admitted as a party may amend the clarifications explicitly align the Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, petition without requesting leave of the surveillance requirements with the 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Board up to 15 days prior to the first intent and design basis functions for the Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. prehearing conference scheduled in the valves being verified. As such, this Federal workdays. Copies of written proceeding, but such an amended change is considered administrative. comments received may be examined at petition must satisfy the specificity (3) Operation of the facility in the NRC Public Document Room, the requirements described above. accordance with the proposed Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Not later than 15 days prior to the first amendment would not involve a Washington, DC. The filing of requests prehearing conference scheduled in the significant reduction in a margin of for hearing and petitions for leave to proceeding, a petitioner shall file a safety. intervene is discussed below. supplement to the petition to intervene The proposed amendment does not By June 24, 1999, the licensee may which must include a list of the involve a reduction in the margin of file a request for a hearing with respect contentions which are sought to be safety. This administrative PLA clarifies to issuance of the amendment to the litigated in the matter. Each contention the surveillance requirements of the subject facility operating license and must consist of a specific statement of subject Technical Specifications by any person whose interest may be the issue of law or fact to be raised or aligning the surveillances with the affected by this proceeding and who controverted. In addition, the petitioner intent and design bases functions for the wishes to participate as a party in the shall provide a brief explanation of the valves being verified. This PLA does not proceeding must file a written request bases of the contention and a concise result in any plant configuration for a hearing and a petition for leave to statement of the alleged facts or expert changes. As such, the assumptions and intervene. Requests for a hearing and a opinion which support the contention conclusions of the accident analyses in petition for leave to intervene shall be and on which the petitioner intends to the UFSAR remain valid and the filed in accordance with the rely in proving the contention at the associated safety limits will continue to Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for hearing. The petitioner must also be met. Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 provide references to those specific The NRC staff has reviewed the CFR part 2. Interested persons should sources and documents of which the licensee’s analysis and, based on this consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 petitioner is aware and on which the review, it appears that the three which is available at the Commission’s petitioner intends to rely to establish standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Public Document Room, the Gelman those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Building, 2120 L Street, NW., must provide sufficient information to proposes to determine that the Washington, DC, and at the local public show that a genuine dispute exists with amendment request involves no document room located at the Indian the applicant on a material issue of law significant hazards consideration. River Community College Library, 3209 or fact. Contentions shall be limited to The Commission is seeking public Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida matters within the scope of the comments on this proposed 34981–5596. If a request for a hearing or amendment under consideration. The determination. Any comments received petition for leave to intervene is filed by contention must be one which, if within 14 days after the date of the above date, the Commission or an proven, would entitle the petitioner to publication of this notice will be Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, relief. A petitioner who fails to file such considered in making any final designated by the Commission or by the a supplement which satisfies these determination. Chairman of the Atomic Safety and requirements with respect to at least one Normally, the Commission will not Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the contention will not be permitted to issue the amendment until the request and/or petition; and the participate as a party. expiration of the 14-day notice period. Secretary or the designated Atomic Those permitted to intervene become However, should circumstances change Safety and Licensing Board will issue a parties to the proceeding, subject to any during the notice period, such that notice of hearing or an appropriate limitations in the order granting leave to failure to act in a timely way would order. intervene, and have the opportunity to result, for example, in derating or As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a participate fully in the conduct of the shutdown of the facility, the petition for leave to intervene shall set hearing, including the opportunity to Commission may issue the license forth with particularity the interest of present evidence and cross-examine amendment before the expiration of the the petitioner in the proceeding, and witnesses. 14-day notice period, provided that its how that interest may be affected by the If the amendment is issued before the final determination is that the results of the proceeding. The petition expiration of the 30-day hearing period, amendment involves no significant should specifically explain the reasons the Commission will make a final hazards consideration. The final why intervention should be permitted determination on the issue of no

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.218 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31324 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices significant hazards consideration. If a NUCLEAR REGULATORY mailing address is Mail Stop LL–6, hearing is requested, the final COMMISSION Washington, DC 20555; telephone (202) determination will serve to decide when 634–3273; fax (202) 634–3343. the hearing is held. Regulatory Guides; Issuance, Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, If the final determination is that the Availability and Commission approval is not amendment request involves no The Nuclear Regulatory Commission required to reproduce them. significant hazards consideration, the has issued revisions to three guides in (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Commission may issue the amendment its Regulatory Guide Series. This series Dated at Rockville, MD, this 24th day of and make it immediately effective, has been developed to describe and May 1999. notwithstanding the request for a make available to the public such For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. hearing. Any hearing held would take information as methods acceptable to Ashok C. Thadani, place after issuance of the amendment. the NRC staff for implementing specific Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory If the final determination is that the parts of the Commission’s regulations, Research. amendment request involves a techniques used by the staff in [FR Doc. 99–14750 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] significant hazards consideration, any evaluating specific problems or BILLING CODE 7590±01±P hearing held would take place before postulated accidents, and data needed the issuance of any amendment. by the staff in its review of applications A request for a hearing or a petition for permits and licenses. NUCLEAR REGULATORY for leave to intervene must be filed with Revision 31 of Regulatory Guide 1.84, COMMISSION the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. ‘‘Design and Fabrication Code Case Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Acceptability, ASME Section III, [NUREG±1671] Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Division 1,’’ and Revision 31 of Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or Regulatory Guide 1.85, ‘‘Materials Code Standard Review Plan for the may be delivered to the Commission’s Case Acceptability, ASME Section III, Recertification of the Gaseous Public Document Room, the Gelman Division 1,’’ list those code cases that Diffusion Plants Building, 2120 L Street, NW., are generally acceptable to the NRC staff AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC, by the above date. A for implementation in the licensing of Commission. copy of the petition should also be sent light-water-cooled nuclear power plants. to the Office of the General Counsel, Revision 12 of Regulatory Guide 1.147, ACTION: Reopening of comment period. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ‘‘Inservice Inspection Code Case SUMMARY: On February 19, 1999 (64 FR Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to M. 8412), the Nuclear Regulatory Division 1,’’ lists those code cases that S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Commission (NRC) published for public are generally acceptable to the NRC staff Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, comment a draft NUREG–1671 entitled, for implementation in the inservice FL 33408–0420, attorney for the ‘‘Standard Review Plan for the inspection of light-water-cooled nuclear licensee. Recertification of the Gaseous Diffusion power plants. These three guides are Nontimely filings of petitions for Plants.’’ The comment period for this periodically revised to update the leave to intervene, amended petitions, proposed NUREG expired on May 20, listings of acceptable code cases and to supplemental petitions, and/or requests 1999. The United States Enrichment include the results of public comment for hearing will not be entertained Corporation (USEC) has requested an and additional staff review. absent a determination by the extension of the comment period until Comments and suggestions in Commission, the presiding officer or the November 19, 1999. Given that the connection with items for inclusion in presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing renewal of the Certificates of guides currently being developed or Board that the petition and/or request Compliance for the gaseous diffusion improvements in all published guides should be granted based upon a plants is not scheduled again until are encouraged at any time. Written balancing of the factors specified in 10 December 31, 2003, the NRC has comments may be submitted to the CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d). decided to reopen the comment period. Rules and Directives Branch, Division of For further details with respect to this The comment period now expires on Services, Office of Administration, U.S. action, see the application for November 19, 1999. amendment dated May 24, 1999, which Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. DATES: The comment period has been is available for public inspection at the reopened and now expir4es on Commission’s Public Document Room, Single copies of regulatory guides, both active and draft, may be obtained November 19, 1999. Comments received the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, after this date will be considered if it is NW., Washington, DC, and at the local free of charge by writing the Reproduction and Distribution Services practical to do so, but the Commission public document room, located at the is able to ensure consideration only for Indian River Community College Section, OCIO, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555–0001, or by fax to (301) 415– comments received on or before this Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Fort date. Pierce, Florida 34981–5596. 2289, or by email to . Active ADDRESSES: Send/written comments to: Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day guides may also be purchased from the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U.S. of June 1999. National Technical Information Service Nuclear Regulatory Commission, For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. on a standing order basis. Details on this Washington, DC 20555–0001. Hand William C. Gleaves, service may be obtained by writing deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Project Manager, Section 2, Project NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Springfield, VA 22161. Copies of active between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm during Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor and draft guides are available for Federal workdays. Regulation. inspection or copying for a fee from the Draft NUREG–1671 is available for [FR Doc. 99–14749 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L inspection and copying for a fee at the BILLING CODE 7590±01±P Street NW., Washington, DC; the PDR’s NRC Public Document Room (PDR),

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.220 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31325

2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC the filing, with a description of the Domestic Mail Classification Schedule 20555–0001. Postal Service’s proposals, in the Section 931—Business Reply Mail A free single copy of draft NUREG– Federal Register (64 FR 13613–13617). 1671, to the extent of supply, may be 931 BUSINESS REPLY MAIL On May 14, 1999, pursuant to its 931.1 Definitions requested by writing to U.S. Nuclear authority under 39 U.S.C. 3624, the PRC 931.11 Business reply mail is a service Regulatory Commission, Distribution issued to the Governors of the Postal whereby business reply cards, Services, Washington, DC 20555–0001. Service its recommended decision on envelopes, cartons and labels may Draft NUREG–1671 is available on the the Postal Service’s request. The PRC be distributed by or for a business World Wide Web at http:// recommended the extension of the reply distributor for use by mailers www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/ experimental weight averaging for sending First-Class Mail without indexnum.html. Comments may be classification for the term specified in prepayment of postage to an submitted by selecting the ‘‘comments’’ the Postal Service’s Request, subject to address chosen by the distributor. A link on the main page for the draft the fees proposed by the Docket No. distributor is the holder of a NUREG. MC99–1 parties in a Stipulation and business reply license. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Agreement. information regarding draft NUREG– 931.12 A business reply mail piece is Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3625, the nonletter-size for purposes of this 1671 contact Charles Cox, Office of Governors of the United States Postal Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, section if it meets addressing and Service acted on the PRC’s other preparation requirements, but U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, recommendations on May 26, 1999. Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) does not meet the machinability [Decision of the Governors of the United requirements specified by the Postal 415–6755. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, States Postal Service on the this 3rd day of June 1999. Service for mechanized or Recommended Decision of the Postal automated letter sortation. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Rate Commission on the Renewal Of Elizabeth Q. TenEyck, Experimental Classification and Fees This provision expires February 29, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and For Weight Averaged Nonletter-Size 2000, or upon implementation of Safeguards, NMSS. Business Reply Mail, Docket No. MC99– permanent fees for nonletter-size [FR Doc. 99–14762 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] 1.] The Governors determined to business reply mail, whichever comes BILLING CODE 7590±01±M approve the Commission’s first. recommendations. Set forth below are 931.2 Description of Service revised Domestic Mail Classification 931.21 The distributor guarantees POSTAL SERVICE Schedule section 931 and Fee Schedule payment on delivery of postage and 931, which incorporate the fees for all returned business reply Renewal of Experimental Nonletter- classification and fee changes approved mail. Any distributor of business Size Business Reply Mail by the Governors. reply cards, envelopes, cartons and Classifications and Fees; Changes in Also on May 26, 1999, the Board of labels under any one license for Domestic Classification and Fees Governors of the Postal Service, return to several addresses AGENCY: Postal Service. pursuant to their authority under 39 guarantees to pay postage and fees on any returns refused by any such ACTION: Notice of implementation of U.S.C. 3625(f), determined to make the addressee. changes to the Domestic Mail classification and fee changes approved Classification Schedule and by the Governors effective at 12:01 a.m. 931.3 Requirements of the Mailer accompanying fee changes. on June 8, 1999 (Resolution No. 99–6). 931.31 Business reply cards, In accordance with the envelopes, cartons and labels must SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the aforementioned Decision of the be preaddressed and bear business changes to Domestic Mail Classification Governors and Resolution No. 99–6, the reply markings. Schedule (DMCS) section 931 and the Postal Service hereby gives notice that 931.32 Handwriting, typewriting or accompanying Fee Schedule section 931 these classification and fee changes will handstamping are not acceptable changes to be implemented as a result become effective at 12:01 a.m. on June methods of preaddressing or of the May 26, 1999, Decision of the 8, 1999. Implementing regulations also marking business reply cards, Governors of the United States Postal become effective at that time, as noted envelopes, cartons, or labels. Service on the Recommended Decision elsewhere in this issue. of the Postal Rate Commission on the 931.4 Fees Experimental Nonletter-Size Business Changes in the Domestic Mail 931.41 The fees for business reply mail Reply Mail Classification and Fees. Classification Schedule are set forth in Fee Schedule 931. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1999. The following material reflects 931.42 To qualify as an active business FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: changes to Domestic Mail Classification reply mail advance deposit trust Michael Tidwell, (202) 268–2998. Schedule (DMCS) section 931 approved account, the account must be used SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March by the Governors of the United States solely for business reply mail and 10, 1999, pursuant to its authority under Postal Service in response to the Postal contain sufficient postage and fees 39 U.S.C. 3621 et seq., the Postal Service Rate Commission’s Recommended due for returned business reply filed with the Postal Rate Commission Decision in Docket No. MC99–1. This mail. (PRC) a request for a recommended material also reflects changes to DMCS 931.43 An accounting fee as set forth decision on the renewal of the section 931 which will result from the in Fee Schedule 931 must be paid experimental classification and fees for June 7, 1999, expiration of provisions each year for each advance deposit weight-averaged nonletter-size Business relating to the experimental business reply account at each Reply Mail. The PRC designated the classification and fees for nonletter-size facility where the mail is to be filing as Docket No. MC99–1. On March Business Reply Mail subject to the returned. 19, 1999, the PRC published a notice of reverse manifest method of accounting. 931.5 [RESERVED]

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31326 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

931.6 Experimental Weight Averaging Service and pay the appropriate fee canceled for failure of a business Fees as set forth in Fee Schedule 931. reply mail advance deposit trust 931.72 Except as provided in section account holder to meet the 931.61 [RESERVED] 931.73, the license to distribute standards specified by the Postal 931.62 A nonletter-size weight business reply cards, envelopes, Service for the weight averaging averaging monthly fee as set forth in cartons, or labels must be obtained accounting method. Fee Schedule 931 must be paid at each office from which the mail each month during which the This provision expires February 29, is offered for delivery. distributor’s weight averaging 2000, or upon implementation of 931.73 If the business reply mail is to account is active. permanent fees for nonletter-size be distributed from a central office business reply mail, whichever comes This fee applies to the (no more than) to be returned to branches or first. 10 advance deposit account holders dealers in other cities, one license which are selected by the Postal Service obtained from the post office where Changes in DMCS Fee Schedule 931 to participate in the weight averaging the central office is located may be The following material reflects nonletter-size business reply mail used to cover all business reply changes to DMCS Fee Schedule 931 experiment. mail. approved by the Governors of the This provision expires February 29, 931.74 The license to mail business United States Postal Service in response 2000, or upon implementation of reply mail may be canceled for to the Postal Rate Commission’s permanent fees for nonletter-size failure to pay business reply Recommended Decision in Docket No. business reply mail, whichever comes postage and fees when due, and for MC99–1. This material also reflects first. distributing business reply cards or changes to Fee Schedule 931 which will envelopes that do not conform to result from the June 7, 1999, expiration 931.7 Authorizations and Licenses prescribed form, style or size. of provisions relating to the 931.71 In order to distribute business 931.75 Authorization to pay experimental classification and fees for reply cards, envelopes, cartons or experimental nonletter-size nonletter-size Business Reply Mail labels, the distributor must obtain a business reply mail fees as set forth subject to the reverse manifest method license or licenses from the Postal in Fee Schedule 931 may be of accounting.

FEE SCHEDULE 931ÐBUSINESS REPLY MAIL

Fee

Active business reply advance deposit account: Per piece: Qualified ...... $0.05 Nonletter-size, using weight averaging (experimental) ...... 0.01 Other ...... 0.08 Payment of postage due charges if active business reply mail advance deposit account not used: Per piece ...... 0.30 Annual License and Accounting Fees: Accounting Fee for Advance Deposit Account ...... 300 Permit fee (with or without Advance Deposit Account) ...... 100 Monthly Fees for customers using weight averaging for nonletter-size business reply: Nonletter-size, using weight averaging (experimental) ...... 600

Note: Experimental per piece and monthly SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Advisors that follows the same fees are applicable only to participants COMMISSION investment strategy as the Target 10 selected by the Postal Service for the Series, the Target 5 Series, or the Global nonletter-size business reply mail [Rel. No. IC±23458; File No. 812±11518] Target 15 Series, from the provisions of experiment. The experimental fees expire Section 12(d)(3) of the 1940 Act top the February 29, 2000, or upon implementation First Defined Portfolio Fund LLC extent necessary to permit the Target 10 of permanent fees for weight-averaged Series to invest up to 10.5%, the Target June 4, 1999. nonletter-size business reply mail, whichever 5 Series to invest up to 20.5%, and the AGENCY: comes first. Securities and Exchange Global Target 15 Series to invest up to Stanley F. Mires, Commission (the ‘‘SEC’’ or the 7.5%, of their respective total assets in ‘‘Commission’’). Chief Counsel, Legislative. securities of issuers that derive more ACTION: Notice of application for an [FR Doc. 99–14637 Filed 6–8–99; 8:45 am] than 15% of their gross revenues from order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the BILLING CODE 7710±12±P securities related activities. Investment Company Act of 1940 (the Applicant: First Defined Portfolio ‘‘1940 Act’’ or the ‘‘Act’’). Fund LLC. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicant Filing Date: The application was filed seeks an order pursuant to Section 6(c) on February 18, 1999, amended and of the Act exempting Applicant and any restated on May 25, 1999, and on June other open-end investment company or 3, 1999. series thereof advised by First Trust Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An Advisors L.P. ‘‘First Trust Advisors’’) or order granting the application will be any entity controlled by or under issued unless the Commission orders a common control with First Trust hearing. Interested persons may request

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.079 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31327 a hearing on this application by writing Account B (‘‘Account B’’), to fund the securities by each Series will attempt to to the Secretary of the SEC and serving benefits of variable annuity policies replicate the percentage relationship of Applicant with a copy of the request, issued by American Skandia Life securities held in the portfolio of each personally or by mail. Hearing requests Assurance Corporation (‘‘American Series. The percentage relationship must be received by the Commission by Skandia’’). The variable annuity owners among the number of securities in the 5:30 p.m. on June 30, 1999, and of Account B who have contract values Target 5 Series, the Target 10 Series and accompanied by proof of service on the allocated to any of the Applicant’s the Global Target 15 Series should Applicant in the form of an affidavit or, portfolios have indirect beneficial rights therefore remain relatively stable until for lawyers, a certificate of service. in the Interests and have the right to the Series are rebalanced. On the Stock Hearing request should state the nature instruct American Skandia with regard Selection Date each year, First Trust of the interest, the reason for the request to how it votes the Interests that it holds Advisors will rebalance the portfolios and the issues contested. Persons may in its variable annuity separate with a new mix of securities in the request notification of the date of a accounts. Target 5 Series, the Target 10 Series and hearing by writing to the Secretary of 3. First Trust Advisors is the advisor the Global Target 15 Series selected the Commission. of each of the Funds’s series. pursuant to the investment strategy of 4. Applicant states that the portfolio ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth each Series. Applicant states that, given of the Target 10 Series consists of an Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549– the fact that the market price of portfolio investment portfolio of the common 0609. Applicant, 1001 Warrenville securities will vary after the Stock stocks of the ten companies in the Dow Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532, Suite 300. Selection Date, the value of the Jones Industrial Average (the ‘‘Dow’’) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: securities of each company as compared having the highest dividend yields as of to the total assets of the Target 5 Series, Martha Peterson, Attorney, or Susan a date specified in the prospectus (the Olson, Branch Chief, Office or Insurance the Target 10 Series and the Global ‘‘Stock Selection Date’’). These ten Target 15 Series will fluctuate above Products, Division of Investment companies are popularly known as the Management, at (202) 942–0670. and below the proportion established on ‘‘Dogs of the Dow.’’ Applicant also the Stock Selection Date. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The states that take portfolio of the Target 5 following is a summary of the Series consists of the common stock of 6. Applicant states that the Target 5 application. The complete application is the five companies with the lowest per Series, the Target 10 Series and the available for a fee from the Public share stock price of the ten companies Global Target 15 Series intend to invest Reference Branch of the SEC, 450 Fifth in the Dow that have the highest in their portfolio securities determined Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549– dividend yields as of the Stock by their respective strategies in 0609 (tel. (202) 942–8090). Selection Date specified in the relatively equal amounts and the Series may purchase securities in odd lots to Applicant’s Representations prospectus. Finally, Applicant states that the portfolio of the Global Target 15 achieve this goal. However, it may be 1. First Defined Portfolio Fund LLC Series consists of the common stocks of more efficient for a Series to purchase (the ‘‘Fund’’ or the ‘‘Applicant’’) is a the five companies with the lowest per securities in 100 or 50 share lots or in registered, open-end management share stock price of the ten companies board lot size in the case of the Global investment company (File No. 811– in each of the Dow, the Financial Times Target 15 Series. A ‘‘board lot’’ is 09235). It currently consists of seven Industrial Ordinary Share Index (‘‘FT comprised of a fixed number of shares series: the DOWSM Target 5 Portfolio Index’’), and the hang Seng Index, determined by the issuer. Most fees (i.e., the Target 5 Series), the DowSM respectively, that have the highest associated with trading, settling, and Target 10 Portfolio (i.e., the Target 10 dividend yields in the respective index transfer of Hong Kong securities are Series), the Global Target 15 Portfolio as of the applicable Stock Selection charged on a per board lot basis. (i.e., the Global Target 15 Series), the Date. Accordingly, Applicant states that it is Target 10 Large Cap Portfolio, the Target 5. Applicant states that on the initial more efficient for the Global Target 15 15 Large Cap Portfolio, the Target Small Stock Selection Date, First Trust Series to purchase securities in the Cap Portfolio and the 10 Uncommon Advisors will establish the percentage specified board lot size. As a result, Values Portfolio (collectively, the relationships among the portfolio securities of a securities related issuer ‘‘Current Fund Series’’). Applicant was securities of each issuer held by the may represent (i) more than 10% but in organized under the laws of Delaware as Target 5 Series, the Target 10 Series and no event more than 10.5% of the value a limited liability company on January the Global Target 15 Series (the of the Target 10 Series’ total assets; (ii) 8, 1999. Under Delaware law, limited ‘‘Series’’), respectively, for the period more than 20%, but in no event more liability company does not issue shares until the Series are rebalanced. The than 20.5% of the value of the Target 5 of stock. Instead, ownership rights are Target 5 Series, the Target 10 Series and Series’ total assets; and (iii) more than contained in membership interests. Global Target 15 Series are adjusted 6.7%, but in no event more than 7.5% Each membership interest of Applicant annually on their Stock Selection Date. of the value of the Global Target 15 (‘‘Interest’’) represents an undivided The Target 5 Series, the Target 10 Series Series, as of the close of business on the interest in the stocks held in one of and the Global Target 15 Series intend business day following the applicable Applicant’s portfolios. to invest in the portfolio securities Stock Selection Date. Although each 2. Interests in the Fund and any future determined by their respective strategies Series will strive to purchase equal fund relying on the application are not in relatively equal amounts. When values of each of the stocks represented and will not be offered directly to the additional amounts are invested in the in a Series’ portfolio, Applicant believes public but will be offered to separate Target 5 Series, the Target 10 Series and the flexibility to deviate slightly from accounts which serve as funding the Global Target 15 Series, additional this requirement is appropriate because vehicles for variable annuity contracts securities will be purchased in numbers it enables a Series to meet its purchase and other variable insurance products. reflecting as closely as practicable the requirements while trying to obtain the Interests of each Current Fund Series are percentage relationship of the number of best price. Applicant states that this is sold only to American Skandia Life securities established on the Stock particularly important for the Global Assurance Corporation Variable Selection Date. Similarly, sales of Target 15 Series because it is more

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.230 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31328 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices efficient to purchase Hong Kong and First Trust Advisors and do not 817(h) diversification requirements. securities on a board lot basis. participate in any way in the Therefore, Applicant states that First Applicant submits that because the size management of any Series or the Trust Advisors may depart from the of board lots vary widely, it is selection of stocks purchased for a portfolio investment strategy, if appropriate to permit the Global Target Series. Changes in the components of necessary, in order to satisfy the Section 15 Series to invest up to 7.5% of the the FT Index are made entirely by the 817(h) diversification requirements. value of its asset as of the close of editors of The Financial Times without Applicant represents that in all business on the business day following consultation with the companies, the circumstances, except in order to meet the Stock Selection Date in the stock exchange or any official agency. Section 817(h) diversification securities of a securities related issuer. For the sake of continuity, changes are requirements, the common stocks 7. Applicant states that the objective rarely made. purchased for each portfolio will be of the Target 10 Series, the Target 5 10. The Hang Seng Index consists of chosen solely according to the Series and the Global Target 15 Series 33 of the 358 stocks currently listed on applicable formula described above and is to provide above-average total return. the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Ltd. will not be based on the research Each of these Series seeks its objective (the ‘‘Hong Kong Stock Exchange’’). The opinions or buy or sell by investing in common stocks issued Hang Seng Index is representative of recommendations of First Trust by companies that are expected to four major market sectors: commerce Advisors. provide income and to have the and industry, finance, properties, and potential for capital appreciation. These utilities. The Hang Seng Index is a 14. Applicant represents that First Series may or may not achieve that recognized indicator of stock market Trust Advisors does not have any objective. Applicant states that the performance in Hong Kong. In discretion as to which common stocks stocks held in these Series are not computing the Hang Seng Index, the are purchased. Applicant states that expected to reflect the entire applicable companies included therein are securities purchased for the Target 10 index or indices, and the prices of weighted by market capitalization and Series, Target 5 Series, and Global Interests are not intended to parallel or therefore the index is strongly Target 15 Series may include securities correlate with movements in the influenced by stocks with large of issuers in the Dow (and with respect applicable index or indices. Applicant capitalizations. The publishers of the to the Global Target 15 Series, issuers in states that, generally, it will not be Hang Seng Index are unaffiliated with the FT Index and the Hang Seng Index possible for all of the funds in the Target the Fund and First Trust Advisors and as well as the Dow) that derived more 10 Series Target 5 Series and Global do not participate in any way in the than 15% of their gross revenues in Target 15 Series to be 100% invested in management of any Series or the their most recent fiscal year from the prescribed mix of stocks at any time. selection of stocks purchased for a securities related activities. Applicant states that First Trust Series. Applicant’s Legal Analysis Advisors will try, to the extent 11. Applicant states that it is not a practicable, to maintain a minimum ‘‘regulated investment company’’ under 1. Section 12(d)(3) of the Act, with cash position at all times. Applicant Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue limited exceptions, prohibits an represents that normally the only cash Code of 1986, as amended (the ‘‘Code’’). investment company from acquiring any items held will represent amounts Nonetheless, Applicant states that it security issued by any person who is a expected to be deducted as charges and does not pay federal income tax on its broker, dealer, underwriter, or amounts too small to purchase interest, dividend income or capital investment adviser. Rule 12d3–1 under additional proportionate rounds lots of gains. As a limited liability company the Act exempts from Section 12(d)(3) the portfolio securities. whose interests are sold only to Account purchases by an investment company of 8. The Dow consists of 30 stocks B, Applicant states that it is disregarded securities of an issuer, except its own selected by Dow Jones & Company, Inc. as an entity for purposes of federal investment adviser, promoter, or as representative of the broader income taxation. Applicant states that principal underwriter or their affiliates, domestic stock market and of American American Skandia, through its variable that derived more than 15% of its gross industry. Applicant states that the Dow annuity separate accounts, is treated as revenues in its most recent fiscal year Jones & Company, Inc. is not affiliated owning the assets of the portfolios from securities related activities, with it and had not participated, and directly and its tax obligations thereon provided that, among other things, will not participate, in any way in the are computed pursuant to Subchapter L immediately after any such acquisition management of the Target 10 Series, of the Code (which governs the taxation the acquiring company has invested not Target 5 Series, or Global Target 15 of insurance companies). Applicant more than 5% of the value of its total Series or the selection of the stock states that under current tax law, assets in the securities of the issuer. The purchased by such Series. interest, dividend income and capital Target 10 Series, Target 5 Series, and 9. The FT Index consists of common gains of Applicant are not taxable to stocks listed on the London Stock Global Target 15 Series undertake to Applicant, and are not currently taxable comply with all of the requirements of Exchange which are chosen by the to American Skandia or to contract editors of The Financial Times Rule 12d3–1, except the condition in owners, when left to accumulate within subparagraph (b)(3) prohibiting an (London). The FT Index is an a variable annuity contract. unweighted average of 30 companies 12. Section 817(h) of the Code investment company from investing representative of British industry and provides that in order for a variable more than 5% of the value of its total commerce. The companies in the FT contract which is based on a segregated assets in securities related issuer. Index are highly capitalized, major asset account to qualify as an annuity 2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that factors in their industries, and their contract under the Code, the investment the Commission by order upon stocks are widely held by individuals made by that account must be application may, conditionally or and institutional investors. All ‘‘adequately diversified’’ in accordance unconditionally, exempt any person, companies in the FT Index are listed with Treasury regulations. security, or transaction, or any class or and traded on the London Stock 13. Applicant states that the Target 10 classes thereof, from any provision of Exchange. The publishers of the FT Series, Target 5 Series and Global Target the Act or any rule or regulation Index are unaffiliated with the Fund 15 Series must comply with the Section thereunder, if and to the extent that the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 19:13 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31329 exemption is necessary or appropriate 6. Applicant states that First Trust 9. Another possible conflict of interest in the public interest and consistent Advisors is obligated to follow the which has raised concern is where with the protection of investors and the applicable investment formula broker-dealers may be influenced to purposes fairly intended by the policy described above as nearly as practicable. recommend certain investment and provisions of the Act. Applicant states that, like prior company funds which invest in the 3. Applicant states that Section applicants for Section 12(d)(3) relief, stock of the broker-dealer or any of its 12(d)(3) was intended: (a) to prevent securities purchased for each portfolio affiliates. Applicant states that because investment companies from exposing will be chosen with respect to the of the large market capitalization of the their assets to the entrepreneurial risks specified formula. Applicant states that issuers in the Dow, FT Index and Hang of securities related businesses, (b) to the only time any deviation from the Seng Index and the small portion of prevent potential conflicts of interests; formula would be permitted would be these issuers’ common stock and trading (c) to eliminate certain reciprocal where circumstances were such that the value that would be purchased by a practices between investment investments of a particular portfolio Series, it is extremely unlikely that any companies and securities related would fail to be ‘‘adequately advice offered by a broker-dealer to a business; and (d) to ensure that diversified’’ under the Section 817(h) customer as to which investment investment companies maintain diversification requirements, and would company to invest in would be adequate liquidity in their portfolios. thus cause the annuity contracts to fail influenced by the possibility that a 4. A potential conflict could occur, for to qualify as an annuity under the Code. portfolio would be invested in the example, if an investment company Applicant states that the likelihood of broker-dealer or a parent thereof. purchased securities or other interests this exception arising is extremely 10. Finally, another potential conflict in a broker-dealer to reward that broker- remote. In such a situation, Applicant of interest could occur if an investment dealer for selling fund shares, rather states that it must be permitted to company directed brokerage to an than solely in the basis of investment deviate from the investment strategy in affiliated broker-dealer in which the merit. Applicant states that this concern order to meet the Section 817(h) company had invested to enhance the does not arise in this situation. diversification requirements and then broker-dealer’s profitability or to assist Applicant states that generally, neither only to the extent necessary to do so. it during financial difficulty, even the Applicant nor First Trust Advisors Applicant states that this limited though the broker-dealer may not offer has discretion in choosing the common discretion does not give rise to the the best price and execution. To stock or amount purchased. Applicant potential conflicts of interest or to the preclude this type of conflict, Applicant states that the stock must first be possible reciprocal practices between agrees, as a condition of this application included in the applicable index or investment companies in a securities that no company whose stock is held by indices (which along with the related business that Section 12(d)(3) is the Target 10 Series, Target 5 Series, or publishers of the indices are unaffiliated designed to prevent. Global Target 15 Series nor any affiliate with Applicant and First Trust 7. Applicant states that the liquidity of such a company, will act as broker or Advisors). In addition, with respect to of the portfolios of the Target 10 Series dealer for the Target 10 Series, Target 5 the Target 10 Series, the stock must also and Target 5 Series is not a concern here Series, or Global Target 15 Series in the qualify as one of the ten companies in since each common stock selected will purchase or sale of any security for such the Dow that has the highest dividend be a component of the Dow, listed on Series’ portfolio. yields as of the Stock Selection Date. the New York Stock Exchange, and With respect to the Target 5 Series, the among the most actively traded 11. Applicant seeks relief not only stock must qualify as one of the five securities in the United States. with respect to the Fund and its Series companies with the lowest per share Similarly, the liquidity of the portfolio described above, but also with respect to stock price of the ten companies in the of the Global Target 15 Series is also not any other existing or future open-end Dow that have the highest dividend a concern here as each common stock investment company or series thereof yields as of the Stock Selection Date. selected will be a component of the that is advised by First Trust Advisors, Finally, with respect to the Global Dow, FT Index, or Hang Seng Index, or any entity controlled by or under Target 15 Series, the stock must qualify listed on the New York Stock Exchange, common control with First Trust as one of the five companies with the London Stock Exchange, or the Hong Advisors, and that follows an lowest per share stock price of the ten Kong Stock Exchange and among the investment strategy that is the same as companies in each of the Dow, FT most actively traded securities in their the investment strategy of the Target 10 Index, and Hang Seng Index, respective countries. Series, Target 15 Series, or Global Target respectively, that has the highest 8. In addition, Applicant states that 15 Series (the ‘‘Future Funds’’). dividend yields in the respective index the effect of a Series’ purchase of the Applicant represents that any such as of the Stock Selection Date. stock of parents of broker-dealers would Future Funds will comply with the 5. Applicant states that the relief be de minimis. Applicant states that the terms and conditions of the Application, requested is substantially similar to that common stocks of securities related as amended. granted to management companies issuers represented in the Dow, FT 12. Applicant represents that the serving as investment options Index or the Hang Seng Index, as the terms of the relief requested are underlying variable annuities. In case may be are widely held with active consistent with the relief previously addition, Applicant states that the markets and that potential purchases by granted in similar applications. Commission has granted similar Section a portfolio would represent an Applicant states that the terms of the 12(d)(3) relief to unit investment trusts insignificant amount of the outstanding relief requested are consistent with the with no discretion to choose the common stock and trading volume of standards set forth in Section 6(c) of the portfolio securities or the amount any of these issuers. Therefore, Act. purchased, but with discretion to sell Applicant argues that it is almost Applicant’s Conditions portfolios securities to the extent inconceivable that these purchases necessary to meet redemptions, pay would have any significant effect on the Applicant agrees to the following expenses, and in other limited market value of any of these securities conditions: circumstances. related issuers. With respect to the Target 10 Series:

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.233 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31330 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

(a) The common stock is included in protection of investors and the purposes Norwest Center, Sixth and Marquette, the Dow as of the applicable Stock fairly intended by the policy and Minneapolis, MN 55490–1026. Selection Date; provisions of the Act. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (b) The common stock represents one For the Commission, by the Division of Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at (202) of the ten companies in the Dow that Investment Management, pursuant to 942–0574 or Nadya Roytblat, Assistant have the highest dividend yields as of delegated authority. Director, at (202) 942–0564, (Division of the applicable Stock Selection Date; Margaret H. McFarland, Investment Management, Office of (c) As of the close of business on the Deputy Secretary. Investment Company Regulation). business day following the applicable [FR Doc. 99–14757 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Stock Section Date, the value of the BILLING CODE 8010±01±M following is a summary of the common stock of each securities related application. The complete application issuer represents approximately 10% of may be obtained for a fee at the the value of such Series’ total assets, but SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Commission’s Public Reference Branch, in no event more than 10.5% of the COMMISSION 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC value of such Series’ total assets; 20549–0102 (telephone (202) 942–8090). 2. With respect to the Target 5 Series: [Investment Company Act Release No. (a) The common stock is included in 23857; 812±11622] Applicants’ Representations the Dow as of the applicable Stock 1. NAF is organized as a Delaware Norwest Advantage Funds, et al.; Selection Date; business trust and is registered under Notice of Application (b) The common stock represents one the Act as an open-end management of the five companies with the lowest June 3, 1999. investment company. NAF offers shares dollar per share stock price of the ten AGENCY: Securities and Exchange in 39 separate series, including the companies in the Dow that have the Commission (‘‘Commission’’). Index Fund (‘‘Fund’’). As a feeder fund highest dividend yields as of the ACTION: Notice of an application under in a master-feeder structure, the Fund applicable Stock Selection Date; section 17(b) of the Investment seeks to achieve its investment objective (c) As of the close of business on the by investing all of its assets in the Index business day following the applicable Company Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Act’’) for an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act. Portfolio of Core Trust (‘‘Portfolio’’). The Stock Section Date, the value of the investment objective of the Portfolio is common stock of each securities related SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants, to replicate the return of the S&P 500 issuer represents approximately 20% of Norwest Advantage Funds (‘‘NAF’’), Index. Core Trust is organized as a the value of such Series’ total assets, but Core Trust (Delaware) (‘‘Core Trust’’) Delaware business trust and is in no event more than 20.5% of the (each, a ‘‘Trust’’), Norwest Corporation registered under the Act as an open-end value of such Series’ total assets; Master Savings Trust (the ‘‘NW Plan’’), management investment company. Core 3. With respect to the Global Target 15 Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. Trust offers shares in 21 separate series, Series: (‘‘Norwest Bank’’), and Norwest including the Portfolio. (a) The common stock is included in Investment Management, Inc. (‘‘NIM’’) 2. Norwest Bank is a national bank the Dow, the Hang Seng Index, or the FT seek an order to permit an in-kind and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Index as of the applicable Stock redemption of shares of the Fund by an Wells Fargo & Company, a bank holding Selection Date; affiliated person of the Fund. company. NIM is a wholly-owned (b) The common stock represents one FILING DATE: The application was filed subsidiary of Norwest Bank and is of the five companies with the lowest on May 28, 1999. Applicants have registered under the Investment per share stock price of the ten agreed to file an amendment during the Advisers Act of 1940 (‘‘Advisers Act’’). companies on each of the Dow, the FT notice period, the substance of which is NIM serves as investment adviser to the Index, and the Hang Seng Index, reflected in this notice. Portfolio. The NW Plan is an employee respectively, that have the highest benefit plan for affiliates of the Norwest HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An dividend yield as of the applicable Corporation, the parent corporation of order granting the application will be Stock Selection Date; Norwest Bank. The NW Plan owns issued unless the Commission orders a (c) As of the close of business on the approximately 29% of the Fund’s hearing. Interested persons may request business day following the applicable outstanding voting securities. Stock Selection Date, the value of the a hearing by writing to the 3. Wells Fargo has determined to common stock of each securities related Commission’s Secretary and serving combine a number of existing employee issuer represents approximately 6.7% of applicants with a copy of the request, benefit plans, including the NW Plan the value of such Series’ total assets, but personally or by mail. Hearing requests into a single plan (‘‘New Plan’’). The in no event more than 7.5% of the value should be received by the Commission New Plan will not offer the Fund as an of such Series’ total assets; and by 5:30 p.m. on June 28, 1999, and investment option for plan participants 4. No company whose stock is held by should be accompanied by proof of and will instead offer an index the Target 10 Series, Target 5 Series, or service on applicants, in the form of an investment option in an index collective Global Target 15 Series, or any affiliate affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of trust fund (‘‘CTF’’) managed by Barclays thereof, will act as a broker or dealer for service. Hearing requests should state Global Investors, N.A., which is not any Target 10 Series, and Target 5 the nature of the writer’s interest, the affiliated with any participant in the Series, or any Global Target 15 Series in reason for the request, and the issues Transaction. The New Plan would the purchase or sale of any security for contested. Persons who wish to be redeem in-kind its interest in the Fund such Series’ portfolio. notified of a hearing may request and ultimately reinvest the proceeds of notification by writing to the the redemption in the CTF Conclusion Commission’s Secretary. (‘‘Transaction’’). The Transaction is For the reasons summarized above, ADDRESSES: Secretary, Commission, 450 expected to take place on or about June Applicant asserts that the order Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 30, 1999. requested is appropriate, in the public 20549–0609; Applicants, Two Portland 4. The Fund’s prospectus and interest and consistent with the Square, Portland, ME 04101 and statement of additional information

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.234 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31331 provide that, under certain conflicts of interest posed by an in-kind (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 circumstances, the Fund may satisfy a redemption are that the portfolio notice is hereby given that on April 13, request for redemption in-kind with securities redeemed would be selected 1999, the American Stock Exchange LLC portfolio securities. The Transaction or priced in a way that would be unfair (‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the will be completed only if each Trust’s to either the redeeming fund or the Securities and Exchange Commission board of trustees (‘‘Board’’), including remaining shareholders. Applicants (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule the trustees who are not ‘‘interested state that the redemption in-kind will changes as described in Items I, II, and persons’’ as that term is defined in not involve any choice as to the III below, which Items have been Section 2(a)(19) of the Act securities to be distributed. Applicants prepared by the Exchange. The (‘‘Independent Trustees’’) approves the also submit that the portfolio securities Commission is publishing this notice to redemption in-kind. to be distributed in-kind will be valued solicit comments on the proposed rule Applicants’ Legal Analysis in the same manner as they would be change from interested persons. valued for purposes of determining the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 1. Section 17(a)(2) of the Act generally Fund’s net asset value. prohibits an affiliated person of a Statement of the Terms of Substance of registered investment company or an Applicants’ Conditions the Proposed Rule Change affiliated person of such person, acting Applicants agree that any order The Amex proposes to split the as principal, from knowingly granting the requested relief will be purchasing any security or other Morgan Stanley High Technology Index subject to the following conditions: (‘‘Index’’) to one-third its current value. property (except securities of which the 1. The Fund will distribute to the NW seller is the issuer) from the company. Plan pursuant to an in-kind redemption II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines a pro rata share of each portfolio Statement of the Purpose of, and ‘‘affiliated person’’ of another person to security held by the Portfolio (‘‘In-Kind Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule include, among others, any person Securities’’), provided that the Fund Change owning 5% or more of the outstanding may distribute cash (i) in lieu of odd lot voting securities of the other person and securities, fractional shares and accruals In its filing with the Commission, the any person controlling, controlled by or on such securities, and (ii) as proceeds Amex included statements concerning under common control with the other from the liquidation of S&P 500 Index the purpose of, and basis for, the person. Under section 2(a)(9) of the Act, futures contracts held by the Portfolio. proposed rule change and discussed any a person that owns beneficially more 2. The In-Kind Securities distributed comments it received on the proposed than 25% of the voting securities of a to the NW Plan will be valued in the rule change. The text of these statements company is presumed to control the same manner as they would be valued may be examined at the places specified company. for purposes of computing the Fund’s in Item IV below. The Amex has 2. Applicants state that Norwest Bank, net asset value. prepared summaries, set forth in as the record holder on behalf of the NW 3. The Fund will maintain and sections A, B, and C below, of the most Plan of 29% of the outstanding voting preserve for a period of not less than six significant aspects of such statements. securities of the Fund, would be an years from the end of the fiscal year in affiliated person of the Fund. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s which the proposed in-kind redemption Applicants also state that because the Statement of the Purpose, of, and the occurs, the first two years in an easily Fund holds greater than 5% of the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule accessible place, a written record of the outstanding voting securities of the Change redemption setting forth a description of Portfolio, the Fund would be an each security distributed in-kind, the 1. Purpose affiliated person of the Portfolio, and terms of the in-kind distribution and the Norwest Bank, through its subsidiary, The Exchange proposes to split the information or materials upon which NIM, could be viewed as an affiliated Morgan Stanley High Tech Index to one- the valuation was made. person of an affiliated person of the third its current value and temporarily Portfilio. Applicants state that to the For the Commission, by the Division of increase its position and exercise limits extent that an in-kind redemption could Investment Management, under delegated to three times their current levels as be viewed as involving the sale of authority. discussed more fully below. Position portfolio securities from the Fund to the Margaret H. McFarland, and exercise limits will revert to their NW Plan, section 17a(a)(2) may prohibit Deputy Secretary. applicable limits at the expiration of the the Transaction. [FR Doc. 99–14680 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] furthest LEAP expiration month as 3. Section 17(b) of the Act provides BILLING CODE 8010±01±M established on the date of the split. that, notwithstanding section 17(a) of Morgan Stanley High Tech Index: On the Act, the Commission shall exempt a September 26, 1995, the Commission proposed transaction from section 17(a) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE approved the Exchange’s request to of the Act if evidence establishes that: COMMISSION permit options trading on the Index.3 (a) The terms of the proposed [Release No. 34±41472; File No. SR±Amex± Initially, the aggregate value of the transaction are reasonable and fair and 99±14] stocks contained in the Index was do not involve overreaching; (b) the reduced by a divisor to establish an proposed transaction is consistent with Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice index benchmark value of 200. The the policy of each registered investment of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change by Index’s current value, as of the close on company involved; and (c) the proposed the American Stock Exchange LLC April 7, 1999, taken from Bloomberg transaction is consistent with the Relating to a Reduction in the Morgan Financial Markets Commodities News general purposes of the Act. Stanley High Technology Index Value 4. Applicants submit that the terms of 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). June 2, 1999. the Transaction meet the standards set 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. forth in section 17(b) of the Act. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the 3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36283 Applicants contend that the potential Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Sept. 26, 1995), 60 FR 51825 (Oct. 3, 1995).

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.007 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31332 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices and rounded to the nearest whole 2. Basis Commission and any person, other than number, was approximately 1075. The proposed rule change is those that may be withheld from the As a consequence of the rising of the consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 4 public in accordance with the Index’s value, premium levels for in general, and furthers the objectives of provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be options on the Index have also risen. Section 6(b)(5) 5 in particular, in that it available for inspection and copying in the Commission’s Public Reference These higher premium levels have is designed to prevent fraudulent and Room, Copies of such filing will also be discouraged retail investors and some manipulative acts and practices, to available for inspection and copying at market professionals from trading promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and the principal office of the Amex. All options on the Index. The Exchange submissions should refer to File No. believes that decreasing the value of the coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, SR–Amex–99–14 and should be Index may make the Index options more submitted by July 1, 1999. attractive to retail investors and other and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and For the Commission by the Division of market professionals and therefore more open market and a national market Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated competitive with other products in the system. authority.6 marketplace. As a result, the Exchange Margaret H. McFarland, B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s is proposing to decrease the Index to Deputy Secretary. one-third its present value. Statement on Burden on Competition [FR Doc. 99–14682 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] To decrease the Index’s value, the The Exchange does not believe that BILLING CODE 8010±01±M Exchange will triple the divisor used in the proposed rule change will impose calculating the Index. No other changes any burden on competition. are proposed as to the components of C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE the Index, its method of calculation Statement on Comments on the COMMISSION (other than the change in the divisor), Proposed Rule Change Received From [Release No. 34±41471; File No. SR±BSE± expiration style of the option, or any Members, Participants, or Others 99±1] other Index specification. The Exchange did not solicit or The lower valued Index will result in receive written comments on the Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice substantial lowering of the dollar values proposed rule change. of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by of option premiums for Morgan Stanley the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. To III. Date of Effectiveness of the High Technology contracts. The Allow Specialist Remote Access to the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for BEACON System Exchange plans to adjust outstanding Commission Action series similar to the manner in which June 2, 1999. Within 35 days of the date of equity options are adjusted for a 3-for- Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 1 stock split. On the effective date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) Securities Exchange Act of 1934 split ‘‘ex-date,’’ the number of 1 2 as the Commission may designate up to (‘‘Act’’), and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, outstanding Morgan Stanley option 90 days of such date if it finds such notice is hereby given that on March 26, contracts will be tripled and strike longer period to be appropriate and 1999, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. prices reduced by a factor of three. publishes its reasons for so finding or (‘‘BSE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Position and Exercise Limits: (ii) as to which the Exchange consents, Securities and Exchange Commission Currently, the Index’s position and the Commission will: (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule exercise limits are equal to 15,000 (A) By order approve such proposed change as described in Items I, II and III contracts on the same side of the rule change, or below, which items have been prepared 3 market. The Exchange proposes to triple (B) Institute proceedings to determine by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit the Index’s position and exercise limits whether the proposed rule change comments on the proposed rule change to 45,000 contracts on the same side of should be disapproved. from interested persons. the market. This change will be made in IV. Solicitation of Comments I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s conjunction with the simultaneous Interested persons are invited to Statement of the Terms of Substance of reduction of the Index’s value and the submit written data, views and the Proposed Rule Change tripling of the number of contracts. arguments concerning the foregoing, Because the new limits will be including whether the proposed rule The Exchange seeks to adopt a one- equivalent to the Index’s present limits, change is consistent with the Act. year pilot program for remote specialist there is no additional potential for Persons making written submissions trading on the BEACON trading system, manipulation of the Index or the should file six copies thereof with the under which BSE specialists will be underlying securities. Further, an Secretary, Securities and Exchange permitted to conduct regular trading investor who is currently at the 15,000 Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., activities off the BSE’s trading floor. contract limit will, as a result of the Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies of Proposed new language is italicized. index value reduction, automatically the submission, all subsequent * * * * * hold 45,000 contracts to correspond amendments, all written statements with the lowered Index value. The with respect to the proposed rule 6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). position and exercise limits will revert change that are filed with the 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 to their then applicable limits at the Commission, and all written 17 CFR 240.19b–4. communications relating to the 3 The proposed rule change’s purpose was expiration of the furthest non-LEAP proposed rule change between the clarified and technical changes were made during (Long Term Equity Anticipation a conversation between George Mann, General Security) expiration month as Counsel, BSE, and Joshua Kans, Attorney, Division 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). of Market Regulation (‘‘Division’’), Commission, established on the date of the split. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). May 26, 1999.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31333

CHAPTER XXXIII Chapter II, Section 9 (‘‘Trading for Joint (j) Floor policies regarding dress code, Boston Exchange Automated Account’’); smoking, identification and visitors Communication Order-routing Network Chapter II, Section 10 (‘‘Discretionary shall not apply. Transactions’’); (k) All Exchange correspondence, (BEACON) Chapter II, Section 13 (‘‘Trading Against memoranda, bulletins and other BEACON Remote Privileges’’); publications shall be sent to BEACON Chapter II, Section 15 ‘‘Record of Orders Remote specialists via electronic mail Sec. 9. BEACON terminals and related from Offices to Floor’’); through BEACON and via U.S. mail or equipment will be provided to remote Chapter II, Section 23 (‘‘Dealing on overnight delivery. member firm locations for specialist Other Exchanges, or Publicly Outside (l) All BEACON Remote specialists trading. The remote terminals will be the Exchange’’); will have stentofon, as well as telephone linked to the BEACON Trading System Chapter II, Section 31 (‘‘Offering access, to the physical trading floor. and will provide the same functionality Publicly on the Floor’’); (m) Servicing of BEACON terminals as is available to on-floor specialists. All Chapter VII, Section 2 (‘‘Member- and related equipment shall be by orders directed to remote specialists, organization Accounts’’); Exchange authorized and trained including ITS commitments and Chapter XV, Section 1 (‘‘Registration’’); personnel only. 4 administrative messages, will be from Chapter XV, Section 2 (n) The Exchange’s examination the Woburn data center through (‘‘Responsibilities’’); program would include the remote BEACON as occurs with on-floor Chapter XV, Section 3 (‘‘Code of specialist operations of all firms. specialists. Floor broker orders will be Acceptable Business Practices for (o) Any arbitration or disciplinary routed to remote specialists under the Specialists’’); action arising out of trading activity same criteria by which they are routed Chapter XV, Section 5 (‘‘Preference on pursuant to this section would be held to on-floor specialists. There will be no Competitive Basis’’); at the physical offices of the Exchange remote floor brokerage services. The Chapter XV, Section 6 (‘‘The Specialist’s located in Boston. following shall apply to specialists Book’’); * * * * * participating in the 12-month BEACON Chapter XV, Section 9 (‘‘Opening Listed Remote pilot program: II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Stock’’); Statement of the Purpose of, and (a) All rules and policies of the Board Chapter XV, Section 10 (‘‘Hours’’); of Governors of the Exchange shall Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Chapter XV, Section 16 (‘‘Status of Change apply except as specifically excluded or Orders When Primary Market amended under this section. Closed’’); In its filing with the Commission, the (b) Only member firms with existing Chapter XV, Section 18 (‘‘Procedures for Exchange included statements Exchange specialist operations are Competing Specialists’’); concerning the purpose of and basis for eligible for participation in the 12- Chapter XVI (‘‘Special Offerings’’); the proposed rule change and discussed month BEACON Remote pilot program. Chapter XVIII, Section 1 (‘‘Penalties’’); any comments it received on the (c) Any eligible firm may apply to the proposed rule change. The text of these Market Performance Committee to Chapter XVII, Section 4 (‘‘Imposition of Fines for Minor Violation(s) of Rules statements may be examined at the participate in the pilot program. places specified in Item III below. The (d) Unless the Market Performance and Floor Decorum Policies’’); Chapter XX, Section 6 (‘‘Gratuities’’); Exchange has prepared summaries, set Committee specifically authorizes forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of otherwise, participating member firms Chapter XXII, Section 2 (‘‘Capital and Equity Requirements’’); the most significant aspects of such shall be prohibited from trading statements. remotely any securities which are Chapter XXXI, Section 2 (‘‘Intermarket currently being traded on-floor by that Trading System’’); A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s individual member firm. Chapter XXXI, Section 3 (‘‘Pre-Opening Statement of the Purpose of, and (e) The number of specialty stocks Application’’); Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule traded remotely shall not exceed two Chapter XXXI, Section 4 (‘‘Trade- Change Throughs and Locked Markets’’); hundred (200) per specialist account. (1) Purpose (f) Individual securities may not be Clearing Corporation Rule 3, Section 2 traded by one specialist firm in more (‘‘Dual Member Broker/Dealer The purpose of the proposed rule than one location. Accounts’’); change is to establish a limited scope, (g) All layoff orders must be included Clearing Corporation Rule 3, Section 3 one-year pilot program to provide for in BEACON drop copy.1 (‘‘Boston Representative Broker/ remote specialist trading through the (h) All rule references pertaining to Dealer Accounts’’); BEACON system.5 At present, access to the trading floor of the Exchange, Clearing Corporation Rule 3, Section 4 the BEACON system is provided only to including: (‘‘Specialist Member’’); specialists located on the Exchange’s Chapter I–B, Section 2 (‘‘Dealings on Clearing Corporation Rule 4, Section 4 physical trading floor, and all market- Floor—Hours’’); (‘‘Bills Rendered’’); making occurs on that physical floor. Chapter I–B, Section 3 (‘‘Dealings on shall be deemed to include any trading The Exchange views the remote Floor—Persons’’); done remotely through BEACON, and specialist proposal as the natural first Chapter II, Section 2 (‘‘Recording of all such trades shall be deemed to be Sales’’); executions on the Exchange. 4 In its filing, the Exchange used the term ‘‘DOT Chapter II, Section 6 (‘‘Bids and Offers system trade data’’ in this footnote. The Exchange (i) A written confidentiality policy now proposes to use the term ‘‘layoff system trade for Stocks’’); regarding the location of equipment and data.’’ Conversation between George Mann, General access to information, terminals and Counsel, BSE, and Joshua Kans, Attorney, Division, 1 Drop copy is a BEACON system enhancement equipment must be adopted by the firm Commission, May 26, 1999. which permits the electronic loading of layoff 5 The BEACON system is the Exchange’s system trade data for realtime specialist position and filed with and approved by the securities communication, order-routing and updating, clearance, settlement and audit trail Exchange prior to the commencement of execution system. See generally BSE Rules, Chapter purposes.4 remote trading. XXXIII.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.009 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31334 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices step in the progression from a manual BEACON as occurs with on-floor of the Exchange shall be deemed to open outcry system of trading to an specialists. Floor brokers orders will include any trading done remotely automated electronic trading system. also be routed to remote specialists through BEACON, and all such trades Although the Exchange believes that under the same criteria by which they shall be deemed to be executions on the many traditional exchanges are are routed to on-floor specialists. Exchange (Section 9(h)); a written considering eliminating their trading Members will not be able to use the confidentiality policy regarding the floors, due to the numerous electronic BEACON Remote pilot to conduct floor location of equipment and access to communications networks with which brokerage services. information, terminals and equipment the Exchange must now compete, the Proposed Section 9(a) would provide must be adopted by the firm and filed Exchange seeks to provide its specialist that all rules and policies of the Board with and approved by the Exchange member firms with the option of virtual of Governors of the Exchange shall prior to the commencement of remote access to the Exchange’s physical floor apply except as specifically excluded or trading (Section 9(i)) 8; floor policies via a remote BEACON terminal located amended. Accordingly, all of the regarding dress code, smoking, in the firms’ offices, while retaining the Exchange’s membership, net capital, identification and visitors shall not ability to centralize specialists on the equity, examination, specialist apply (Section 9(j)) 9; all Exchange Exchange’s physical trading floor. performance evaluation, competing correspondence, memoranda, bulletins The Exchange proposes to implement specialist, stock allocation, trading and and other publications shall be sent to the program by adding Section 9, specialist rules and policies would BEACON Remote specialists via ‘‘BEACON Remote,’’ to Chapter XXXIII apply equally to remote specialists. electronic mail through BEACON and of the Exchange’s rules. Because of the Surveillance and compliance via U.S. mail or overnight delivery framework of the BEACON trading monitoring of remote specialist trading (Section 9(k)); all BEACON Remote system and the BEAM on-line activity would occur through BEAM as specialists will have stentofon, as well surveillance system,6 all trades on the it does today for on-floor specialists, as telephone access, to the physical Exchange occur within the confines of and trading issues with a remote trading floor (Section 9(l) 10; servicing of BEACON and are monitored real-time specialist would be addressed via BEACON terminals and related BEAM. Section 9 would permit telephone and e-mail (as opposed to in equipment shall be by Exchange specialist operations to function person on the trading floor). authorized and trained personnel only remotely within the confines of these The following limitations will apply (Section 9(m)); the Exchange’s Exchange systems, and within the to remote specialists participating in the examination program would include the framework of the existing rules of the 12-month pilot program: Proposed remote specialist operations of all firms Exchange, although those operations Section 9(b) would provide that only (Section 9(n)) 11; and any arbitration or would not be physically conducted on existing Exchange specialist operations disciplinary action arising out of trading the trading floor. As such, all executions are eligible to participate. Proposed activity pursuant to this section would that occur within the BEACON System, Section 9(e) would provide that the total be held at the physical offices of the whether on-floor or remote, would be number of specialty stocks traded Exchange located in Boston (Section considered executions occurring on the remotely shall not exceed two hundred 9(o)). floor of the Exchange, not unlike (200) per specialist account. Proposed (2) Basis executions which occur today on the Section 9(d) would provide that Cincinnati Stock Exchange, which has securities currently traded on-floor by a The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5) of the no physical trading floor. Both remote firm cannot be moved to a remote Act,12 in that it is designed to promote and on-floor specialists would have location unless specifically authorized just and equitable principles of trade; to equal access to all BEACON by the Exchange’s Market Performance foster cooperation and coordination functionalities, including access to the Committee. Proposed Section 9(g) with persons engaged in regulating, Intermarket Trading System (‘‘ITS’’) would provide that all layoff orders clearing, settling, processing through the recently developed must be included in BEACON drop information with respect to, and BEACON System interface. copy, meaning that remote specialists facilitating transactions in securities; to The Exchange is proposing to permit would be required to utilize layoff remove impediments to and perfect the remote specialist access to the BEACON systems that are electronically linked to system for a 12-month pilot program. mechanism of a free and open market BEACON to help ensure that a and a national market system; and, in The Exchange would provide BEACON surveillance audit trail is created by the terminals and related equipment to drop copy report.7 remote member firm locations for 8 Proposed confidentiality policies should In addition, the following provisions provide that BEACON terminals would be specialist trading during this period. shall apply to the program: any eligible physically located in a secure area without open The remote terminals will be linked to firm may apply to the Exchange’s access, and that members have made a specific the BEACON Trading System utilizing Market Performance Committee to person responsible for ensuring compliance. dedicated lines and connected via the 9 The Exchange adopted those floor policies in its participate in the pilot program (Section Minor Rule Plan, pursuant to BSE Rules chapter same wide area network currently 9(c)); a specialist firm may not trade XVIII, section 4. utilized to link the physical trading individual securities in more than one 10 BSE’s stentofon system provides electronic floor to the Woburn data center. These location (Section 9(f)); all rule voice communications among BSE members. terminals will provide the same 11 The Exchange conducts a full examination of references pertaining to the trading floor the books and records of those member firms functionality as is available to on-floor assigned to it as the Designated Examining specialists. All orders directed to remote 7 The drop copy system generates a report of all Authority (‘‘DEA’’). In addition, the Exchange specialists, including ITS commitments executions of orders laid off to other market centers conducts a more limited examination of the books and administrative messages, will be for purposes of specialist position updating, and records of all non-DEA member firms with clearance and settlement, and audit trail. BSE specialist operations on the floor (limited to books from the Woburn data center through members may layoff orders to the New York Stock and records related to specialist operation only). Exchange through the Designated Order This review would be expanded to include the 6 The BEAM system provides the Exchange with Turnaround (‘‘DOT’’) system and to the American examination of the books and records of all firms real-time capabilities to monitor specialist trading Stock Exchange through the Post Execution with remote specialist operations. activity within the BEACON system. Reporting (‘‘PER’’) system. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31335 general, to protect investors and the For the Commission, by the Division of (e) Locked and Crossed Markets. public interest; and is not designed to Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated (1) A market shall not, except under permit unfair discrimination between authority.13 extraordinary circumstances, enter or customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. Margaret H. McFarland, maintain quotations in Nasdaq during Deputy Secretary. normal business hours if: B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s [FR Doc. 99–14684 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] (A) the bid quotation entered is equal Statement on Burden on Competition BILLING CODE 8010±01±M to (‘‘lock’’) or greater than (‘‘cross’’) the The Exchange does not believe that asked quotation of another market the proposed rule change will impose maker entering quotations in the same any burden on competition that is not SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE security; or necessary or appropriate in furtherance COMMISSION (B) the asked quotation is equal to (‘‘lock’’) or less than (‘‘cross’’) the bid of the purposes of the Act. [Release No. 34±41473; File No. SR±NASD± 99±23] quotation of another market maker C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s entering quotations in the same security. Statement on Comments on the Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice [The prohibitions of this rule include Proposed Rule Change Received From of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and the entry of a locking or crossing Members, Participants or Others Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed quotation at or after 9:25:00 a.m. Eastern No written comments were either Rule Change by the National Time if such quotation continues to lock solicited or received. Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. or cross the market at the market’s Relating to Locked and Crossed opening, and requires a market maker or III. Date of Effectiveness of the ECN that enters a locking or crossing Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Markets that Occur at or Prior to the Market's Open quotation at or after 9:25:00 a.m. Eastern Commission Action Time to take action to avoid the lock or Within 35 days of the date of June 2, 1999. cross at the market’s open or publication of this notice in the Federal Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the immediately thereafter, but in no case Register or within such longer period (i) Securities Exchange Act of 1934 more than 30 seconds after 9:30:00 a.m.] as the Commission may designate up to (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 (C) Obligations Regarding Locked/ 90 days of such date if it finds such notice is hereby given that on May 3, Crossed Market Conditions Prior to longer period to be appropriate and 1999, the National Association of Market Opening. publishes its reasons for so finding or Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’ or (i) Locked/Crossed Market Prior to (ii) as to which the self-regulatory ‘‘Association’’), through its wholly 9:20 a.m.—For locks/crosses that occur organization consents, the Commission owned subsidiary, Nasdaq Stock prior to 9:20 a.m. Eastern Time, a will: Market, Inc. (‘‘Nasdaq’’), filed with the market maker that is a party to a lock/ (A) By order approve such proposed Securities and Exchange Commission cross because the market maker either rule change, or (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’) the proposed has entered a bid (ask) quotation that (B) Institute proceedings to determine rule change as described in Items I, II, locks/crosses another market maker’s whether the proposed rule change and III below, which Items have been quotation(s) or has had its quotation(s) should be disapproved. prepared by the NASD.3 The locked/crossed by another market Commission is publishing this notice to maker (‘‘party to a lock/cross’’) may, IV. Solicitation of Comments solicit comments on the proposed rule beginning at 9:20 a.m. Eastern Time, Interested persons are invited to change from interested persons. send through Nasdaq’s SelectNet system submit written data, views and (or its successor system) a message of I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s arguments concerning the foregoing, any size that it at the receiving market Statement of the Terms of Substance of including whether the proposed rule maker’s quoted price (‘‘Trade-or-Move the Proposed Rule Change change is consistent with the Act. Message’’). Any market maker that Persons making written submissions Nasdaq is proposing to amend the receives a Trade-or-Move Message at or should file six copies thereof with the portion of NASD Rule 4613(e) regarding after 9:20 a.m. Eastern Time, and that Secretary, Securities and Exchange locked and crossed market conditions 4 is a party to a lock/cross, must within Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., that occur prior to the market’s opening. 30 seconds of receiving such message Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies of Below is the text of the proposed rule either: fill the incoming Trade-or-Move the submission, all subsequent change. Proposed new language is in Message for the full size of the message; amendments, all written statements italics; proposed deletions are in or move its bid down (offer up) by a with respect to the proposed rule brackets. quotation increment that unlocks/ change that are filed with the 4613. Character of Quotations. uncrosses the market. Commission, and all written (a)–(d) No changes. (ii) Locked/Crossed Market Between communications relating to the 9:20 and 9:29:59 a.m.—If a market 13 proposed rule change between the 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). maker locks or crosses the market 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). Commission and any person, other than 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. between 9:20 and 9:29:59 a.m. Eastern those that may be withheld from the 3 On May 14, 1999, Nasdaq amended its proposal Time, the market maker must public in accordance with the to require a market participants that sends a Trade- immediately send through SelectNet to provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be or-Move Message (as defined below) to place a the market maker whose quotes it is available for inspection and copying at modifier on the message indicating the message is locking or crossing a Trade-or-Move a Trade-or-Move Message. See letter from Robert E. the Commission’s Public Reference Aber, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Message that is at the receiving market Room. Copies of such filing will also be Nasdaq, to Richard Strasser, Assistant Director, maker’s quoted price and that is for at available for inspection and copying at Division of Market Regulation, Commission, date least 5,000 shares (in instances where the principal office of the Exchange. All May 14, 1999 (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). there are multiple market makers to 4 A locked market occurs when the quoted bid submissions should refer to File No. price is the same as the quoted ask price. A crossed lock/cross, the locking/crossing market SR–BSE–99–1 and should be submitted market occurs when the quoted bid price is greater maker must send a message to each by July 1, 1999. than the quoted ask price. party to the lock/cross and the aggregate

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31336 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices size of all such messages must be at open because the passively locked/ Move Message, a market participant least 5,000 shares). A market maker that crossed market participant may not must append to the SelectNet message receives a Trade-or-Move Message respond immediately to the incoming a symbol indicating that such message during this period and that is party to SelectNet message. To address ongoing has been designated as ‘‘Trade-or- a lock/cross, must within 30 seconds of concerns with locked and crossed Move.’’ Nasdaq is requiring market receiving such message either: fill the markets, Nasdaq is proposing the participants to append such a symbol so incoming Trade-or-Move Message for following amendments to NASD Rule that the receiving market participant the full size of the message; or move its 4613(e). knows that it owes some obligation to bid down (offer up) by a quotation Generally, the proposed amendments the incoming message.8 Of course, a increment that unlocks/uncrosses the provide that if a market participant is a market participant could accept a market. party to a locked/crossed market prior to portion of the incoming Trade-or-Move (iii) A market maker that sends a the open, beginning at 9:20 a.m. the Message, but would be required to move Trade-or-Move Message pursuant to market participant has the right to send its quote within the 30 second time subparagraphs (e)(1)(C)(i) or (e)(1)(C)(ii) the other parties to the lock/cross a period. of this rule must append to the message SelectNet message (‘‘Trade-or-Move In addition, if the receiving market a Nasdaq-provided symbol indicating Message’’), to which the receiving participant trades in full with the that it is a Trade-or-Move Message. market participant(s) must respond in message (i.e., up to the full amount of (2)–(3) No Change. one of two ways. Specifically, the the incoming Trade-or-Move-Message), * * * * * receiving market participant(s) must the market participant may maintain its respond to the Trade-or-Move Message II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s locked/crossed quotes and not move if Statement of the Purpose of, and within 30 seconds by either: (1) Trading it wishes to trade more shares. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule with the message for the full size of the Thereafter, any party to the lock/cross Change message; or (2) moving its quotation to would have the right, but not the a price level that unlocks or uncrosses obligation, to send a Trade-or-Move In its filing with the Commission, the market. Thus, the receiving market Message to any other party to the lock/ Nasdaq included statements concerning participant has the choice of either cross, and any party to the lock/cross the purpose of, and basis for, the trading in full or moving its quote out that receives a Trade-or-Move Message proposed rule change, and discussed of the way.5 Under the proposal, a would then have the obligation to trade any comments it received on the market participant’s obligations would or move within 30 seconds. proposed rule change. The text of these vary slightly depending on whether the Locks/Crosses Prior to 9:20 a.m. statements may be examined at the lock/cross occurs prior to or after 9:20 places specified in Item IV below. a.m., as specified below. For locks/crosses that occur prior to Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set 9:20 a.m. Eastern Time, any party to a forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of Locks/Crosses Occurring At or After lock/cross would have the right but not the most significant aspects of such 9:20 and Before 9:30 a.m. the obligation beginning at 9:20 a.m., to statements. If a market participant locks/crosses send a Trade-or-Move Message of any A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s the market between 9:20 a.m. and size to any party to the lock/cross. Statement of the Purpose of, and 9:29:59 a.m. Eastern Time, the market Similar to the above, any party to the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule participant would be required to send— lock/cross that receives a Trade-or-Move Change prior to or immediately after entering a Message would have the obligation, locking/crossing quotation—a Trade-or- beginning at 9:20 a.m., to trade or move Nasdaq is proposing amendments to Move message(s) that was for at least an within 30 seconds. Unlike locks/crosses NASD Rule 4613(e) that would alter the aggregate size of 5,000 shares to the that occur at or after 9:20 a.m., there is obligations regarding locked and party or parties that he or she is locking/ no requirement that the ‘‘actively’’ crossed markets that occur prior to the crossing. (If there are multiple market locking/crossing market participant market’s open. participants being locked/crossed, the send a specific number of shares to the Background proposed rule will require the parties to the lock/cross. The rationale ‘‘initiating’’ or ‘‘active’’ locker to send for this distinction is that it is often Nasdaq has observed a number of Trade-or-Move Messages—whose difficult to determine which party locked/crossed markets on the open. aggregate size was at least 5,000 actively locked/crossed the market in This often occurs because a member shares—to all parties to the lock/cross.)6 the period prior to 9:20 a.m. because will enter a quote prior to the open that The receiving market participant will market participants often do not actively will lock/cross the market on the open. then be required to trade in full with the Nasdaq’s current role regarding locked/ incoming message within 30 seconds or Trade-or-Move Message prior to the open would crossed markets has alleviated some, but move its quote out of the way within 30 have no liability under NASD Rule 4613(b) not all, of the locked/crossed market seconds.7 Prior to sending a Trade-or- (‘‘NASD’s Firm Quote Rule’’). In addition, Nasdaq situations. Specifically, current NASD believes that a market maker receiving a Trade-or- Rule 4613(e) provides that if a market Move Message prior to the open would owe no 5 As discussed more fully below, the receiving liability to the message under SEC Rule 11Ac1–1 participant enters a quote at or after 9:25 market participant also may trade with a portion of (‘‘SEC Firm Quote Rule’’). Thus, a market maker a.m. that would lock/cross the market the incoming Trade-or-Move Message, and move its would be permitted to move its quote without on the open, the locking/crossing quote. A market participant that trades in full with trading upon the receipt of what, during market market participant must take action the incoming Trade-or-Move Message is not hours, would be a SelectNet ‘‘liability’’ order. required to move its quote. 8 See Amendment No. 1, supra note 3. when the market opens, but in no case 6 Thus, a market participant would be prohibited Specifically, Nasdaq plans to change its system so later than 9:30:30 a.m., to unlock/ from locking/crossing the market in the 10-minute that a Trade-or-Move SelectNet message may be uncross the market by (for example) period prior to the open unless the actively locking/ encoded with the following message: ‘‘trad or mov.’’ sending a SelectNet message to the crossing market participant is willing to trade at This change will allow market participants to least 5,000 shares. distinguish a Trade-or-Move Message (to which the market participant(s) it is locking/ 7 Nasdaq states that because the proposed rule recipient has an obligation to respond under the crossing. Under the current rule, will apply to quotations entered prior to the proposed rule) from other pre-opening messages however, locks/crosses still occur at the market’s open, the market participant receiving a that a market participant may receive.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.014 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31337 monitor their quotes prior to that time. MME, who then would have to trade or disruptions to the Nasdaq market and This is also the reason why, under the move. the potential for harm to investors. proposed rule, the obligations and rights As a second example, assume that at B. Self-Regulation Organization’s of the parties to the lock/cross do not 9:18 a.m., MMW and MMX are bidding Statement on Burden on Competition start until 9:20 a.m. 74, and MMY and MMX enter offer Nasdaq believes that the 9:20 a.m. prices of 73, thus crossing the market. Nasdaq does not believe that the benchmark establishes a reasonable Since it is before 9:20 a.m., no Trade-or- proposed rule change will result in any point in time for when market Move Messages may be sent yet. At 9:20 burden on competition that is not participants should be actively a.m., all four market participants would necessary or appropriate in furtherance monitoring their quotes, responding to have the right to send Trade-or-Move of the purposes of the Act. incoming Trade-or-Move Messages, and Messages of any size to either of the two monitoring prospectively for whether market participants crossing them. Any C. Self-Regulation Organization’s they are the actively locking/crossing party not filling such an order in full Statement on Comments on the market participants in the market and within 30 seconds would have to move Proposed Rule Change Received From thus required to send out a Trade-or- its quote out of the cross. Members, Participants, or Others Nasdaq believes that the proposed Move Message for at least an aggregate Written comments were neither of 5,000 shares, It is Nasdaq’s view that rule change is consistent with the solicited nor received. if a party receives a Trade-or-Move provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) 11 and Message at or after 9:20 a.m. and stays Section 11A 12 of the Act. Section III. Date of Effectiveness of the at its quote without trading at all or 15A(b)(6) requires that the rules of a Proposed Rule Change and Timing for trading in full, this generally would be registered national securities association Commission Action considered a violation of the locked/ are designed to prevent fraudulent and crossed market rule, as amended by this manipulative acts and practices, to Within 35 days of the date of proposal, and would not be considered promote just and equitable principals of publication of this notice in the Federal a violation of NASD’s Firm Quote Rule.9 trade, to foster cooperation and Register or within such longer period (i) The following are examples of how coordination with persons engaged in as the Commission may designate up to the proposed rule would work. regulating, clearing, settling, processing 90 days of such date if it finds such information with respect to, and longer period to be appropriate and At 9:21 a.m., MMA locks four market facilitating transactions in securities, to publishes its reasons for so finding or participants—MMB, MMC, MMD and remove impediments to and perfect the (ii) as to which the Exchange consents, MME—each quoting 1,000 shares. Since mechanism of a free and open market the Commission will: the lock has occurred after 9:20 a.m., and a national market system, and, in MMA is required to send a Trade-or- (A) By order approve such proposed general, to protect investors and the rule change, or Move Message for at least 5,000 shares public interest. An association’s rules to each of these four market makers. may not be designed to permit unfair (B) Institute proceedings to determine Accordingly, MMA sends a Trade-or- discrimination between customers, whether the proposed rule change Move Message for 1,100 shares to MMB, issuers, brokers, or dealers. Section should be disapproved. who declines and moves. MMC receives 11A(a)(1)(C) provides that it is in the IV. Solicitation of Comments a 1,500 share order, fills it partially public interest and appropriate for the (1,000 shares), and, as required, moves protection of investors and the Interested persons are invited to its quote out of the way. MMD receives maintenance of fair and orderly markets submit written data, views, and a message for 400 shares, fills the to assure: (1) Economically efficient arguments concerning the foregoing, message in full, and then moves down including whether the proposed rule 1 10 execution of securities transactions; (2) ⁄8 to unlock the market. MME fair competition among brokers and change is consistent with the Act. receives a 2,000 share message, and fills dealers; (3) the availability to brokers, Persons making written submissions it completely; MME is permitted to dealers and investors of information should file six copies thereof with the remain at her quote, but is not required with respect to quotations and Secretary, Securities and Exchange to do so. MME also may send a Trade- transactions in securities; (4) the Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, or-Move Message to MMA, who must practicability of brokers executing Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies of trade or move, or MMA may send investors’ orders in the best market; and the submission, all subsequent another Trade-or-Move Message to (5) an opportunity for investors’ orders amendments, all written statements to be executed without the participation with respect to the proposed rule 9 If a market maker receives a Trade-or-Move of a dealer. change that are filed with the Message within the last 30 seconds before the opening (i.e., at or after 9:29:30 a.m.), the market Nasdaq believes that the proposed Commission, and all written maker still has the obligation to trade or move amendments to NASD rule 4613(e) are communications relating to the within 30 seconds, even if the end of that 30 consistent with sections 15A(b)(6) and proposed rule change between the seconds occurs after the market’s open. Unlike Commission and any person, other than today, a market that actively locked the market 11A(a)(1)(C) of the Act. By attempting to prior to the open would not be required to resend resolve locks and crosses on the those that may be withheld from the to the parties to the lock/cross a SelectNet message market’s opening, the proposed public in accordance with the at or after (9:30:00 a.m., in an attempt to unlock/ amendments foster cooperation and provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be uncross the market on the open. coordination with members. In addition, available for inspection and copying in However, a market maker that wishes to enter a the Commission’s Public Reference locking/crossing quote at or after 9:30:00 a.m. Nasdaq believes that the proposal also would be required to use reasonable means to avoid will ensure the fair and orderly Room. Copies of such filing will also be locking/crossing the market by, for example, operation of Nasdaq and the protection available for inspection and copying at sending a SelectNet message to the party (or parties) of investors, as its purpose is to limit the principal office of the NASD. All it will lock/cross. See NASD Notice to Members 97– submissions should refer to file number 49. 10 Because MMD has filled the message in full, he 11 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). SR–NASD–99–23 and should be is not required to move his quote. 12 15 U.S.C. 78k–1. submitted by July 1, 1999.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.016 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31338 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

For the Commission, by the Division of to the proposed rule change.6 This order introducing firms, at the beginning of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated approves the proposed rule change and the agreement and annually thereafter, a authority.13 approves Amendment No. 1 on an list of all exception and other reports Margaret H. McFarland, accelerated basis. that it offers to assist its introducing Deputy Secretary. firms in supervising and monitoring II. Description of the Proposal [FR Doc. 99–14681 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] their customer accounts. The proposal BILLING CODE 8010±01±M The NYSE proposes to revise NYSE would require each introducing firm to Rule 382 to enhance the ability of the notify the carrying firm of those specific Exchange and other securities self- reports offered that should be provided SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE regulatory organizations (‘‘SROs’’) to to the firm.8 COMMISSION monitor the activities of introducing In addition, the proposal would firms that are parties to carrying [Release No. 34±41469; File No. SR±NYSE± require the carrying firm to provide 97±25] agreements. NYSE Rule 382 governs the written notice, on an annual basis contractual agreements, known as within 30 days of July 1 of each year Self-Regulatory Organizations; New ‘‘carrying agreements. NYSE Rule 382 (i.e., between June 1 and July 31), to the York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order governs the contractual agreements, introducing firm’s Chief Executive Granting Approval to Proposed Rule known as ‘‘carrying agreements,’’ Officer, Compliance Officer, and DEA, Change and Notice of Filing and Order between a carrying firm and an of the list of reports offered to the Granting Accelerated Approval to introducing firm, that allocate certain introducing firm and to specify those Amendment No. 1 to Proposed Rule functions and responsibilities associated reports actually requested or supplied as Change to Amend its Rule 382 Relating with the carrying of, and transactions in, of the report date. to Carrying Agreements customer accounts. Generally, the The Exchange also proposes to amend proposed amendments to NYSE Rule its original filing to conform its rule June 2, 1999 382 would provide for increased language to the amended proposal I. Introduction monitoring of customer complaints submitted by the National Association regarding introducing firms, require of Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’).9 On September 16, 1997, the New York specific procedures for introducing The proposal, as amended, would grant Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’ or firms requesting reports offered by the NYSE the discretion, upon a ‘‘Exchange’’) submitted to the Securities carrying firms, and address procedures showing of good cause, to grant and Exchange Commission and responsibilities of introducing firms exemptions from the requirements (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section that are permitted to issue negotiable relating to the handling of customer 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act complaints and the provision of of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 instruments of the carrying firms. Specifically, the proposal, as exception reports in instances where the thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to amended, would require a carrying firm introducing firm is an affiliated entity of amend NYSE Rule 382 to monitor the to provide promptly any written the carrying firm.10 activities of introducing firms that are customer complaint it receives Finally, the proposal addresses those parties to carrying agreements. agreements that allow introducing firms The proposed rule change was regarding the introducing firm to the introducing firm and the introducing to issue negotiable instruments (e.g., published for comment in the Federal checks) to their customers, for which Register on October 14, 1997.3 Seven firm’s Designated Examining Authority (‘‘DEA’’). In addition, the proposal the carrying firm is the maker or drawer. comment letters were received on the The proposed rule provides that the proposal.4 On November 12, 1998, the would require that the carrying firm notify the customer who submitted the introducing firm must represent to the NYSE submitted to the Commission a carrying firm that it has supervisory letter responding to the issues raised in written complaint in writing that the complaint was received and that it was procedures in place, which it enforces the comment letters received by the and which are satisfactory to the 5 provided to the introducing firm and the Commission. On November 25, 1998, carrying firm, with respect to the the NYSE submitted Amendment No. 1 DEA. As initially proposed, the carrying firm would also have been required, in issuance of such instruments. 13 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). response to customer complaints, to III. Summary of Comments 1 inform customers of their right to 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). The Commission received seven 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4 transfer their accounts to another comment letters on the proposed rule 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39200 broker-dealer. As discussed further change.11 As discussed further below, (October 3, 1997), 62 FR 53369. below, this provision was subsequently 4 all of the commenters, except one,12 See Letters to Jonathan Katz, Secretary, deleted from the proposal in response to Commission, from Mark R. Grewe, Schroder & Co. generally opposed the proposal: four comment letters received by the Inc., dated October 14, 1997 (‘‘Schroder’’); Jonathan expressed concerns that the proposal Kord Lagemann, Esq., dated October 30, 1997; Olga 7 Commission. 13 Monetti, dated October 29, 1997; Stephen Tenison, The proposal also would require a was unnecessarily broad, while two Senior Vice President-Compliance, Global Financial carrying firm to provide to each of its stated that the proposal was inadequate Services, L.L.C., dated October 29, 1997 (‘‘Global’’); J. David Coker, Coker & Palmer, Inc., dated October 8 In addition, the carrying firm will be required 6 See Letter from James E. Buck, Senior Vice 29, 1997 (‘‘Coker & Palmer’’); Erich Sokolower, to retain and preserve copies of the specific reports President and Secretary, NYSE, to Richard C. Managing Director, Repex & Co., Inc., dated October requested by, or supplied to, the introducing firm 31, 1997 (‘‘Repex’’); and Thomas J. Berthel, Strasser, Assistant Director, Division, Commission, or have the capability to: (1) recreate copies of Chairman, Local Firms Committee, Edward dated November 24, 1998 (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). In reports provided, or (2) make available the report Schlitzer, Chairman, Clearing Firms Committee, Amendment No. 1, NYSE proposes to amend its format and data elements provided in the original and Thomas A. Franko, Ad Hoc Clearing filing to: (1) delete the proposed requirement that, reports necessary to recreate the original reports. Subcommittee, Securities Industry Association, in response to customer complaints, the carrying 9 dated November 3, 1997 (‘‘SIA’’). firm must notify the customers of their right to See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6. 10 5 See Letter from James E. Buck, Senior Vice transfer their accounts; and (2) add a good cause Id. President and Secretary, NYSE, to Richard Strasser, exclusion from certain provisions of the proposed 11 See note 4, supra. Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation rule when the introducing firm is an affiliated 12 See SIA Letter, supra note 4. (‘‘Division’’), Commission, dated November 11, entity of the carrying firm. 13 See Letters from Schroder, Global, Coker & 1998 (‘‘NYSE Response Letter’’). 7 See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6. Palmer, and Repex, supra note 4.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.017 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31339 as it failed to hold carrying firms that investor education initiatives may IV. Discussion responsible for the actions of their more effectively accomplish the The Commission finds that the 14 introducing firms. Two of the objectives of the proposed proposed rule change is consistent with commenters specifically opposed any requirements.22 the requirements of Section 6 of the attempts by the NYSE to hold carrying 29 B. Exception Reports Act and the rules and regulations firms liable for the actions of their thereunder applicable to a national 15 introducing brokers. In response, the One commenter believed that the securities exchange.30 The Commission NYSE stated that the proposed rule proposed requirement that carrying believes that the proposed rule change change would not hold the carrying firms provide a notice, on an annual is consistent with and furthers the firms responsible for the actions of their 31 basis, of reports offered to their objectives of Section (b)(5) of the Act introducing firms, noting, ‘‘the introducing firms was unnecessary and in that it is designed to prevent proposals are not intended to alter the served no ongoing useful purpose.23 fraudulent and manipulative acts and fundamental carrying/clearing practices, to promote just and equitable contractual relationship.’’ 16 This commenter recommended that the DEA and introducing broker should be principles of trade, to remove A. Customer Complaints permitted to choose whether or not to impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market receive such annual notices.24 In Two of the comment letters stated that and, in general, to protect investors and response, the Exchange reaffirmed its requiring carrying firms to send copies the public interest. of written customer complaints to the belief that the annual notice would The Commission believes that the introducing firm’s DEA is unnecessary serve as an important regulatory tool for proposed rule change, by assisting the because the introducing firm is already the introducing firm’s DEA by NYSE to better monitor the activities of required to submit information about its enhancing the DEA’s ability to conduct introducing firms, should help to customer complaints to its DEA.17 In on-site examinations and by providing prevent fraudulent and manipulative response, the NYSE distinguished the useful information regarding the acts and practices. The proposal and the proposed customer complaint specific data available to the companion proposal submitted by the requirements from existing reporting introducing firm to monitor its customer NASD 32 represent an important step rules, such as NYSE Rule 351, which accounts.25 The NYSE further noted that toward addressing recent concerns require statistical information about the proposal would require carrying about questionable sales practices and customer complaints to be provided to firms to provide information about potentially fraudulent activity engaged the DEA on a quarterly basis. The NYSE updated, and possibly reformatted, in by some introducing firms.33 The noted that the proposal would reports that might be useful to the Commission expects that the proposed supplement, rather than duplicate, the introducing firm, as well.26 rules, by establishing procedures for the existing reporting requirements by handling of customer complaints, the requiring that copies of actual written C. Negotiable Instruments offer and receipt of exception reports, complaints be provided immediately to and the introducing firm’s issuance of One commenter noted that the the DEA.18 negotiable instruments of the carrying representations required of the Three comment letters expressed firm, should assist the SROs in their concerns that the proposed notification introducing firm that it have regulatory efforts. In addition, by provisions advising complaining supervisory procedures in place with requiring carrying firms to provide to customers of their rights to transfer their respect to check writing that are their introducing firms copies of accounts would be misleading as it ‘‘satisfactory’’ to the carrying firm places customer complaints and lists of could create the perception that the responsibility on the carrying firm that available exception reports, the proposal subject of the complaint necessarily may be inconsistent with other should help introducing firms to better warranted a transfer.19 For example, one requirements, noting that NYSE rule monitor their customer accounts. commenter pointed out that the 382(b)(4) permits the responsibility for proposed statement ‘‘might well cause the receipt and delivery of funds to be A. Customer Complaints the customer to infer wrongdoing and allocated pursuant to the carrying The proposed customer complaint take his or her business elsewhere, agreement.27 The NYSE stated that provisions of the proposal would regardless of the merit of the complaint although the carrying firm, as the maker require carrying firms to provide any or the underlying circumstances or drawer of the negotiable instrument, written customer complaint they receive * * *.’’ 20 Another commenter should be satisfied as to the adequacy of regarding the introducing firm to the suggested that the proposed response the introducing firm’s procedures introducing firm and the introducing ‘‘should be reserved for only serious relating to the issuance of such firm’s DEA. In addition, the proposal allegations where a transfer of account negotiable instruments, the proposal would require that the customer who is an appropriate response.’’21 In was not intended ‘‘to impose submitted the written complaint be response, the NYSE proposes to delete supervisory obligations on the carrying this provision from its proposal, noting organization that are not part of its 29 15 U.S.C. 78f. contractual allocated responsibilities or 30 In approving this rule, the Commission considered the proposed rule’s impact on 14 See Letters from Lagemann and Monetti, supra part of its supervisory responsibilities efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 note 4. pursuant to Rule 382.’’ 28 U.S.C. 78c(f). 15 See Letters from Schroder and SIA, supra note 31 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 4. 32 The Commission is simultaneously approving 16 See NYSE Response Letter, supra note 5. 22 See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6; see also the NASD’s amended proposal, File No. SR–NASD– 17 NYSE Response Letter, supra note 5. See Letters from Schroder and Global, supra 97–76. note 4. 23 See Global Letter, supra note 4. 33 The Commission encourages the NYSE, the 18 24 Id. See NYSE Response Letter, supra note 5. NASD, and others to continue to consider 25 19 See Letters from Schroder, Global, and SIA, See NYSE Response Letter, supra note 4. additional measures focusing on introducing and supra note 4. 26 Id. clearing firm processes that would assist in 20 See SIA Letters, supra note 4. 27 See SIA Letter, supra note 4. detecting and deterring fraudulent and 21 See Global Letter, supra note 4. 28 See NYSE Response Letter, supra Note 5. manipulative activities.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31340 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices notified in writing by the carrying firm introducing firms’ DEA written annual the compliance burden on introducing that the complaint was received and notice, within 30 days of July 1, of the firms and their carrying brokers alike, as that it was provided to the introducing list of reports offered to each well as enhance the usefulness of the firm and the DEA. introducing firm and to specify those rules for the firms’ respective DEAs. The Commission believes the reports actually requested or supplied as D. Negotiable Instruments proposed requirements relating to the of the report date. handling of customer complaints Exception and other reports are The Commission believes that the received by carrying firms are important tools in the monitoring and proposed procedures to be followed by reasonable. These procedures should supervision of customer accounts, from introducing firms that issue negotiable enhance the ability of introducing firms both a risk management and customer instruments for which the carrying firm and their DEAs to monitor complaints. services perspective. For example, is the maker or drawer are reasonable. In particular, DEAs and firms should be reports that flag unusual account Specifically, the Commission believes better able to identify patterns of activity or possible unauthorized trades that it is appropriate for the introducing complaints and to determine, for may allow for early detection and firm to be required to represent to the example, whether there is a problem correction of potential problems with a carrying firm that it has supervisory with the firms’ supervisory procedures, firm’s supervisory procedures, procedures in place, which it enforces, operations, or an individual registered operations, or an individual registered and which are satisfactory to the representative. The Commission notes representative. In addition, the carrying firm. A carrying firm that finds the commenters’ concerns that the Commission believes that information that its introducing firm does not have proposal is duplicative because existing regarding reports available and those minimal safeguards and procedures for NYSE Rule 351 requires member firms reports requested as of a specific date the issuance of checks drawn on the to report to the Exchange statistical and should assist both the introducing firm carrying firm’s account should, at a summary information regarding in assessing its prospective needs and minimum, reexamine its relationship customer complaints.34 The the introducing firm’s DEA in its with the introducing firm. The Commission, however, believes that regulatory efforts. Commission views the proposed because this proposal would require the Finally, the Commission notes that requirement as a supplement to, rather submission of a copy of the actual the proposed requirements relating to than a replacement for, any other complaint to the DEA, the proposed exception reports apply to all carrying obligation or legal liability of the reporting requirements supplement, firm/introducing firm relationships, carrying firm as maker or drawer of the rather than duplicate, the existing regardless of the manner in which the instrument.35 reporting requirements. date is transmitted from the carrying The Commission finds good cause for Moreover, the Commission agrees firm to the introducing firm. Therefore, approving proposed Amendment No. 1 with the commenters that the the proposed rules are equally prior to the thirtieth day after the date notification provisions, initially applicable to carrying agreements that of publication of notice of filing thereof proposed, which required carrying firms provide for the transmission from the in the Federal Register. In Amendment to advise complaining customers of clearing firm to the introducing firm of No. 1, the NYSE addresses the concerns their right to transfer their accounts, raw data, rather than information raised in the seven comment letters could have created the perception that organized in a formatted report. Under received by the Commission on this the subject of the customer’s complaint either scenario, the Commission expects proposal. Moreover, Amendment No. 1 warranted a transfer. Many customer the introducing firm to determine what modifies the original filing only slightly, complaints relate to operational issues, information is needed for the proper in response to specific comments raised such as delayed dividend checks, and supervision of its customer accounts, by interested parties. Specifically, are easily resolved by the firm. The and to have the ability to use the data Amendment No. 1 deletes the proposed Commission believes that broader provided by its carrying firm in its rule language requiring carrying firms to investor education initiatives designed supervisory efforts. include in their responses to customer to inform investors of their rights would C. Exemption for Good Cause Shown complaints a statement regarding the more effectively achieve the same customer’s right to transfer the account objectives without creating the The NYSE is proposing to include an to another broker-dealer. As discussed possibility of unnecessary confusion. exemption from the customer complaint above, the Commission believes that The Commission is working with the and exception report provisions of the alternative investor education initiatives SROs on educational initiatives in this proposal for those situations in which to inform public customers of their area. Accordingly, the Commission carrying firms are already performing rights as investors would be equally believes that the NYSE’s proposal to these compliance functions for their effective, without raising the possibility delete the proposed notification introducing firm affiliates. The of customer confusion regarding provision is appropriate. Commission believes that it is whether the carrying firm believes such reasonable for the Exchange to have the action is warranted. Amendment No. 1 B. Exception Reports authority to grant such an exemption in also adds a good cause exclusion from The proposal also would require the limited circumstances in which the certain provisions of the proposed rule carrying firms to provide a list of all introducing firm is an affiliated entity of in circumstances in which the reports that are offered to their the carrying firm to avoid duplication of introducing firm is an affiliated entity of introducing firms and would require efforts. the carrying firm and the carrying firm In addition, the Commission notes each introducing firm to provide its has assumed the responsibility for that this proposed revision to the carrying firm with a list of specific performing certain compliance NYSE’s original filing seeks to conform reports requested. The proposal further functions for the introducing firm. As the Exchange’s rule language to the would require carrying firms to provide the modifications proposed in to their introducing firms and the amended proposal submitted by the NASD. The Commission believes that 35 See, e.g., NYSE Information Memo No. 96–4 34 See Letters from Schroder and Global, supra uniformity between the NYSE’s and the (November 22, 1996); NYSE Interpretation note 4. NASD’s rules in this area should ease Handbook, p. 561–62, (k)(2)(ii)/017.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.023 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31341

Amendment No. 1 are reasonable and risks to both the firm and its customers of International Trade, Small Business do not significantly alter the original from questionable sales practice and Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, proposal, the Commission believes that potentially fraudulent activity. Suite 8500, Washington, DC 20416. Amendment No. 1 raises no new issues In addition, the Commission believes Phone No: 202–205–6436. of regulatory concern. Accordingly, the that the proposal should also assist the Send comments regarding whether Commission believes that it is regulatory efforts of the introducing this information collection is necessary consistent with section 6 of the Act 36 to firms’ DEAs. Specifically, the for the proper performance of the approve Amendment No. 1 to the Commission believes that the proposal function of the agency, accuracy of proposed rule change on an accelerated may allow earlier detection by an burden estimate, in addition to ways to basis. introducing firm’s DEA of potentially minimize this estimate, and ways to fraudulent activity, which will benefit V. Solicitation of Comments enhance the quality. investors and the public. Therefore, the Jacqueline K. White, Interested persons are invited to Commission finds the approval of the Chief, Administrative Information Branch. submit written data, views and proposed rule change, as amended, is [FR Doc. 99–14716 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] arguments concerning Amendment No. consistent with the requirements of the BILLING CODE 8025±01±U 1, including whether Amendment No. 1 Act applicable to a national securities is consistent with the Act. Persons exchange, and in particular, with the making written submissions should file requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION six copies thereof with the Secretary, Act 37 and the rules and regulations Securities and Exchange Commission, thereunder. Delegation of Authority To Conduct 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Asset Sales of Loans and Other 20549–0609. Copies of the submission, section 19(b)(2) of the Act,38 that the Properties all subsequent amendments, all written proposed rule change (SR–NYSE–97– statements with respect to the proposed 25) is approved, as amended. A. The Administrator of the Small rule change that are filed with the For the Commission, by the Division of Business Administration (the ‘‘Agency’’) Commission, and all written Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated Aida Alvarez pursuant to the authority communications relating to the authority.39 vested in her by the Small Business Act, proposed rule change between the Margaret H. McFarland, 72 Stat. 384, as amended and the Small Commission and any person, other than Deputy Secretary. Business Investment Act of 1958, 72 those that may be withheld from the [FR Doc. 99–14683 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Stat. 689 as amended, hereby delegates public in accordance with the to the Assistant Administrator for BILLING CODE 8010±01±M provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Portfolio Management the following available for inspection and copying in authority to conduct sales in bulk of the Commission’s Public Reference Agency assets including loans and SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Room. Copies of all such filings will properties. also be available for inspection and Data Collection Available for Public 1. To conduct a public sale of 7(a), copying at the principal office of the Comments and Recommendations 503, 504 and disaster business and NYSE. All submissions should refer to home loans or portfolios of loans and File No. SR–NYSE–97–25 and should be ACTION: Notice and request for properties that have been designated for submitted by July 1, 1999. comments. the Asset Sales Program. 2. To enter into any and all VI. Conclusion SUMMARY: In accordance with the agreements with lenders that are The Commission believes that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this required to market and sell assets as part proposal, as amended, should notice announces the Small Business of the Asset Sales Program. significantly assist the efforts of Administration’s intentions to request 3. To remove any loans or properties introducing firms and their DEAs to approval on a new, and/or currently from a particular sale or from the Asset fulfill their supervisory responsibilities. approved information collection. Sales Program. Specifically, the Commission believes DATES: Comments should be submitted 4. To oversee and take all necessary that, by ensuring that carrying firms on or before August 9, 1999. action in connection with the provide introducing firms with FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: administration, servicing, collection and important information about their Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, liquidation of any loan that has been customers’ accounts and by requiring Small Business Administration, 409 3rd designated for the Asset Sales Program. that the introducing firms have in place Street, SW, Suite 5000, Washington, DC 5. To solicit bids from qualified supervisory procedures with respect to 20416. Phone Number: 202–205–7030. bidders for the purchase of loan assets their issuance of negotiable instruments, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: or properties held by the Agency or for the proposed rules should enhance good Title: ‘‘Trade Mission Online which the Agency has been authorized business practices by introducing firms. Company Profile Data’’. to act as agent for their sale by Further, by requiring that introducing Form No: 2111. participating lenders or third parties firms receive copies of customer Description of Respondents: U.S. holding Agency guaranteed or direct complaints and exception and other Small Business Exporters. loans. reports about their customers’ account, Annual Responses: 100,000. 6. To execute on behalf of SBA loan the proposal should assist introducing Annual Burden: 50,000. sale agreements and any other firms in more quickly identifying and Comments: Send all comments documents necessary to consummate addressing potential problems with regarding this information collection to the sale and transfer of certain loans and their supervisory procedures, Ken Fletcher, Program Analysts, Office properties designated for the Asset Sales operations, or an individual registered Program to successful bidders approved representative. This should reduce the 37 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). by the Deputy Administrator. 38 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 7. To take all necessary action in 36 15 U.S.C. 78f. 39 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). connection with matters related to the

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.024 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31342 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Asset Sales Program and to do and ADDRESSES: Office of the United States (C) Has imposed or enforced taxes or perform and to assent to the doing and Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, other exactions, restrictive maintenance performance of, all and every act and NW., Room 523, Washington, DC 20508. or operational conditions, or other thing requisite and proper to effectuate FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: measures with respect to property so the powers granted herein. James M. Roberts, Director for Central owned, the effect of which is to 8. To certify true copies of any American and Caribbean Affairs, (202)– nationalize, expropriate, or otherwise records, papers, documents or 395–5190). seize ownership or control of such instruments in the possession of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section property, unless the President Agency, to certify the nonexistence of 212(f) (19 U.S.C. 2702(f)) of the determines that— records; and to cause the Seal of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (i) Prompt, adequate, and effective Small Business Administration to be states: compensation has been or is being made affixed to all such certifications. to such citizen, corporation, 9. The authority and powers delegated On or before October 1, 1993, and the close partnership, or association, of each 3-year period thereafter, the President herein may not be re-delegated. shall submit to the Congress a complete (ii) Good-faith negotiations to provide B. The Administrator of the Small report regarding the operation of this title, prompt, adequate, and effective Business Administration (the ‘‘Agency’’) including the results of a general review of compensation under the applicable Aida Alvarez pursuant to the authority beneficiary countries based on the provisions of international law are in vested in her by the Small Business Act, consideration described in subsections (b) progress, or such country is otherwise 72 Stat. 384, as amended and the Small and (c). taking steps to discharge its obligations Business Investment Act of 1958, 72 The Chairman of the Trade Policy under international law with respect to Stat. 689 as amended, hereby delegates Staff Committee invites written such citizen, corporation, partnership, to the Deputy Administrator the comments from the public relevant to or association, or following authority: the program’s operation, including the (iii) A dispute involving such citizen, To approve the selection of the status of beneficiary countries under the corporation, partnership, or association, successful bidder or bidders for any criteria set out below. Interested parties over compensation for such a seizure asset sale conducted by the Agency. The may comment on any aspect of the has been submitted to arbitration under Deputy Administrator’s approval of all program’s operation. Issues to be the provisions of the Convention for the bids will be based on the advice and examined include: The program’s effect Settlement of Investment Disputes, or in recommendation of a committee on the volume and composition of trade another mutually agreed upon forum, consisting of the Chief Financial Officer, and investment between the United and promptly furnishes a copy of such Chief Operating Officer, General States and the region; its effect on determination to the Senate and House Counsel, Associate Administrator for economic growth and development of of Representatives; Financial Assistance, and the Associate beneficiary countries; the effect on U.S. (3) If such country fails to act in good Deputy Administrator for Capital firms and consumers; the degree to faith in recognizing as binding or in Access. which the Act has encouraged the trade enforcing arbitral awards in favor of Aida Alvarez, and investment policies cited in the Act; United States citizens or a corporation, Administrator. and the administrative requirements for partnership or association which is 50 [FR Doc. 99–14715 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] beneficiary exporters and U.S. per centum or more beneficially owned by United States citizens, which have BILLING CODE 8025±01±P importers. Interested parties are also asked to been made by arbitrators appointed for comment on the following Act each case or by permanent arbitral bodies to which the parties involved OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES designation criteria as contained in have submitted their dispute; TRADE REPRESENTATIVE sections 212(b) and (c) of the Act: (b) * * * In addition, the President (4) If such country affords preferential Trade Policy Staff Committee; Public shall not designate any country a treatment to the products of a developed Comments on the Caribbean Basin beneficiary country under this title— country, other than the United States, Economic Recovery Act: Report to (1) If such country is a Communist which has, or is likely to have, a Congress country; significant adverse effect on United (2) If such country States commerce, unless the President AGENCY: Office of the United States (A) Has nationalized, expropriated or has received assurances satisfactory to Trade Representative. otherwise seized ownership or control him that such preferential treatment ACTION: Notice and request for of property owned by a United States will be eliminated or that action will be comments. citizen or by a corporation, partnership, taken to assure that there will be no or association which is 50 per centum such significant adverse effect, and he SUMMARY: Section 221(f) of the or more beneficially owned by United reports those assurances to the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery States citizens, Congress; Expansion Act of 1990 (19 U.S.C. (B) Has taken steps to repudiate or (5) If a government-owned entity in 2702(f)) (‘‘the Act’’) requires the nullify— such country engages in the broadcast of Administration to submit a report to the (i) Any existing contract or agreement copyrighted material, including films or Congress on or before October 1, 1999 with, or television material, belonging to United regarding the operation of the program. (ii) Any patent, trademark or other States copyright owners without their All interested parties are invited to intellectual property of, a United States express consent; submit comments relevant to the issues citizen or a corporation, partnership, or (6) Unless such country is a signatory to be examined in preparing such a association which is 50 per centum or to a treaty, convention, protocol, or report, including the considerations more beneficially owned by United other agreement regarding the included in subsections 212(b) and (c) States citizens, the effect of which is to extradition of United States citizens; of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(b) and (c)). nationalize, expropriate, or otherwise and DATES: Public comments are due by seize ownership or control of property (7) If such country has not or is not noon on Wednesday, June 30, 1999. so owned, or taking steps to afford internationally

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.237 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31343 recognized worker rights (as defined in (11) The extent to which such country FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John section 502(a)(4) of the Trade Act of is prepared to cooperate with the United Crowley, Jr., Interagency Task Force on 1974) to workers in the country States in the administration of the the Roles and Missions of the U.S. Coast (including any designated zone in that provisions of this title. Guard, 1111 Jefferson Davis Highway, country). Persons submitting written comments Suite 502 West Tower, Arlington, VA Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), and (7) should provide a statement in twenty 22302, telephone (703) 416–0192, shall not prevent the designation of any copies, by noon, Wednesday, June 30, facsimile (703) 416–6793. country as a beneficiary country under 1999, to Gloria Blue, Executive SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The this Act if the President determines that Secretary, TPSC, Office of the U.S. President has directed an independent such designation will be in the national Trade Representative, Room 501, 600 study on the appropriate roles and economic or security interest of the 176th Street, NW, Washington, DC missions of the U.S. Coast Guard United States and reports such 20508. Non-confidential information through year 2020. The Interagency determination to the Congress with his received will be available for public Task Force on the Roles and Missions of reasons therefor. inspection by appointment, in the USTR the U.S. Coast Guard will seek to (c) In determining whether to Reading Room, Room 101, Monday identify and distinguish which Coast designate any country a beneficiary through Friday, 10 a.m. to 12 noon and Guard roles, missions, and functions: (a) country under this title, the President 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. For an appointment call Might be added or enhanced; (b) might shall take into account— Brenda Webb on 202–395–6186. be maintained at current levels of (1) An expressions by such country of Business confidential information will performance; or (c) might be reduced or its desire to be so designated; be subject to the requirements of 15 CFR eliminated. The Task Force will also (2) The economic conditions in such 2003.6. Any business confidential consider whether private organizations, country, the living standards of its material must be clearly marked as such public authorities, local or State inhabitants, and any other economic on the cover letter or page and each governments, or other federal agencies factors which he deems appropriate; succeeding page, and must be might better perform current Coast (3) The extent to which such country accompanied by a non-confidential Guard roles, missions, and functions. has assured the United States it will summary thereof. The Task Force will also consider the provide equitable and reasonable access Frederick L. Montgomery, impact on Coast Guard roles, missions, to the markets and basic commodity and functions of future prospects in the resources of such country; Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee. areas of technology, demographics, the (4) The degree to which such country [FR Doc. 99–14657 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190±01±M law of the sea, national security, etc. follows the accepted rules of On May 10, 1999, the Office of the international trade provided for under Secretary of Transportation published a the General Agreement on Tariffs and notice seeking public comment on the Trade, as well as applicable trade DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION roles and missions of the U.S. Coast agreements approved under section 2(a) Guard to help the Task Force determine of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979; Office of the Secretary whether those roles and missions are (5) The degree to which such country still appropriate. The Coast Guard has uses export subsidies or imposes export [OST±1999±5631] received several requests for more time performance requirements or local to comment. content requirements which distort The Interagency Task Force on the Roles and Missions of the U.S. Coast This notice reopens the comment international trade; period until July 15, 1999, to provide (6) The degree to which the trade Guard the public with additional time to policies of such country as they relate AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. review and comment on the roles and to other beneficiary countries are missions of the U.S. Coast Guard. It contributing to the revitalization of the ACTION: Notice reopening public should not disadvantage any person, region; comment period. (7) The degree to which such country and will give the Task Force the benefit SUMMARY: This notice announces that is undertaking self-help measures to of additional informed comments. we are reopening until July 15, 1999, the Issued in Washington, DC on June 3, 1999. promote its own economic period for submitting comments on the Nancy McFadden, development; roles and missions of the U.S. Coast (8) Whether or not such country has Guard. The original comment period General Counsel. taken or is taking steps to afford to ended on June 1, 1999. [FR Doc. 99–14773 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] workers in that country (including any BILLING CODE 4910±62±P designated zone in that country) DATES: Comments are now due July 15, internationally recognized worker 1999. rights. ADDRESSES: Your written comments DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (9) The extent to which such country must be signed and refer to docket provides under its law adequate and number OST–199–5631. Send them to Federal Highway Administration effective means for foreign nationals to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, secure, exercise, and enforce exclusive Room PL–401, 400 7th Street, SW., Environmental Impact Statement: King rights in intellectual property, including Washington, DC 20590–0001. All County, WA patent, trademark, and copyright rights; comments received will be available for AGENCY: Federal Highway (10) The extent to which such country public examination at this address Administration (FHWA), DOT. prohibits its nationals from engaging in between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET. ACTION: Notice of intent. the broadcast of copyrighted material, Monday through Friday, except Federal including films or television material, Holidays. Persons who wish notification SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this belonging to United States copyright of the receipt of their comments must notice to advise the public that an owners without their express consent; include a self-addressed, stamped environmental impact statement will be and envelope or postcard. prepared for proposed redevelopment of

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.223 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31344 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices properties in the Waterfront South area Kingston and Seattle-Southworth in Splits the passenger only terminal and of Seattle in King County, Washington. Year 2001. maintenance facilities between Colman The primary purpose of the proposed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dock and Pier 48; (B) locates the new project is to create a multi-modal Gene Fong, Division Administrator, WSF passenger only terminal and regional transportation facility capable Federal Highway Administration, 711 maintenance facilities within the Pier 48 of accommodating current and future South Capitol Way, Suite 501, Olympia, right of way, and, (C) modification of A ferry ridership. A secondary goal of the WA 98501, telephone: (360) 753–9413; and B which would likely require project is to take full advantage of the greater cooperation among key Terry McCarthy, Deputy Assistant revenue-sharing potential of public Secretary, Washington State Ferries stakeholders including the CITY, WSF, sector capital investments. and the PORT, and may result in a (WSF), 801 Alaskan Way, Seattle, WA The proposed Waterfront South 98104, telephone: (206) 515–3403 and/ larger public access area. project will combine infrastructure All options considered will require or Tim King, P.E., Project Manager, improvements at Colman Dock and Pier Washington State Ferries, 811 First WSF/WSDOT to purchase all or part of 48 to accommodate long range ferry Pier 48 from the PORT. Option C would Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104, telephone: traffic serviced by WSF; will expand (206) 233–9127; or David Schniedler, require additional exchanges of current and improve a remote vehicle holding ownership or operational agreements be Manager of Customer Service Marine area (RHA) located south of Colman Division, Port of Seattle, Pier 69, P.O. established between the WSF/WSDOT, Dock; will add capacity to existing the PORT, and the CITY. Box 1209, Seattle, WA 98111, arterials between the RHA and Colman telephone: (206) 728–3523. Public involvement completed as part Dock; will allow improvements to of the master planning process in 1996 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The existing public open space owned and and 1997 included formation of a FHWA, in cooperation with Washington operated by the City of Seattle; will Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), accommodate limited international ferry State Ferries (WSF)/Washington State interviews and coordination with service and/or commercial moorage; and Department of Transportation (WSDOT) stakeholders, public open houses, a to the extent practical will allow for and the Port of Seattle (PORT), will speakers bureau, and project future development of the Pier 48 prepare an environmental impact newsletters. Additional planning has upland property. statement (EIS) on a proposal for occurred since the Master Development redevelopment of Seattle waterfront In addition to the No Action alternative required under NEPA, Plan was completed to develop options properties in the area of Colman Ferry to assist in the scoping process and Dock and Pier 48 in King County, alternatives under consideration include the following common design options alternatives development for the EIS. Washington, at the terminus of State Announcements describing the Route 519. for improving, locating or relocating, or reconstructing facilities and operations: proposed action and soliciting The project, known as ‘‘Waterfront vehicle holding on Colman Dock; a comments will be sent to the South’’, would provide for the fourth auto slip and connecting appropriate Federal, State, local improvement and redevelopment of overhead passenger walkways at Pier agencies, affected Indian Tribes, private waterfront properties generally bounded 50; limited retail development at organizations, and citizens who have by Terminal 46 on the south, Alaskan Colman Dock; additional pedestrian and previously expressed or are known to Way (State Route 519) to the east, and vehicle ticketing capabilities; new POFF have an interest in this proposal. A Colman Ferry Dock (Piers 50 and 52) to terminal and maintenance facilities series of open houses beginning in May the north. Improvements to Alaskan south of Colman Dock; expanded public 1999 are scheduled as a part of the EIS Way and to an interim remote vehicle open space; improvement of existing public involvement plan. Two EIS holding area bounded by Alaskan Way, and addition of new pedestrian scoping meetings are scheduled for June 1st Avenue South, and Royal Brougham walkways, ramps and bridges; improved 15, 1999—one for agencies and the other Way are also included. transit connections; channelization and for the public. Input from these open The condition of the existing physical signal improvements between the RHA houses and scoping meetings will then facilities within the limits of the and Colman Dock; upgrade of historic be used to identify the alternatives for Waterfront South project require varying sites and public parks; improvement/ study in the EIS. Subsequent to Scoping, degrees of structural improvement to expansion to an interim RHA currently the EIS public involvement plan will maintain existing uses. In addition, the in planning and environmental review also include newsletters, bulletins, Colman Dock ferry terminal facilities are as part of a separate project, SR 519; and stakeholder coordination, and approaching capacity and at present contaminated sediment remediation continued involvement of the CAC. A only marginally accommodate undertaken in conjunction with project public hearing will be held after the passengers and vehicles using the construction. Selective elements being release of the Draft EIS to receive public facility. Increased delays to ferry riders considered include: transient small boat and agency comments. Public notice and increased congestion to the local moorage, moorage for a historic vessel, will be given of the time and place of community are anticipated through the international ferry service to Victoria, the future meetings and hearing. The forecast year 2025 if no action is taken. British Columbia, commercial boat draft EIS will be available for public and This increase results from passenger and moorage, and commercial/retail agency review and comment prior to the vehicle demand on existing auto ferry development on the upland properties public hearing. routes (Seattle-Bainbridge Island, and of Pier 48. To ensure that the full range of issues Seattle-Bremerton), new service on a The three option packages currently related to this proposed action are potential third auto ferry route between under consideration include all of the addressed and all significant issues Seattle and Southworth, increased common and some of the selective identified, comments and suggestions demand on existing Passenger Only Fast elements outlined in addition to the are invited from all interested parties. Ferry (POFF) routes (Seattle-Bremerton, location and configuration of a new Comments or questions concerning this and Seattle-Vashon Island), and new passenger only passenger and proposed action and the EIS should be demand resulting from the addition of maintenance facility at pier 48. Features directed to the FHWA at the address two new POFF routes between Seattle- unique to the options packages are: (A) and phone numbers provided above.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.165 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31345

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance acknowledge receipt of their comments continuing need for and usefulness of Program Number 20.205, Highway Research, must submit with those comments a BTS collecting supplemental data for Planning and Construction. The regulations self-addressed stamped postcard on the International Civil Aviation implementing Executive Order 12372 which the following statement is made: Organization (ICAO). Comments are regarding intergovernmental consultation on # Federal programs and activities apply to this Comments on OMB 2138–0004. The requested concerning whether: (a) The program) postcard will be date/time stamped and supplemental reports are needed by BTS Issued on: June 1, 1999. returned to the commenter. All to fulfill the U.S. treaty obligation of Michael R. Brower, comments submitted will be available furnishing financial and traffic reports Transportation and Environmental Engineer, for examination in the Rules Docket to ICAO; (b) BTS accurately estimated FHWA Washington Division. both before and after the closing date for the reporting burden; (c) there are other [FR Doc. 99–14779 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] comments. ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and BILLING CODE 4910±22±M FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline (d) there are ways to minimize reporting Information, K–25, Bureau of burden, including the use of automated DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Transportation Statistics, 400 Seventh collection techniques or other forms of Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, information technology. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (202) 366–4387. DATES: Written comments should be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: submitted by August 9, 1999. Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; OMB Approval No. 2138–0004 ADDRESSES: Comments should be Submission of Audit Reports, Part 248 directed to: Office of Airline Title: Submission of Audit Reports, Information, K–25, Room 4125, Bureau ACTION: Notice. Part 248. of Transportation Statistics, Department Form No.: None. of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SUMMARY: In compliance with the Type of Review: Extension of a SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, currently approved collection. COMMENTS: Comments should identify Public Law 104–13, the Bureau of Respondents: Large certificated air the OMB #2138–0039 and submit a Transportation Statistics (BTS) invites carriers. duplicate copy to the address listed the general public, industry and other Number of Respondents: 84. above. Commenters wishing the Federal Agencies to comment on the Estimated Time Per Response: 15 Department to acknowledge receipt of continuing need and usefulness of BTS minutes. their comments must submit with those collecting independent audited Total Annual Burden: 21 hours. comments a self-addressed stamped financial reports from U.S. certificated Needs and Uses: The audit reports are postcard on which the following air carriers. Carriers not having an used as follows: (a) A means of statement is made: Comments on OMB annual audit must file a statement that monitoring an air carrier’s continuing #2138–0039. The postcard will be date/ no such audit has been performed. In fitness to operate, (b) reference material time stamped and returned to the lieu of the audit report, the Department by analysts in examining foreign route commenter. will accept the annual report submitted cases, (c) reference material by analysts to the stockholders. Comments are in examining proposed acquisitions, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: requested concerning whether the mergers, and consolidations, (d) a Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline audited reports are needed by DOT as: means whereby the Department sends a Information, K–25, Bureau of (a) A means to monitor an air carrier’s copy of the report to the International Transportation Statistics, 400 Seventh continuing fitness to operate, (b) Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590– reference material used by analysts in fulfillment of a U.S. treaty obligation, 0001, (202) 366–4387. examining foreign route cases, (c) and (e) corroboration of carriers’ Form SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: reference material used by analysts in 41 filings. OMB Approval No. 2138–0039 examining proposed acquisitions, Timothy E. Carmody, mergers, and consolidations, (d) a Director, Office of Airline Information, Title: Reporting Required for means whereby the Department sends a Bureau of Transportation Statistics. International Civil Aviation copy of the report to International Civil [FR Doc. 99–14771 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Organization (ICAO). Aviation Organization (ICAO) in BILLING CODE 4910±62±U Form No.: BTS Form EF. fulfillment of a U.S. treaty obligation, Type of Review: Extension of a and (e) corroboration of carriers’ Form currently approved collection. 41 filings. Commenters should address DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Respondents: Large certificated air whether BTS accurately estimated the carriers. reporting burden and if there are other Bureau of Transportation Statistics Number of Respondents: 47. ways to enhance the quality, utility and Estimated Time Per Response: 20 clarity of the information collected. Agency Information Collection; minutes. DATES: Written comments should be Activity Under OMB Review; Reporting Total Annual Burden: 16 hours. submitted by August 9, 1999. Required for International Civil Needs and Uses: As a party to the Aviation Organization (ICAO) ADDRESSES: Comments should be Convention on International Civil directed to Mr. Bernie Stankus, Office of ACTION: Notice. Aviation (Treaty), the United States is Airline Information, K–25, Room 4201, obligated to provide ICAO with 400 Seventh Street, NW., Washington, SUMMARY: In compliance with the financial and statistical data on DC 20590–0001. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, operations of U.S. air carriers. Over 99 COMMENTS: Comments should identify Public Law 104–13, the Bureau of percent of the data filed with ICAO is the OMB #2138–0004 and be submitted Transportation Statistics (BTS) invites extracted from the air carriers’ Form 41 in duplicate to the address listed above. the general public, industry and other submissions to DOT. BTS Form EF is Commenters wishing the Department to Federal Agencies to comment on the the means by which BTS supplies the

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.166 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31346 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices remaining one percent of the air carrier also be eligible. We estimate that these three years—up to one year of intensive data to ICAO. funds will support five students for up English-language training followed by Timothy E. Carmody, to a year of intensive English-language up to two years of academic study. The Director, Office of Airline Information, training and two years towards an duration of the USIA grant cannot Bureau of Transportation Statistics. associate, bachelor’s or master’s degree exceed three years. Students must [FR Doc. 99–14772 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] program. understand this policy in advance. BILLING CODE 4910±62±U Administration in the Region: The Where there are compelling organization must work closely with circumstances, students may receive a USIA, the U.S. Information Service limited extension to complete their UNITED STATES INFORMATION (USIS), Immigration and Naturalization degrees at the discretion of the project AGENCY Service, and the U.S. Embassy in India director and the USIA program officer. to coordinate appropriate Summer periods should be used for a FY99 Burma Refugee Scholarship documentation for grantees’ entry into mix of academic, professional and Program; Request for Proposals the United States. The USIS enrichment activities. representative administering the BRSP Pre-Academic and English-Language SUMMARY: The Office of Academic is in India, but it may be difficult for Training: Applicants must describe Programs of the United States USIS officers to provide extensive plans for pre-academic preparation and Information Agency’s (USIA) Bureau of facilitative assistance for this program. English-language training. USIA Educational and Cultural Affairs Applicant proposals should therefore recommends that immediately after the announces an open competition for the include a plan to provide for publicity, initial orientation, participants be tested Burma Refugee Scholarship Program recruitment, and selection in India, to determine which level of English- (BRSP) which will begin recruitment should USIS support be unavailable. language courses are appropriate. and selection in FY99 (Academic year The organization will be responsible for Several levels of intensive English- 1999–2000) and enrollment in FY00. administering the program through its language courses, from beginning to Public and private non-profit own resources and subcontractors, as advanced, should be made available. It organizations meeting the provisions required. The organization must also is assumed that most participants in this described in IRS regulation 26 CFR provide relocation or transition scholarship program will need up to one 1.501(c) may submit proposals to assistance to the students in the U.S. at year of English-language instruction. develop an educational program for the time their studies are terminated. Students who need additional approximately five Burmese students Requirements and Implementation: instruction beyond the first year will be and professionals, living in India as The proposal should respond to and required to take the additional refugees, to receive undergraduate and/ describe the following major instruction at their placement or graduate training in a variety of fields requirements: universities. in the humanities and sciences in U.S. • Planning and monitoring the entire Recruitment: The recruitment colleges and universities for a three year exchange program; material and award publicity should grant period running until 2002. The • Selection and notification of provide all relevant information to requirements are outlined in this letter participants, including publicizing the potential applicants. The key and in the attached Program Goals, program to appropriate audiences in conditions, benefits, and terms of the Objectives, and Implementation (POGI) India using such methods as media, program—what is, and what is not document. alumni networks, and local educational covered under the grant—should be institutions and NGOs; and plans for fully described to candidates and Program Information distributing, answering inquiries about, nominees before they accept an award Overview: The goal of the program is and receiving applications—which may and travel to the U.S. The description of to support the economic and democratic require the assistance of volunteers or study opportunities should be basic and development of Burma by helping to paid staff in the region and/or special include essential information for educate potential leaders living outside mailing arrangements; applicants who are unfamiliar with the of Burma who could assist in its future • Travel; U.S. educational system, and the policy • transition to a democratic government. Placement at U.S. universities; on dependents should be described. All • Orientations; It is USIA’s intent to provide grantees • individuals should be fully informed of with programs of the highest quality Provision of housing/stipends; these policies before they accept an • On-going advising and student that meet their academic and personal award. needs and to further the Agency’s services; Stipends: Please address the question • Cross cultural counseling; mission to promote mutual • Cultural and community of participant stipend levels in the understanding. We also request that enrichment activities about the U.S.; narrative, including what expenses the administration efficiencies and cost- • Internships and professional stipend is intended to cover and the sharing be actively sought. development; estimated monthly cost of housing Guidelines: The applicant • Evaluation and alumni activities; provided to students. The USIA organization shall design a proposal and program officer must be informed in with a cost of up to $300,000 to conduct • Fiscal management. advance of any proposed adjustment in the recruitment, selection, and To the extent possible, the applicant stipend levels and must approve such placement of no more than five Burmese should designate a contact person in changes prior to implementation. undergraduate students living in India India who would provide assistance Fields of Study: Eligibility fields for in an appropriate U.S. academic setting. with dissemination and submission of the FY–99 program should respond to Monitoring the students’ academic applications. Please review the critical development needs in Burma, progress will be a requirement of the application form to ensure that it promote mutual understanding and organizations. Grant administration includes all the information needed for potential linkages with the U.S., and should begin October 1, 1999. Students review panel deliberations. attract academically qualified students with undergraduate degrees who are Length of Program: The proposed who are likely to become future leaders bridging to a master’s program would length of the Burmese scholarships is in Burma. The program announcement

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.163 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31347 might include a statement such as: To support the mutual understanding should include exchange policy matters ‘‘Eligible fields of study are drawn from goal of the exchange, USIA is as well as ‘‘what to bring.’’ the standard university curriculum, particularly interested in opportunities GPRA–Outcomes and Results: with priority given to agriculture, for academic and enrichment Applicants must include a statement of business administration, community/ experiences related to U.S. institutions, goals and expected outcomes for the public health, economics, education, society, and culture. It is recommended program, including how results, as environmental studies, journalism, legal that the applicant stipulate that students necessitated by Government studies, natural resources management take one or more courses in a U.S. Performance and Results Act (GPRA) political science, and public Studies field, such as American history, requirements would be measured. administration. If a subject area is literature, or government. USIA Outcomes might include, but are not proposed that is not among these welcomes other creative ideas for limited to, the following areas: priority fields, candidates should give exposing students to American developing a cadre of Burmese leaders special attention to explaining how this institutions, such as ‘‘issues’’ discussion with first-hand experience in the U.S., course of study would support the goals groups for students, visits to political advancement of development goals for of the program.’’ The final list of eligible campaign offices and polling places, Burma, conflict resolution and building fields and the text of the announcement attendance at school board or city viable non-governmental institutions in must be reviewed and approved by the council meetings, exposure to American Burma, and expansion of professional Office of Academic Programs, in religious institutions, and civic-related relationships between individuals and consultation with USIA’s East Asia and volunteer work. Student attendance at institutions in the U.S. and Burma. Pacific Area Office, prior to program museums, concerts, plays, and other Project goals and planning should be implementation. cultural events featuring American linked to desired outcomes. For Selection Criteria: The Burma Refugee content should be encouraged and example, if it is a goal to produce or Scholarship Program is directed toward facilitated wherever possible. The influence leaders in Burma, potential Burmese students and professionals awardee will be requested to keep USIA leadership qualities should be among who are outside Burma. The proposal informed of the status of this part of the the selection criteria for applicants. should outline the selection criteria and program throughout the year. Measurements might include: alumni selection process for the program. A Program Activities: Applicants should achievements and activities; the quality corresponding statement of the selection describe plans for orientation, including and quantity of institutional linkages criteria should be included in the pre-departure orientation; goals and established as a result of the program; program announcement for potential approaches for the academic portion of and degree of positive change in applicants. The leadership elements and the program, including any special participant and/or public attitudes as a the expectation that students will be activities such as internships or result of the program. active alumni following the conclusion academic enrichment; cultural and Budget Guidelines of the program should be mentioned. community projects; evaluation and Applicants should plan to work closely follow-up; and alumni-tracking. For Grants awarded to eligible with USIA in developing the selection example, volunteer work, student organizations with less than four years criteria. presentations to the local community, of experience in conducting Timeline: The proposed should and matching of students with a local international exchange programs will be include a projected timeline, from first host family might be among the limited to $60,000. Applicants must announcement to student arrival and enrichment activities proposed. submit a comprehensive budget for the placement in the U.S., which takes into Internships should be designed to entire program. Awards may not exceed consideration the logistical and provide a close match with a student’s $300,000. There must be a summary communications obstacles in the region. field of academic or professional budget as well as breakdowns reflecting These include immigration interest. USIA requests that applicants both administrative and program requirements, travel arrangements, time provide support systems (such as budgets. Applicants may provide required to obtain student records, and tutoring, counseling, host family, separate sub-budgets for each program the like. The timeline should include mentor or buddy system, consultation component, phase, location, or activity dates of key elements, such as with student advisor and project to provide clarification. ‘‘candidates notified,’’ ‘‘pre-arrival director) to the students during the Allowable costs for the program materials mailed,’’ etc. program. include the following: U.S. Educational System, American Pre-Arrival Information: Please A. Program Costs Culture and Institutions: It is essential provide a sample copy of the pre-arrival (1) One-way economy fare that prior to arrival, as well as during information in advance to the USIA international travel from their overseas orientation, applicants and participants program officer. Information should be location; be informed of the general nature, complete, accurate for the program site (2) Domestic travel; philosophy and goals of U.S. higher and detailed. Key points about academic (3) Tuition, room and board, education, particularly with regard to requirements, academic departments incidental expenses, maintenance for the broad scope of a liberal arts and available courses, housing, what to university vacation periods; bachelor’s degree program. Applicants bring with them, personal budgeting (4) Education materials; and participants should clearly considerations, policies on dependents, (5) Cost of standardized test fees; understand that they will be required to and other critical issues should be (6) Per diem for orientation, take courses in a variety of academic included in the material. The material professional, academic and cultural fields and should be briefed about the should be designed to serve as a useful enrichment. specifics of this grant. Students should post-arrival reference as well, receive guidance from the academic supplemented with additional B. Administrative Costs (Not To Exceed advisor to assist them in choosing information. Students should also 20% of the Budget) appropriate courses outside their major receive a summary of key points in (1) Staff salaries and benefits; field. addition to the complete package. This (2) Staff travel;

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.244 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31348 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

(3) Communications (including Please read the complete Federal subject to the availability of FY99 telephone, fax, postage, etc.); Register announcement before sending funding. The Agency reserves the right (4) Office supplies; inquiries or submitting proposals. Once to reduce, revise or increase proposal (5) Other direct costs. the RFP deadline has passed, Agency budgets in accordance with the needs of For the budget presentation, staff may not discuss this competition the program. applicants should submit a three- with applicants until the proposal The narrative is not a program report column budget which includes the review process has been completed. or an annual report, nor does it replace following information: any reporting requirements outlined in Column 1—FY–99 USIA funds To Download a Solicitation Package the grant. However, the grant proposal requested Via Internet is the only document that the review Column 2—Amount of cost-sharing in The entire Solicitation Package may panel will consider during its FY–99 be downloaded from USIA’s website at deliberations, so it should provide all Column 3—Total FY–99 Budget (Total http://e.usia.gov/education/rfps. Please relevant information for a full review. It of Columns 1 and 2) read all information before should not be assumed that panelists Please refer to the Solicitation downloading. will have prior familiarity with Package for complete budget guidelines To Receive a Solicitation Package via applicants or this particular scholarship and formatting instructions. Applicants Fax on Demand program. will find those federally required forms which must be included in the proposal The entire Solicitation Package may Review Criteria submission in the Proposal Submission be requested from the Bureau’s ‘‘Grants Technically eligible applications will Instructions section of the solicitation Information Fax on Demand System,’’ be competitively reviewed according to package. which is accessed by calling 202401– the criteria stated below. These criteria 7616. The ‘‘Table of Contents’’ listing Announcement Title and Number are not rank ordered and all carry equal available documents and order numbers weight in the proposal evaluation: All correspondence with USIA should be the first order when entering 1. Quality of the program idea: concerning this RFP should reference the system. Proposals should exhibit originality, the title and number E/AEF–99–04. Deadline for Proposals substance, precision, and relevance to Please submit a one-page Executive the Agency’s mission. Summary and a narrative as part of the All proposal copies must be received 2. Program planning: Detailed agenda proposal. The Executive Summary at the US. Information Agency by 5 p.m. and relevant work plan should should contain an overview of the goals Washington, DC time on June 30, 1999. demonstrate substantive undertakings and activities of the program in order to Faxed documents will not be accepted and logistical capacity. Agenda and plan set the context for modifications and at any time. Documents postmarked the should adhere to the program overview budget requests. The narrative should due date but received on a later date and guidelines described above. deal with program facts only, and not will not be accepted. Each applicant 3. Ability to achieve program contain the history of the organization must ensure that the proposals are objectives: Objectives should be or program philosophy, except as received by the above deadline. The reasonable, feasible, and flexible, directly relevant to the proposed FY99 BRSP applications (the original Proposals should clearly demonstrate activity. It should outline the purpose of proposal), 10 hard copies, and one extra how the institution will meet the the program and the major activities application cover sheet should be program’s objectives and plan. funded under the award which meet the submitted to: United States Information 4. Multiplier effect/impact: Proposed goals of the program. Concurrently, this Agency, Bureau of Educational and programs should strengthen long-term will provide background information for Cultural Affairs, Reference: E/AER–99– mutual understanding, including a review of the proposed budget and 04, Grants Management Division, E/XE, maximum sharing of information and program modifications. Room 326, 301 4th St. SW, Washington, establishment of long-term institutional Applicants should explain in the DC 20547. and individual linkages. narrative any personnel changes which 5. Support of Diversity: Proposals Review Process are anticipated in the coming year. should demonstrate substantive support Please also indicate briefly the USIA will acknowledge receipt of all of the Bureau’s policy on diversity. responsibilities of all staff listed as proposals and will review them for Achievable and relevant features should working on this project, including those technical eligibility. Proposals will be be cited in both program administration whose employment is cost-shared. deemed ineligible if they do not fully (selection of participants, program Please submit resumes for employees adhere to the guidelines stated herein venue and program evaluation) and under Tab E. and in the Solicitation Package. All program content (orientation and wrap- Further Information: For further eligible proposals will be reviewed by up sessions, program meetings, information, or to request a Solicitation the program office, as well as the USIA resources and follow-up activities). Package, contact the Office of Academic EA area office(s) and the USIA post(s) 6. Institutional Capacity: Proposed Programs, E/AEF, Room Number 208, overseas, where appropriate. Eligible personnel and institutional resources U.S. Information Agency, 301 4th Street, proposals will be forwarded to panels of should be adequate and appropriate to S.W., Washington, D.C. 20547, USIA officers for advisory review. achieve the program or project’s goals. telephone (202) 619–5406, fax number Proposals may also be reviewed by the 7. Institution’s Record/Ability: (202) 401–1728. The Solicitation Office of the General Counsel or by Proposals should demonstrate an Package contains detailed award other Agency elements. Final funding institutional record of successful criteria, required application forms, decisions are at the discretion of USIA’s exchange programs, including specific budget instructions, and Associate Director for Educational and responsible fiscal management and full standard guidelines for proposal Cultural Affairs. Final technical compliance with all reporting preparation. Please specify USIA authority for assistance awards (grants requirements for past Agency grants as Program Officer, Tim Gerhandson, on or cooperative agreements) resides with determined USIA’s Office of Contracts. all other inquiries and correspondence. the USIA Grants Officer. Awards will be The Agency will consider the past

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.245 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31349 performance of prior recipients and the democracy leaders of such countries.’’ Dated: June 18, 1999. demonstrated potential of new Proposals should reflect advancement of Judith Siegel, applicants. this goal to the full extent deemed Deputy Associate Director for Educational 8. Follow-on Activities: Proposals feasible. and Cultural Affairs. should provide a plan for continued [FR Doc. 99–14836 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] Year 2000 Compliance Requirement follow-on activity (without USIA BILLING CODE 8230±01±M support) ensuring that USIA supported (Y2K Requirement) programs are not isolated events. The Year 2000 (Y2K) issue is a broad 9. Project Evaluation: Proposals UNITED STATES INFORMATION operational and accounting problem should include a plan to evaluate the AGENCY activity’s success, both as the activities that could potentially prohibit unfold and at the end of the program. A organizations from processing Future Leaders Exchange Program draft survey questionnaire or other information in accordance with Federal Administrative Components technique plus description of a management and program specific NOTICE: Request for proposals. methodology to use to link outcomes to requirements including data exchange original project objectives is with USIA. The inability to process SUMMARY: The Division for the NIS recommended. Successful applicants information in accordance with Federal Secondary School Initiative, Office of will be expected to submit intermediate requirements could result in grantees’ Citizen Exchanges, of the United States reports after each project component is being required to return funds that have Information Agency’s Bureau of concluded or quarterly, whichever is not been accounted for properly. Educational and Cultural Affairs announces an open competition for the less frequent. USIA therefore requires all 10. Cost-effectiveness: The overhead Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) organizations use Y2K compliant program. Public and private non-profit and administrative components of the systems including hardware, software, proposal, including salaries and organizations meeting the provisions and firmware. Systems must accurately described in IRS regulation 26 CFR honoraria, should be kept as low as process data and dates (calculating, possible. All other items should be 1.501(c) may submit proposals to comparing and sequencing) both before necessary. conduct a package of Administrative 11. Cost-sharing: Proposals should and after the beginning of the year 2000 Components for the recruitment, maximize cost-sharing through other and correctly adjust for leap years. selection and other related activities private sector support as well as Additional information addressing the listed below for approximately 930 high institutional direct funding Y2K issue may be found at the General school students from the 12 New contributions. Services Administration’s Office of Independent States (NIS) of the former 12. Value to U.S.-Partner Country Information Technology website at Soviet Union who will come to the U.S. Relations: Proposed projects should http://www.itpolicy.gsa.gov. for the 2000/2001 academic year under the FLEX program. This RFP is only for receive positive assessments by USIA’s Authority geographic area desk and overseas the package of administrative officers of program need, potential Overall grant making authority for components described in this impact, and significance in the partner this program is contained in the Mutual solicitation. Grants for other program country(ies). Educational and Cultural Exchange Act components, including placement and supervision of the students while they Diversity, Freedom and Democracy of 1961, Public Law 87–256, as amended, also known as the Fulbright- are in the United States, will be Guidelines competed separately. Final award of the Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is ‘‘to grant or grant(s) is subject to the Pursuant to the Bureau’s authorizing enable the Government of the United availability of funding. legislation, programs must maintain a States to increase mutual understanding non-political character and should be between the people of the United States Program Information balanced and representative of the and the people of other countries* * *; diversity of American political, social, Overview to strengthen the ties which unite us and cultural life. ‘‘Diversity’’ should be with other nations by demonstrating the The Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) interpreted in the broadest sense and educational and cultural interests, program has been sponsored by USIA encompass differences including, but developments, and achievements of the since 1992, when it was authorized and not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, people of the United States and other funded under the Freedom Support Act. religion, geographic location, socio- The 2000/2001 FLEX program will be its nations * * * and thus to assist in the economic status, and physical eighth cycle. The program provides an development of friendly, sympathetic challenges. Applicants are strongly opportunity for high school students and peaceful relations between the encouraged to adhere to the aged 15–17 from the 12 countries of the United States and the other countries of advancement of this principle both in New Independent States (NIS) of the program administration and in program the world.’’ The funding authority for former Soviet Union to live with an content. Please refer to the review the program above is provided through American host family for eleven months criteria under the ‘Support for Diversity’ legislation. and attend a full academic year of high section for specific suggestions on Notification school. The scholarship covers all incorporating diversity into the total aspects of the students’ program, proposal. Public Law 104–319 provides Final awards cannot be made until including recruitment and selection, that ‘‘in carrying out programs of funds have been appropriated by orientation, travel, family and school educational and cultural exchange in Congress, allocated and committed placement, supervision while in the countries whose people do not fully through internal USIA procedures. For U.S., maintenance allowances, health enjoy freedom and democracy,’’ USIA further information, please contact my and accident insurance, cultural and ‘‘shall take appropriate steps to provide designee for this program, Tim educational enhancements, and alumni opportunities for participation in such Gerhardson, at (202) 619–5406, or activities upon return to their home programs to human rights and [email protected] on e-mail. countries. Placement, supervision,

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 31350 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices maintenance, and enhancements are not organizations working in consortium. academic, language and social skills to part of the package covered by this For consortia, each organization should be successful on the exchange. solicitation. For budgeting purposes, submit a separate proposal for its Recruitment and selection must be applicants should assume that the components and indicate clearly how conducted on the basis of merit and be number of participants will be 930, with these dovetail with the other consortium free of political influence and about 33% coming from Russia, 20% member(s). corruption; to accomplish this, the from Ukraine, and the remaining 47% process must be under the overall direct Guidelines from the other ten NIS countries. Details control of Americans at all times. can be found in the Project Objectives, The package of components for this Selection of finalists will be conducted Goals and Implementation guidelines. solicitation encompasses the following: in the U.S. Applicants must address the complete 1. Recruitment and selection of 5. Selection must reflect the cultural, package of components outlined below. student finalists through a merit-based ethnic, national and geographic The objectives of the FLEX program competition in each country. diversity of the NIS. The recruitment are: 2. Documentation—assistance with process must be open in allowing and 1. To foster interaction between young passports, visas; assistance to USIA with making it possible for any student who people from the United States and the preparation of IAP66 forms on finalists meets the eligibility criteria to apply. A former Soviet Union and promote a and alternates. serious effort must be made to include greater understanding of one another so 3. Medical screening and clearance to qualified students with physical as to contribute to our common future ensure that the students are healthy; disabilities. A pre-academic English through our greatest resource, our immunizations as necessary. enrichment program will be offered to a youth. 4. Orientation—Programming for all small percentage (approximately 3%) to 2. To provide high school students participants prior to departure from the ensure that the weaker language from the former Soviet Union with an NIS. qualifications of students with opportunity to live with American host 5. Travel—Ticketing and all disabilities and students from more families, attend a U.S. high school, and arrangements from the students’ homes remote areas is not an excluding factor learn about American society, history, to their host communities and return. in their selection. [The English program culture, and the economic and political 6. Communications and liaison with is competed separately.] It is not foundations of the United States. the students’ natural families during the necessary or even possible, given budget 3. To integrate the people of the program year. constraints and areas of civil unrest, to former Soviet Union into the global 7. On-program counseling for students cover every oblast. The grantee(s) citizenry by assisting young people of and the staff and volunteers of the should focus recruitment on major the NIS countries in building a new and placement organizations in dealing with population areas, while keeping the open society and by promoting problems. process open to applicants from all democratic values and the development 8. Information management— areas. of democratic institutions at the grass Tracking and database maintenance on 6. Uniform predeparture orientation roots level. all applicants through their selection as programming conducted regionally for 4. To provide opportunities for a finalists, their placement, and travel. all FLEX students is essential because it diverse group of youth from the NIS to 9. Tracking of, support for and follow- reinforces their identity as participants acquire values and skills and enhance up programming with alumni upon in a government scholarship program those personal qualities that will make their return home. enables the dissemination of them successful citizens and future The following considerations apply to information, policies and procedures leaders of their societies. these responsibilities: critical to the students’ success. Through participation in the FLEX 1. The grantee organization(s) must 7. What happens to participants once program, students should: coordinate overall planning with the they return home is critically important 1. Acquire an understanding of USIS staff in each country at the outset to ensuring the program’s success in important elements of a civil society. and ask USIS to indicate where the staff fulfilling its objectives and to reinforce This will include concepts such as would like to have input or play a role. the transfer of the American experience volunteerism, the idea that American 2. The ongoing communications with to the NIS. The grantee(s) must provide citizens can and do act at the grass roots natural parents, follow-up activities a clear, systematic plan for alumni level to deal with societal problems, and with alumni, and relations with foreign tracking. USIA will expect reports on an awareness of and respect for the rule government officials all require that the alumni to include dates of re-entry into of law. organization(s) maintain a year-round the NIS, current places of residence, and 2. Demonstrate a willingness and a presence in the NIS countries. The current educational/professional commitment to serve as agents for grantee(s) should seek to conduct these activities. Some follow-on activities will change in their countries after they functions efficiently and cost- be centrally funded and managed by return home. effectively. An American staff person USIA. Please refer to program specific 3. Develop an appreciation for should head each permanent office in guidelines (POGI) in the Solicitation American culture. the NIS with FLEX program Package for further details. 4. Interact with Americans and responsibilities. Participants travel on J–1 visas. As the generate enduring ties. 3. All on-the-ground operations in the sponsor is USIA, IAP66 forms are 5. Teach Americans about the cultures NIS of this administrative machinery prepared using the Government program of their home countries. must be staffed by non-U.S. Government designation number. As noted above, personnel in such a way as to ensure the grantee is responsible for assisting Eligibility that USIS and American embassy USIA in the preparation of these forms. Applicants may be public institutions personnel are not encumbered by the or organizations that are legally day-to-day functioning of the program. Timetable incorporated and recognized by the IRS 4. The aim of the program is to select The recruitment and selection process as not-for-profit. Applicants may be students who have the personal must be concluded by March 1, 2000, so single organizations or two or more qualities, motification, and the that finalist applications can be

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.224 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31351 disseminated to the organizations are not rank ordered and all carry equal honoraria, should be kept as low as responsible for placing the students in weight in the proposal evaluation: possible. All other items should be host families and schools. Travel to the 1. Quality of the program idea: necessary and appropriate. U.S. is expected to take place in July/ Proposals should exhibit originality, 9. Cost-sharing: Proposals should August 2000, in conjunction with the substance, precision, and relevance to maximize cost-sharing through other needs of the placement organizations. Agency mission and design outlined private sector support as well as Return travel should be similarly above. institutional direct funding and in-kind undertaken in May/June 2001. All 2. Program planning: Detailed agenda contributions. component should be planned in and relevant work plan should 10. Value to U.S.-Partner Country accordance with the dates and deadlines demonstrate organizational competency Relations: Proposed projects should set by the needs of the program (e.g., the and logistical capacity. Agenda and plan receive positive assessments by USIA’s date by which students need to apply should adhere to the program overview, geographic area desk and overseas for passports, the timing of arrival in the timetable and guidelines described officers of potential impact and host families, the conclusion of the above. significance in the partner countries. school year). 3. Ability to achieve program objectives: Proposals should clearly Announcement Title and Number Proposed Budget demonstrate an understanding of the All correspondence with USIA The per capita cost of this whole program’s objectives stated above and concerning this RFP should reference package of components excluding travel how the organization will achieve them. the above title and number E/PY–00–02. 4. Support of Diversity: Proposals and orientation must not exceed $3,000 For Further Information, Contact: The should demonstrate substantive support per finalist. Travel must be arranged in NIS Secondary School Initiative of the Bureau’s policy on diversity. compliance with laws on the use of Division, E/PY, Room 568, U.S. Achievable and relevant features should American flag carriers. Information Agency, 301 4th Street, be cited in both program administration Applicants must submit a SW., Washington, DC 20547, tel: (202) (e.g., staffing, program venue) and 619–6299, fax: (202) 619–5311, e-mail: comprehensive line-item budget for the program content (especially selection of < > entire package of components. There [email protected] to request a participants and orientation). Solicitation Package. The Solicitation must be a summary budget as well as a 5. Institutional Capacity: Proposed break-down reflecting both the Package contains detailed award personnel and institutional resources criteria, required application forms, administrative and program costs and should be adequate and appropriate to an indication of participant per capita specific budget instructions, and achieve the program or project’s goals. standard guidelines for proposal costs. Cost-sharing is encouraged, cash The proposal should clearly explain contributions and in-kind. Please refer preparation. Please specify USIA how the organization will make use of Program Officer Diana Aronson on all to the Proposal Submission Instructions and coordinate with other related NIS and POGI for complete budget and other inquiries and correspondence. and U.S. operations it may be Please read the complete Federal formatting instructions and for conducting. Proposals should reflect Register announcement before sending allowable costs. substantial area expertise, a grasp of inquiries or submitting proposals. Once Organizations with less than four cross-cultural issues, the needs of the the RFP deadline has passed, Agency years of experience in conducting hosting community (including the staff may not discuss this competition international exchange programs will be American host schools and the with applicants until the proposal deemed ineligible. placement organizations), and a review process has been completed. Review Process thorough understanding of how to work effectively with NIS authorities and To Download a Solicitation Package USIA will acknowledge receipt of all complexities of the environment. Via Internet proposals and will review them for 6. Institution’s Record/Ability: The entire Solicitation Package may technical eligibility. Proposals will be Proposals should demonstrate an be downloaded from USIA’s website at deemed ineligible if they do not fully institutional record of successful http://e.usia.gov/education/rfps. Please adhere to the guidelines stated herein activities that are relevant to this read all information before and in the solicitation instructions. All program, as well as responsible fiscal downloading. eligible proposals will be reviewed by management and full compliance with the program office, as well as the USIA all reporting requirements for past To Receive a Solicitation Package Via Office of NIS Affairs and the USIS posts Agency grants as determined by USIA’s Fax on Demand in the NIS countries. Eligible proposals Office of Contracts. The Agency will The entire Solicitation Package may will be forwarded to panels of USIA consider the past performance of prior be requested from the Bureau’s ‘Grants officers for advisory review. Proposals recipients and the demonstrated Information Fax on Demand System,’ also may be reviewed by the Office of potential of new applicants. which is accessed by calling 202/401– the General Counsel or by other Agency 7. Project Evaluation: The proposal 7616. The ‘Table of Contents’ listing elements. Final funding decisions are at should include a plan to evaluate the available documents and order numbers the discretion of USIA’s Associate success of the organization in achieving should be the first order when entering Director for Educational and Cultural the stated objectives. The grantee(s) will the system. Affairs. Final technical authority for also be expected to cooperate with USIA assistance awards (grants or cooperative in evaluating the program under the Deadline for Proposals agreements) resides with the USIA requirements of the Results Act (GPRA). All proposal copies must be received Grants Officer. Proposals should reflect an at the U.S. Information Agency by 5 p.m., Washington, DC time on Monday, Review Criteria understanding and grasp of these responsibilities. July 12, 1999. Faxed documents will not Technically eligible applications will 8. Cost-effectiveness: The overhead be accepted at any time. Documents be competitively reviewed according to and administrative components of the postmarked the due date but received the criteria stated below. These criteria proposal, including salaries and on a later date will not be accepted.

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.226 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31352 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

Each applicant must ensure that the information in accordance with Federal Dated: June 7, 1999. proposals are received by the above requirements could result in grantees’ Brian J. Sexton, deadline. being required to return funds that have Acting Associate Director for Educational and Applicants must follow all not been accounted for properly. Cultural Affairs. instructions in the Solicitation Package. USIA therefore requires that all [FR Doc. 99–14775 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] The original, one fully-tabbed copy organizations use Y2K complaint BILLING CODE 8230±01±M (Tabs A–F) and eight copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. systems including hardward, software, and firmware. Systems must accurately Information Agency, Ref.: E/PY–00–02, UNITED STATES INFORMATION Office of Grants Management, E/XE, process data and dates (calculating, AGENCY Room 568, 301 4th Street, S.W., comparing and sequencing) both before Washington, D.C. 20547. and after the beginning of the year 2000 South Africa Teacher Training Applicants must also submit the and correctly adjust for leap years. Program; Notice; Request for ‘‘Executive Summary’’ and ‘‘Proposal Additional information addressing the Proposals Narrative’’ sections of the proposal on a Y2K issue may be found at the General SUMMARY: The Advising, Teaching and 3.5’’ diskette, formatted for DOS. These Services Administration’s Office of Specialized Programs Division of the documents must be provided in ASCII Information Technology website at Office of Academic Programs of the text (DOS) format with a maximum line http://www.itpolicy.gsa.gov. United States Information Agency’s length of 65 characters. USIA will Bureau of Educational and Cultural transmit these files electronically to Authority Affairs announces an open competition USIS posts overseas for their review, Overall grant making authority for for a training program for primary with the goal of reducing the time it school teachers of math and science in takes to get posts’ comments for the this program is contained in the Mutual South Africa. The program will target Agency’s grants review process. Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87–256, as the upper primary level which Diversity, Freedom and Democracy amended, also known as the Fulbright- comprises grades seven through nine. Guidelines Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is ‘‘to Public and private non-profit Pursuant to the Bureau’s authorizing enable the Government of the United organizations meeting the provisions legislation, programs must maintain a States to increase mutual understanding described in IRS regulation 26 CFR non-political character and should be between the people of the United States 1.501 (C) may submit proposals to balanced and representative of the and the people of other countries * * *; design, implement, monitor, and diversity of American political, social, to strengthen the ties which unite us evaluate a primary teacher training and cultural life. ‘‘Diversity’’ should be with other nations by demonstrating the program for teachers of math and interpreted in the broadest sense and educational and cultural interests, science in South Africa. The program encompass differences including, but developments, and achievements of the will comprise three phases: (1) not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, people of the United States and other Preliminary consultations in South religion, geographic location, socio- nations * * * and thus to assist in the Africa to discuss a detailed economic status, and physical development of friendly, sympathetic implementation strategy; (2) the challenges. Applicants are strongly and peaceful relations between the development and execution of South encouraged to adhere to the United States and the other countries of Africa-based teacher training advancement of this principle both in the world.’’ The funding authority for workshops; and (3) the development program administration and in program the program above is provided through and execution of U.S.-based teacher- content. Please refer to the review legislation appropriating funds annually training summer institutes. The grant criteria under the ‘Support for Diversity’ for USIA’s exchange programs, award will be up to $300,000 for year section for specific suggestions on including the Freedom Support Act. one, and may be renewed for two incorporating diversity into the total additional years pending availability of proposal. Public Law 104–319 provides Notice funds and successful implementation. that ‘‘in carrying out programs of The terms and conditions published Program Information educational and cultural exchange in in this RFP are binding and may not be Overview countries whose people do not fully modified by any USIA representative. In response to President Mandela’s enjoy freedom and democracy,’’ USIA Explanatory information provided by efforts to raise the level of math and ‘‘shall take appropriate steps to provide the Agency that contradicts published science education, and in support of the opportunities for participation in such language will not be binding. Issuance United States-South Africa Binational programs to human rights and of the RFP does not constitute an award Commission, USIA and grantee democracy leaders of such countries.’’ commitment on the part of the organization will develop, in Proposals should reflect advancement of Government. The Agency reserves the collaboration with the South Africa this goal in their program contents, to right to reduce, revise, or increase Department of Education (DOE), a the full extent deemed feasible. proposal budgets in accordance with the primary school teacher training project Year 2000 Compliance Requirement needs of the program and the for teachers of math and science. The (Y2K Requirement) availability of funds. Awards made will grantee will work with the DOE, its The Year 2000 (Y2K) issue is a broad be subject to periodic reporting and respective entities, and supporting operational and accounting problem evaluation requirements. ministries and organizations that are that could potentially prohibit Notification directly responsible for national organizations from processing education and teacher training. information in accordance with Federal Final awards cannot be made until The project will span a three-year management and program specific funds have been appropriated by period and will consist of yearly two- requirements including data exchange Congress, allocated and committed week in-country skills development with USIA. The inability to process through internal USIA procedures. workshops for 100 teachers, followed by

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.227 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31353 yearly one-month U.S.-based summer and a U.S.-based summer institute. It is workshop could include field institutes for up to 25 master teacher anticipated that the grantee will begin experience or a model school trainers (initial grant for one year only; phase I of the program no later than component in order to provide see ‘‘Summary’’). At the conclusion of August, 1999 and that the grantee, participants with hands-on experience the program approximately three USIA, and DOE, will define a timetable using new teaching techniques and hundred primary school teachers will for the remainder of the program as part materials. Specific areas that may be have participated. Participants will be of discussions in phase I. addressed in the in-country workshops selected from all 9 provinces and two are: Phase I provinces will host the training (1) A review of present attitudes and workshops. The grantee organization will work approaches to teaching math and USIA solicits detailed proposals from with USIA and the DOE to undertake science, and the introduction of new/ U.S. educational institutions and public preliminary work in South Africa to current math and science teaching and private non-profit organizations to refine a comprehensive project plan for methodologies and approaches that develop and administer this program. yearly two-week in-service training integrate various content areas and The Grantee organization will consult workshops for approximately 100 continuous assessment techniques; regularly with USIA and the South teachers of math and science at the (2) The design of appropriate lesson Africa DOE with regard to program primary level. It is anticipated that the plans and learning programs; development and management. DOE will provide the following (3) The development of teaching Proposals should demonstrate an assistance as part of the overall program: materials appropriate for primary understanding of the issues confronting (1) Identify and provide training classes in South Africa. Appropriate training materials will be teacher training in South Africa as well site(s); developed by the grantee organization as a broad understanding of teacher (2) Assist grantee in developing and will be provided to each participant training models and practices. program strategies; for use during the training and in the The goal of the program is to assist the (3) Provide lodging, meals, and classroom after they return to their South Africa DOE in identifying, transportation costs for all in-service respective schools. A selection developing, and implementing a teacher trainees. component should be built into an on- training program for primary school Additional in-kind, or cash going assessment process to identify up teachers of math and science. The contributions, on the part of the DOE to 25 participants who will attend the program objectives are to: may be negotiated as part of phase I. summer institute to be held in the (1) Increase the professional The project plan should include, but United States. Those selected should competence of primary school teachers not be limited to: possess leadership potential and a full by conducting in-country training (1) Delineation of program grasp of the content areas of the workshops and U.S.-based summer responsibility between DOE, USIA, and workshop. institutes; grantee; (2) Develop a corps of South African (2) Country needs assessment and Phase III project goals and objectives; educators who will serve as resource The U.S.-based summer institute for facilitators and teacher trainers; (3) The development of materials and resources that will enhance current up to 25 primary master teacher trainers (3) Expand and/or establish school to should put emphasis on developing the school, teacher to teacher partnerships learning programs and reflect practical, inquiry, and experiential learning capacities of teacher trainers/educators in South Africa at the primary level in to assess, train, and mentor teachers of order to foster school linkages and concepts; (4) A mutually agreed upon protocol math and science. The program should enhance teacher training, technology for selection of participants; include a variety of formats, such as linkages where applicable, and cross (5) Monitoring and evaluation discussion sessions, lectures, fertilization of ideas. components. workshops, and practical application. Primary teachers throughout South (6) A plan for on-going The emphasis should be on learning Africa provide basic academic and life communications and contact with math and science through an inquiry skills development for the students. As program participants which emphasizes model and should integrate knowledge in other countries, the development and resource and master teacher trainer of content areas with knowledge of enhancement of teacher training skills linkages. learning strategies and students. All and in-service workshops for primary instruction and materials should teachers remains critical to their success Phase II include pedagogically and culturally and the success of their students. The The in-country training workshops appropriate materials and references rationale for the program is that will be conducted over a two-week relevant to South Africa. The workshop improved math and science instruction period at appropriate sites selected in could include field experience or a at the primary level will increase the conjunction with the DOE. A total of model school component in order to abilities of South African primary four U.S. and four South African provide participants with hands-on teachers to provide quality instruction trainers who have demonstrated experience using new teaching resulting in the improvement of expertise in professional development, techniques and materials. The student’s academic and life skills. training, and/or content areas will curriculum for the summer institutes Guidelines conduct the training workshops. It is should partially build upon the anticipated that the trainers will work in successes of the previous in-country Program Planning and Implementation pairs sharing their expertise and workshops held in South Africa and The program will consist of three insights. promote an understanding of life-long phases: a review of primary education The workshop schedule should learning. Close communication will be in South Africa in general, and math incorporate time for both individual and needed among the grantee organization, and science specifically, and the group work as well as intensive training USIA, participants, and U.S. host. refinement of a project implementation on specific approaches to the teaching Specific areas that may be addressed plan, an in-country training workshop, of math and science education. The in the summer institutes are:

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.081 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31354 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices

(1) New/current math and science (4) Per Diem. For the U.S. program, contains detailed award criteria, teaching methodologies and approaches organizations have the option of using a required application forms, specific (putting theory into practice); flat $160/day for program participants budget instructions, and standard (2) Professional teacher development or the published U.S. Federal per diem guidelines for proposal preparation. and evaluation; rates for individual U.S. cities. For Please specify USIA Program Officer (3) The design and implementation of activities outside of the U.S., the John Cox on all other inquiries and in-service training programs and published Federal per diem rates must correspondence. workshops for teachers; be used. Note: U.S. escorting staff must Please read the complete Federal (4) Leadership training; use the published Federal per diem Register announcement before sending (5) A review of existing South African rates, not the flat rate. Per diem rates inquiries or submitting proposals. Once math and science content areas. may be accessed at Http:// the RFP deadline has passed. Agency (6) The introduction and/or www.policyworks.gov/. staff may not discuss this competition adaptation of existing math and science (5) Walk-around and book allowance. with applicants until the proposal materials and practices pertinent to Participants are entitled to a walk- review process has been completed. local conditions in South Africa. around allowance of $10 per day, plus To Download a Solicitation Package Via Internet: The entire Solicitation Appropriate training materials will be a participant book allowance of $150. Package may be downloaded from developed by the grantee organization U.S. staff do not receive these benefits. USIA’s website at http://e.usia.gov/ and will be provided to each participant (6) Consultants. Consultants may be education/rfps. Please read all for use during the training and in the used to provide specialized expertise or information before downloading. classroom after they return to their to make presentations. Daily honoraria To Receive a Solicitation Package Via respective schools. generally do not exceed $250 per day. Subcontracting organizations may also Fax on Demand: The entire Solicitation Programs must comply with J–1 visa Package may be requested from the regulations (post will issue IAP–66 be used, in which case the written agreement between the prospective Bureau’s ‘‘Grants Information Fax on forms). Please refer to Solicitation Demand System’’, which is accessed by Package for further information. grantee and subcontractor should be included in the proposal. calling 202/401–7616. The ‘‘Table of Budget Guidelines (7) Room rental. Room rental for Contents’’ listing available documents and order numbers should be the first Grants awarded to eligible group activities should not exceed $250 order when entering the system. organizations with less than four years per day. (8) Materials development. Proposals Deadline for Proposals: All proposals of experience in conducting may contain costs to purchase and copies must be received at the U.S. international exchange programs will be develop appropriate materials for Information Agency by 5 p.m. limited to $60,000. participants. Washington, DC time on Friday, July 9, Applicants must submit a (9) One working meal for the program 1999. Faxed documents will not be comprehensive budget for the entire is allowed. Per capita costs may not accepted at any time. Documents program. Awards may not exceed exceed $5–$8 for a lunch and $14–$20 postmarked the due date but received $300,000. There must be a summary per a dinner, excluding room rental. The on a later date will not be accepted. budget as well as breakdowns reflecting number of invited guests may not Each applicant must ensure that the both administrative and program exceed participants by more than a proposals are received by the above budgets. Applicant may provide factor of two-to-one. deadline. separate sub-budgets for each program (10) An international travel allowance Applicants must follow all component, phase, location, or activity of $100 may be provided to each instructions in the Solicitation Package. to provide clarification. The total participant to be used for incidental The original and 10 copies of the allowable costs for the program include expenditures during international application should be sent to: U.S. the following: travel. Information Agency, Ref.: E/ASX–99–03, (1) Costs necessary for the effective (11) All summer institute participants Office of Grants Management, E/EX, administration of the program including will be covered under the terms of Room 326, 301 4th Street, SW, salaries for grant organization USIA-sponsored health insurance Washington, DC 20547. employees, benefits, and other direct policy. The premium is paid by USIA Applicants must also submit the and indirect costs are described in the directly to the insurance company. ‘‘Executive Summary’’ and ‘‘Proposal detailed instructions in the application Administrative costs. Please refer to the Narrative’’ sections of the proposal on a package. While this announcement does Solicitation Package for complete 3.5′′ diskette, formatted for DOS. These not prescribe a rigid ratio of budget guidelines and formatting documents must be provided in ASCII administrative to program cost, in instructions. text (DOS) format with a maximum line general, priority will be given to Announcement Title and Number: All length of 65 characters. USIA will proposals whose administrative costs correspondence with USIA concerning transmit these files electronically to are less than twenty-five (25) percent of this RFP should reference the above title USIA posts overseas for their review, the total requested from USIA. and number E/ASX–99–03. with the goal of reducing the time it Proposals should show cost-sharing, For Further Information Contact: The takes to get posts’ comments for the including both contributions from the Office of Academic Programs, Advising, Agency’s grants review process. applicant and from other sources. Teaching, and Specialized Programs (2) Program costs, including general Division, Fulbright Teacher Exchange Diversity, Freedom and Democracy program costs and program costs for Branch, E/ASX, Room 349, U.S. Guidelines each South African participant in the Information Agency, 301 4th Street, Pursuant to the Bureau’s authorizing U.S.-based summer institutes and South SW., Washington, DC 20547, Telephone legislation, programs must maintain a African-based training workshops. number (202) 619–4556, fax number non-political character and should be (3) International and domestic airfare; (202) 401–1433, and e-mail address balanced and representative of the visas; transit costs; ground [email protected] to request a Solicitation diversity of American political, social, transportation costs. Package. The Solicitation Package and cultural life. ‘‘Diversity’’ should be

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31355 interpreted in the broadest sense and by other Agency elements. Final 9. Project Evaluation: Proposals encompass differences including, but funding decisions are at the discretion should include a plan to evaluate the not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, of USIA’s Associate Director for activity’s success, both as the activities religion, geographic location, socio- Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final unfold and at the end of the program. A economic status, and physical technical authority for assistance draft survey questionnaire or other challenges. Applicants are strongly awards (grants or cooperative technique plus description of a encouraged to adhere to the agreements) resides with the USIA methodology to use to link outcomes to advancement of this principle both in Grants Officer. original project objectives is program administration and in program recommended. Successful applicants content. Please refer to the review Review Criteria will be expected to submit intermediate criteria under the ‘Support for Diversity’ Technically eligible applications will reports after each project component is section for specific suggestions on be competitively reviewed according to concluded or quarterly, whichever is incorporating diversity into the total the criteria stated below. These criteria less frequent. proposal. Public Law 104–319 provides are not rank ordered and all carry equal 10. Cost-effectiveness: The overhead that ‘‘in carrying out programs of weight in the proposal evaluation: and administrative components of the educational and cultural exchange in 1. Quality of the program idea: proposal, including salaries and countries whose people do not fully Proposals should exhibit originality, honoraria, should be kept as low as enjoy freedom and democracy,’’ USIA substance, precision, and relevance to possible. All other items should be ‘‘shall take appropriate steps to provide the Agency’s mission. necessary and appropriate. opportunities for participation in such 2. Program planning: Detailed agenda 11. Cost-sharing: Proposals should programs to human rights and and relevant work plan should maximize cost-sharing through other democracy leaders of such countries.’’ demonstrate substantive undertakings private sector support as well as Proposals should reflect advancement of and logistical capacity. Agenda and plan institutional direct funding this goal in their program contents, to should adhere to the program overview contributions. the full extent deemed feasible. and guidelines described above. 12. Value to U.S.-Partner Country 3. Ability to achieve program Relations: Proposed projects should Year 2000 Compliance Requirement objectives: Objectives should be receive positive assessments by USIA’s (Y2K Requirement) reasonable, feasible, and flexible. geographic area desk and overseas The Year 2000 (Y2K) issue is a broad Proposals should clearly demonstrate officers of program need, potential operational and accounting problem how the institution will meet the impact, and significance in the partner that could potentially prohibit program’s objectives and plan. country(ies). organizations from processing 4. Multiplier effect/impact: Proposed Authority information in accordance with Federal programs should strengthen long-term management and program specific mutual understanding, including Overall grant making authority for requirements including data exchange maximum sharing of information and this program is contained in the Mutual with USIA. The inability to process establishment of long-term institutional Educational and Cultural Exchange Act information in accordance with Federal and individual linkages. of 1961, Public Law 87–256, as requirements could result in grantees’ 5. Support of Diversity: Proposals amended, also known as the Fulbright- being required to return funds that have should demonstrate substantive support Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is ‘‘to not been accounted for properly. of the Bureau’s policy on diversity. enable the Government of the United USIA therefore requires all Achievable and relevant features should States to increase mutual understanding organizations use Y2K compliant be cited in both program administration between the people of the United States systems including hardware, software, (selection of participants, program and the people of other countries * * *; and firmware. Systems must accurately venue and program evaluation) and to strengthen the ties which unite us process data and dates (calculating, program content (orientation and wrap- with other nations by demonstrating the comparing and sequencing) both before up sessions, program meetings, resource educational and cultural interests, and after the beginning of the year 2000 materials and follow-up activities). developments, and achievements of the and correctly adjust for leap years. 6. Institutional Capacity: Proposed people of the United States and other Additional information addressing the personnel and institutional resources nations * * * and thus to assist in the Y2K issue may be found at the General should be adequate and appropriate to development of friendly, sympathetic Services Administration’s Office of achieve the program or project’s goals. and peaceful relations between the Information Technology website at 7. Institution’s Record/Ability: United States and the other countries of http://www.itpolicy.gsa.gov. Proposals should demonstrate an the world.’’ The funding authority for institutional record of successful the program above is provided through Review Process training programs, including legislation. USIA will acknowledge receipt of all responsible fiscal management and full proposals and will review them for compliance with all reporting Notice technical eligibility. Proposals will be requirements for past Agency grants as The terms and conditions published deemed ineligible if they do not fully determined by USIA’s Office of in this RFP are binding and may not be adhere to the guidelines stated herein Contracts. The Agency will consider the modified by any USIA representative. and in the Solicitation Package. All past performance of prior recipients and Explanatory information provided by eligible proposals will be reviewed by the demonstrated potential of new the Agency that contradicts published the program office, as well as the USIA applicants. language will not be binding. Issuance Office of African Affairs and the USIA 8. Follow-on Activities: Proposals of the RFP does not constitute an award post overseas, where appropriate. should provide a plan for continued commitment on the part of the Eligible proposals will be forwarded to follow-on activity without USIA support Government. The Agency reserves the panels of USIA officers for advisory ensuring that the USIA Teacher right to reduce, revise, or increase review. Proposals may also be reviewed Training Program is successfully proposal budgets in accordance with the by the Office of the General Counsel or sustained. needs of the program and the

VerDate 26-APR-99 15:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\A10JN3.086 pfrm01 PsN: 10JNN1 31356 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices availability of funds. Awards made will be subject to periodic reporting and evaluation requirements. Notification Final awards cannot be made until funds have been appropriated by Congress, allocated and committed through internal USIA procedures. Dated: June 4, 1999. Judith Siegel, Deputy Associate Director for Educational and Cultural Affairs. [FR Doc. 99–14774 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8230±01±M

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:57 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.XXX pfrm08 PsN: 10JNN1 eDt 6MY9 62 u 9 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\M1JR.X fm2PsN:10JNR2 pfrm02 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 16:27Jun09, 1999 VerDate 06-MAY-99 federal register June 10,1999 Thursday Production; FinalRule Manufacturing andPhosphateFertilizers Hazardous AirPollutantsPhosphoricAcid National EmissionStandardsfor 40 CFRParts9and63 Protection Agency Environmental Part II 31357 31358 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION protection to the public by requiring all Center 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA AGENCY phosphoric acid manufacturing and 30303–3104, (404) 562–9131 phosphate fertilizers plants that are Region V 40 CFR Parts 9 and 63 major sources to meet emission standards reflecting the application of George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement [IL±64±2±5807; FRL±6329±5] the maximum achievable control Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region V, RIN 2060±AE40 and 2060±AE44 technology (MACT). 5AE–26, 77 West Jackson Street, DATES: Effective Date. June 10, 1999. See Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353–2088 National Emission Standards for the Supplementary Information section Hazardous Air Pollutants Phosphoric Region VI concerning judicial review. Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Incorporation by Reference. The John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch Fertilizers Production incorporation by reference of certain Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VI, 1445 Ross AGENCY: Environmental Protection publications in these standards is Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX Agency (Agency). approved by the Director of the Office 75202–2733, (214) 665–7220 of the Federal Register as of June 10, ACTION: Final rule. Region VII 1999. SUMMARY: This action promulgates ADDRESSES: Docket. Public Docket No. Donald Toensing, Chief, Air Permitting national emission standards for A–94–02, containing information and Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for considered by the EPA in development Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, new and existing major sources in of the promulgated standards, is Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551– phosphoric acid manufacturing and available for public inspection between 7446 phosphate fertilizers production plants 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Region VIII (SIC 2874). Hazardous air pollutants Friday at the following address in room (HAPs) emitted by the facilities covered M–1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor): Douglas M. Skie, Air and Technical by this rule include hydrogen fluoride U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Operations Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, (HF); arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, Air and Radiation Docket and Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite chromium, manganese, mercury, and Information Center (MC–6102), 401 M 500, Denver, CO 80202–2466, (303) nickel (HAP metals); and methyl Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; 312–6432 isobutyl ketone (MIBK). Human telephone: (202) 260–7549. A reasonable Region IX exposure to the HAP constituents in fee may be charged for copying docket these emissions may be associated with materials. For additional information on Barbara Gross, Air Compliance Branch adverse carcinogenic, respiratory, the Docket and electronic availability Chief, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75 nervous system, dermal, developmental, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA and/or reproductive health effects. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 94105, (415) 744–1138 Implementation of the rules will achieve For an emission reduction of HF estimated information concerning applicability Region X and rule determinations contact: at 315 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (345 Anita Frankel, Office of Air Quality, tons per year [tpy]). The standards will Region I U.S. EPA, Region X, OAQ–107, 1200 reduce 940 Mg/yr (1035 tpy) of total Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, fluorides and particulate matter EPA, Region I, CAP, JFK Federal (206) 533–2963 containing heavy metals which are Building, Boston, MA 02203, (617) For information concerning the regulated pollutants under the Clean Air 565–3351 Act as amended (the Act). This action analyses performed in developing this also amends 40 CFR part 9 by updating Region II rule, contact Mr. Ken Durkee, telephone the table of currently approved number (919) 541–5425, Minerals and Kenneth Eng, Air Compliance Branch Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission information collection control numbers Chief, U.S. EPA, Region II, 290 to include the information requirements Standards Division (MD–13), U.S. Broadway, New York, NY 10007– Environmental Protection Agency, contained in this final rule. 1866, (212) 637–4000 The standards are promulgated under Research Triangle Park, North Carolina the authority of section 112 of the Clean Region III 27711. Air Act (the Act) and are based on the Bernard Turlinski, Air Enforcement SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Administrator’s determination that Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region III, Regulated Entities phosphoric acid manufacturing and 3AT10, 841 Chestnut Building, phosphate fertilizers production plants Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 597– Today’s rulemaking applies to process may reasonably be anticipated to emit 3989 components at new and existing several of the 188 HAPs listed in section phosphoric acid manufacturing and 112(b) of the Act from the various Region IV phosphate fertilizers production plants. process operations found within the Lee Page, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. Examples of those process components industry. The NESHAP will provide EPA, Region IV, Atlanta Federal are listed in the following table:

Source category Examples

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing ...... Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Process Line, Superphosphoric Acid Process Line, Phosphate Rock Dryer, Phosphate Rock Calciner, Pu- rified Phosphoric Acid Process Line. Phosphate Fertilizers Production ...... Diammonium and/or Monoammonium Phosphate Process Line, Granu- lar Triple Superphosphate Process Line, Granular Triple Superphos- phate Storage Building.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31359

This table is not intended to be the final rule is available only by filing I. Background exhaustive, but rather provides a guide a petition for review in the U.S. Court A. Background and Purpose of for readers regarding entities likely to be of Appeals for the District of Columbia Standards regulated by the regulations. This table Circuit within 60 days of today’s lists the types of entities that the Agency publication of this final rule. Under Section 112 of the Act requires the is now aware could be potentially section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the Agency to promulgate regulations for regulated. To determine whether your requirements that are the subject of the control of HAP emissions from both facility is covered by the regulations, today’s action may not be challenged new and existing major sources. The you should carefully examine the later in civil or criminal proceedings statute requires the regulations to reflect applicability criteria in the rules. If you brought by the EPA to enforce these the maximum degree of reduction in have questions regarding the requirements. emissions of HAPs that is achievable applicability of this action to a The following outline is provided to taking into consideration the cost of particular entity, consult the person aid in reading the preamble to the final achieving the emission reduction, any listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER rule. nonair quality health and environmental INFORMATION CONTACT section. effects, and energy requirements. This I. Background level of control is commonly referred to Docket and Electronic Information A. Background and Purpose of Standards B. Technical Basis of Regulation as the maximum achievable control The principal purposes of the docket C. Stakeholder and Public Participation technology (MACT). are: (1) To allow interested parties to II. Summary of Promulgated Standards Section 112 of the Act requires the readily identify and locate documents III. Summary of Impacts Agency to establish national standards so that they can intelligently and IV. Summary of Comments on Proposal and to reduce HAP emissions from major effectively participate in the rulemaking Responses sources and certain area sources that process, and (2) to serve as the record A. Selection of Pollutants emit one or more HAPs. Section 112(b) in case of judicial review. The docket 1. Hydrogen Fluoride contains a list of HAPs to be regulated 2. HAP Metals by NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the index, technical support information, 3. Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) the economic profile of the industry B. Compliance Provisions Agency to use this pollutant list to (item II-A–27) and other materials 1. Use of Monitored Operating Parameters develop and publish a list of source related to this rulemaking are available for Establishing Violations of the categories for which NESHAP will be for review in the docket center or copies Standards developed and section 112(e) requires may be mailed on request from the Air 2. Selection of Monitored Parameters the Agency to devise a schedule for and Radiation Docket and Information 3. Frequency of Testing development of those NESHAP. The Center by calling (202) 260–7548 or 4. Simultaneous Testing Agency must list all known source 7549. The FAX number for the Center is 5. Process Monitoring Requirements for categories and subcategories of ‘‘major (202) 260–4000. The e-mail address for Purified Phosphoric Acid Plant (PPA) sources’’ that emit one or more of the Plants listed HAPs. A major source is defined the Center is ‘‘a-and-r- 6. Other [email protected]’’. A reasonable C. Emission Limits in section 112(a) as any stationary fee may be charged for copying docket 1. General source or group of stationary sources materials. In addition to being available 2. Wet Process Phosphoric Acid (WPPA) located within a contiguous area and in the docket, an electronic copy of Plants under common control that emits or has today’s document which includes the 3. Evaporative Cooling Towers at the potential to emit in the aggregate, regulatory text is available through the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants considering controls, 10 tons per year or Technology Transfer Network (TTN) at 4. Phosphate Rock Calciners and Dryers more of any one HAP or 25 tons per year the Unified Air Toxics Website 5. Purified Phosphoric Acid (PPA) Plants or more of any combination of HAPs. (UATW). Following promulgation, a 6. Granular Triple Superphosphate (GTSP) This list of source categories was Storage Buildings published in the Federal Register on copy of the rule will be posted at the 7. Cooling Ponds TTN’s policy and guidance page for D. Other Comments July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and newly proposed or promulgated rules 1. Determination of Major Source Status includes phosphoric acid manufacturing (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ 2. NSPS Exemption and phosphate fertilizers production. t3pfpr.html). More comprehensive 3. Draft Technical Support Document The control of HAPs is achieved information concerning the rule will be (TSD) through the promulgation of technology- posted on the UATW (http:// 4. Applicability—Diammonium and/or based emission standards under section www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/ Monoammonium Phosphate (DAP/MAP) 112(d) and work practice standards 7l10yrstds.html). The TTN provides Emission Limits under 112(h) for categories of sources 5. Applicability—Research and information and technology exchange in that emit HAPs. Emission reductions Development Facilities may be accomplished through the various areas of air pollution control. If 6. Notification more information on the TTN is needed, V. Administrative Requirements application of measures, processes, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541- A. Docket methods, systems, or techniques 5384. B. Executive Order 12866 including, but not limited to: (1) C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Reducing the volume of, or eliminating Judicial Review Partnership Under Executive Order emissions of, such pollutants through The NESHAP for new and existing 12875 process changes, substitution of major sources in phosphoric acid D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act materials, or other modifications; (2) manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers E. Regulatory Flexibility enclosing systems or processes to production plants were proposed in the F. Submission to Congress and the eliminate emissions; (3) collecting, Comptroller General Federal Register (FR) on December 27, G. Paperwork Reduction Act capturing, or treating such pollutants 1996 (61 FR 68430). This Federal H. National Technology Transfer and when released from a process, stack, Register action announces the EPA’s Advancement Act storage or fugitive emissions point; (4) final decision on the rule. Under section I. Executive Order 13045 design, equipment, work practice, or 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of J. Executive Order 13084 operational standards (including

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31360 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations requirements for operator training or twenty years of implementation of NSPS One source manufactures a purified certification) as provided in subsection and EG which are technology-based phosphoric acid (PPA) through a solvent (h); or (5) a combination of the above. standards. The Agency obtained extraction method. The plant emits (See section 112(d)(2).) The Agency may performance data derived from MIBK, which is a HAP. Fugitive promulgate more stringent standards at emissions tests conducted to establish emissions of MIBK from valves, flanges, a later date if residual risk remains after compliance with emissions limitations and seals are reduced by means of an the imposition of controls. (See section required by NSPS and with State- ongoing maintenance and repair 112(f)(2)). Pursuant to section 112(d) of permitted emissions limitations program. As the lone PPA facility in the the Act, on December 27, 1996 the developed pursuant to EG for previously source category, its control methods Agency proposed NESHAP for new and existing sources. constitute the MACT floor for existing sources in the phosphoric acid Performance data were analyzed for controlling fugitive emissions of MIBK. manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers several different types and The MIBK cannot be emitted through a production source categories (61 FR configurations of wet scrubbing devices conveyance designed and constructed to 68430). and the data indicated that no one capture this pollutant. Upon design achieves superior control. consideration of the fugitive nature of B. Technical Basis of Regulation Further, the data were reviewed for the these emissions, the available For existing sources, section 112(d) of purpose of calculating MACT floors. information and the public comments the Act requires that the Agency Data for sources with multiple emission received, the Agency has concluded that establish NESHAP which require the tests showed significant variability it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce maximum degree of reductions which tended to have as its upper an emission standard for control of achievable by available control bound the permitted emission limits. these emissions. In section 112(h)(1), techniques. Such standards (called This was to be expected since the the Act provides that the Administrator ‘‘maximum achievable control controls were designed and operated to may prescribe a work practice technology’’ or ‘‘MACT’’) may be no less achieve specific limits as reflected in consistent with the provisions of section stringent than ‘‘the average emission permits. The permit limits were 112(d) in lieu of an emission standard, limitation achieved by the best typically based upon NSPS and EG. if it is not feasible to prescribe or performing 12 percent of the existing Since the data indicated that the level enforce an emission standard for control sources (for which the Administrator of control capable of being achieved was of a HAP. In this instance, the current has information).’’ In general, NESHAP reflected in sources’ permits, the work practices at the plant constitute are to be numerical limitations derived Agency elected to directly calculate the floor level of control for PPA plants. from the application of emissions floors on the basis of the permitted The LDAR (leak detection and repair) control technologies. This level of emission limits. So, to determine provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H control is commonly referred to as the emissions limits corresponding to were determined during development of MACT floor. As a starting point, the MACT floors, the Agency first identified the hazardous organics NESHAP to be Agency gathered available data to the median of the top twelve percent of MACT for fugitive emissions sources analyze to identify the technology that permits issued to sources for each with similar characteristics to those of could achieve the lowest emissions. process. After thus identifying the best the one plant emitting MIBK. After Since the HAP HF was the main controlled sources and establishing considering all available information, concern for this standard, the initial preliminary MACT floors, the Agency especially the public comments approach was focused upon again analyzed the available test data to received, the Agency has concluded that determining MACT for HF. The same ascertain that the control levels of the subpart H is at least equivalent to the approach was later extended to HAP permit limits were being achieved and facility’s current practices and has metals for subsequent analyses. to determine if greater degrees of control adopted the LDAR provisions of the During its information collection were actually being achieved in practice Hazardous Organics NESHAP (HON) as effort regarding HF emissions, the for individual processes. For sources of part of the MACT controls for this Agency found that there is a large body total fluorides, test data showed that the process. of existing data for the surrogate permitted emissions were reflective of Having thus identified the floor level pollutant total fluoride, which the the degree of emissions control actually of control for the different processes and Agency previously designated for being achieved. pollutants of concern, the Agency then control under § 111 of the Act through For phosphate rock dryers and considered the possibility of setting the development of new source calciners, the MACT floors were more stringent limitations. The final performance standards (NSPS) and established using particulate matter as a rule, like the proposal, does not require emissions guidelines (EG). The NSPS surrogate for HAP metals. For dryers, facilities to achieve emission reductions are emissions limitations for new the MACT floor analysis was performed more stringent than the MACT floor. sources based upon the best using permitted emissions of particulate As a part of a reconsideration, the demonstrated technologies considering matter. The available test data indicate Agency first explored the possibility cost, non-air quality health and permitted levels are being achieved. For that different control technologies were environmental impacts, and energy calciners, the permits were all based available and demonstrated for the impacts. Given a limited amount of upon general process rate allowances classes of sources being controlled by direct data on HF emissions and a large which were not developed specifically today’s action. None were found that body of data developed to demonstrate for phosphate rock calcining. In the case had been demonstrated and could be achievement of permitted emissions of calciners, there were numerous test applied without creating additional which include HF as a component of reports for particulate matter. Test data negative impacts to other environmental total fluorides, the Agency chose to use showed that the permits do not reflect media. The Agency also considered total fluoride as a surrogate for HF in its the level of emissions reductions whether new source emission limits analyses. By adopting the approach of achieved in practice. So, for calciners, could be applied to existing sources. regulating total fluoride as surrogate for the MACT analysis was based upon the The emissions data showed that high HF, the Agency availed itself of test data, which consistently were lower levels of control were being achieved in information reflecting the effect of over than permitted levels. both cases and that there was minimal

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31361 opportunity for additional significant sources, the most stringent permit additional information during the reductions to be achieved by going from issued for any given process was public comment period that followed the existing-source MACT floors to the adopted as MACT, except for calciners. proposal. levels of new source MACT. Balanced Performance test data indicated that the The standards were proposed in the against the minimal potential for most stringent permit limits were being Federal Register on December 27, 1996 additional reductions were the costs of achieved in practice. The calciners limit (61 FR 68430). The preamble to the retrofitting controls to plants for which was based upon test data that showed proposed standards described the emissions data showed the existence of an achievable level of performance rationale for the proposed standards. multiple test data points near the MACT exceeding the permitted requirements. Public comments were solicited at the floor. As an example, the Agency Thus, MACT was set for all but one of time of proposal. To provide interested previously calculated the annualized the subcategories at the level of the most persons the opportunity for oral capital cost for the addition of a new stringent permit requirements because presentation of data, views, or wet scrubber to a model WPPA (wet there was no case in which more arguments concerning the proposed process phosphoric acid) plant effective controls were identified. standards, a public hearing was offered producing 36 tons per hour to be C. Stakeholder and Public Participation at proposal. However, the public did not $17,253 per year. Such a plant operating In the development of these request a hearing and, therefore, one at the existing source MACT level standards, numerous representatives of was not held. The public comment which would install a new scrubber to the phosphate fertilizers industry were period was from December 27, 1996 to achieve the new source MACT level consulted. Industry representatives have February 25, 1997. Sixteen comment would reduce HF emissions by 0.34 tons included trade associations and letters were received. Commenters per year. So, the cost effectiveness of the producers. Representatives from other included industry representatives, additional reduction would be $50,744 interested Agency offices, regional control device manufacturers, State per ton of additional HF removed, offices, and State environmental agencies and an environmental which the Agency considers to be agencies participated in the regulatory organization. The comments were inappropriately high at this time. Thus, development process as members of an carefully considered, and changes were the Agency concludes that requiring informal work group. The work group made in the proposed standards when existing sources to be controlled beyond was involved in the regulatory determined by the Agency to be the MACT floor would be unreasonable development process, and was given appropriate. A detailed discussion of in terms of cost. opportunities to review and comment these comments and responses can be For new sources, section 112(d) of the on the standards before proposal and found in Section IV of this preamble. Act requires that the Agency establish promulgation. Finally, industry II. Summary of Promulgated Standards NESHAP which may be no less stringent representatives, regulatory authorities, than ‘‘the emission control that is and environmental groups had the The NESHAP emissions limits for achieved in practice by the best opportunity to comment on the existing and new sources are given in controlled similar source.’’ For new proposed standards and to provide the tables below.

EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS FOR EXISTING PHOSPHORIC ACID MANUFACTURING PLANTS AND PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS PLANTS

Class of source Pollutant Emission limit

¥ Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Process Line Total Fluorides ...... 0.020 lb. Total Fluoride (F ) Per Ton P2O5 Feed. ¥ Superphosphoric Acid Process Line ...... Total Fluorides ...... 0.010 lb. F Per Ton P2O5 Feed. ¥ Diammonium and/or Monoammonium Phos- Total Fluorides ...... 0.060 lb. F Per Ton P2O5 Feed. phate Process Line. ¥ Granular Triple Superphosphate Process Total Fluorides ...... 0.150 lb. F Per Ton P2O5 Feed. Line. ¥4 ¥ Granular Triple Superphosphate Storage Total Fluorides ...... 5.0 × 10 lb. F Per Hour Per Ton of P2O5 Stored. Buildings. Phosphate Rock Dryers ...... Particulate Matter ...... 0.2150 lb. PM Per Ton of Rock Feed. Phosphate Rock Calciners ...... Particulate Matter ...... 0.060 grains PM Per Dry Standard Cubic Foot. Purified Phosphoric Acid Process Line ...... MIBK ...... Implement Part 63, Subpart H, Leak Detection and Repair Program.

EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS FOR NEW PHOSPHORIC ACID MANUFACTURING PLANTS AND PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER PLANTS

Class of source Pollutant Emission limit

¥ Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Process Line Total Fluorides ...... 0.01350 lb. Total Fluoride (F ) per ton P2O5 Feed. ¥ SuperphosPhoric Acid Process Line ...... Total Fluorides ...... 0.00870 lb. F per ton P2O5 Feed. ¥ Diammonium and/or Monoammonium Phos- Total Fluorides ...... 0.0580 lb. F per ton P2O5 Feed. phate Process Line. ¥ Granular Triple SuperphosPhate Process Total Fluorides ...... 0.1230 lb. F per ton P2O5 Feed. Line. ¥4 ¥ Granular Triple SuperphosPhate Storage Total Fluorides ...... 5.0 X 10 lb. F Per Hour Per Ton of P2O5 Stored. Buildings. Phosphate Rock Dryers ...... Particulate Matter ...... 0.060 lb. PM Per Ton of Rock Feed. Phosphate Rock Calciners ...... Particulate Matter ...... 0.040 grains PM Per Dry Standard Cubic Foot. Purified Phosphoric Acid Process Line ...... MIBK ...... Implement Part 63, Subpart H, Leak Detection and Repair Program.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31362 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

The form, but not the substance, of use the more specific term in the final emissions are reported, the owner or the standard for one subcategory has regulation in order to promote clarity for operator must report quarterly until a changed since proposal. In the proposal, the regulated public. The Agency is request to return the reporting frequency the Agency noted that two types of confident that this change has no effect to semiannual is approved. superphosphoric acid process lines on the stringency of the standard. The NESHAP General Provisions also currently operate: a vacuum evaporation Second, the requirement that owners require that records be maintained for at process and a submerged combustion or operators of purified phosphoric acid least 5 years from the date of each process. These processes are quite process lines ensure that each product record. The owner or operator must distinct from one another and they use acid and raffinate stream have no more retain the records on site for at least 2 different feedstock. Moreover, the than a specified concentration of MIBK years but may retain the records off site submerged combustion process is not and that they ensure that the chiller the remaining 3 years. The files may be amenable to the same level of control as stack exit gas stream remains below a retained on microfilm, microfiche, on a is the vacuum evaporation process. The given temperature has been moved from computer, on computer disks, or on the monitoring section of the rule to its Agency therefore concluded that these magnetic tape. Reports may be made on more appropriate location in the processes should be regulated as paper or on a labeled computer disk separate subcategories under this emission standard section. An annual performance test is using commonly available and EPA- NESHAP. compatible computer software. Because only one facility currently required to demonstrate compliance exists in the submerged combustion with each applicable numerical limit for III. Summary of Impacts process subcategory, the proposal’s total fluorides or particulate matter. The emission standard for the subcategory monitoring provisions require an owner The overall effect of the rule is to raise consisted of the lone source identified or operator using a wet scrubbing device the control performance of plants in the by company name. In the final to continuously monitor the pressure industry to the level achieved by the regulation, the Agency has established drop and liquid flow rate of scrubbing best performing plants. In addition to an emission limit for the submerged devices used to control total fluorides or the health and environmental benefits combustion process subcategory particulate matter. The feed rate of raw associated with HAP emission generally without reference to the materials to the processes must also be reductions, benefits of this action specific facility. Doing so ensures that continuously monitored. During the include a decrease in site-specific levels changes in the facility’s name or performance test, the owner/operator of non-HAP pollutants and lowered ownership would not change the must record the scrubber pressure drop occupational exposure levels for applicable emission standard. and liquid flow rate to establish baseline employees. Consistent with the proposal, the final levels. Following the performance test, The Agency estimates that up to 550 regulation does not distinguish between it is an operating requirement that the Mg/yr (605 tpy) of HF, the predominate process types in its establishment of owner/operator must maintain scrubber HAP, and other HAPs are emitted from new source emission limits for pressure drop and liquid flow rate sources at phosphoric acid superphosphoric acid production. As within plus or minus twenty percent of manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers the Agency noted at proposal, a new the values recorded during the production plants at the current level of facility ‘‘could avail itself of the same performance test or within a range control. Implementing MACT-level resources as other companies in the established upon the basis of prior controls is expected to reduce these industry’’ in choosing the kind of successful tests. Any exceedance of the HAP emissions from regulated sources process to employ in manufacturing operating range averaged over 24 hours by about 315 Mg/yr (345 tpy) superphosphoric acid. (See 61 FR is a violation of the operating nationwide. Plants affected by the 68438.) Put another way, the Agency requirement. standards are expected to achieve these examined both vacuum evaporation For PPA plants that emit MIBK, the reductions by upgrading or installing process and submerged combustion standards require implementation of a wet scrubbing systems. process sources to identify the ‘‘best leak detection and repair program, Expected impacts to energy usage and controlled similar source,’’ which serves continuous monitoring of chiller stack other media are expected to be as the MACT floor for new sources. The temperature and daily monitoring of Agency concluded that the MACT floor MIBK concentrations at two points in negligible. The largest possible impact was represented by a facility employing the process. will be a minor increase in liquid the vacuum evaporation process. No As required by the NESHAP General streams flowing to cooling ponds. Since commenter objected to this proposal Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), the processes are net consumers of and the Agency has retained it in the the owner or operator must develop and water, those flows will be recycled to final regulation. implement a startup, shutdown, and the processes. Two additional technical changes are malfunction plan. Most notification, The nationwide capital and present in the final regulation. First, the recordkeeping, and reporting annualized costs of the NESHAP, standards as proposed often referred to requirements in the general provisions including emission controls and ‘‘plants’’ in defining the affected source, apply to phosphoric acid manufacturing associated monitoring equipment, are but the final regulation refers to and phosphate fertilizers production estimated at $1.4 million and $862,000/ ‘‘process lines.’’ For example, the facilities. These include but are not yr, respectively. The economic impacts proposed standard for a ‘‘Wet Process limited to: (1) initial notification(s) of are predicted to increase product prices Phosphoric Acid Plant’’ now refers to a applicability, notification of less than three-fourths of a percent. One ‘‘Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Process performance test, and notification of company in the industry is a small Line.’’ Because the NSPS used the term compliance status; (2) a report of entity which would be subject to the ‘‘plant,’’ the proposal (based in large performance test results; (3) a Startup, standards. The economic impact of the part upon the NSPS) did as well. Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan with NESHAP on this company is estimated However, in practice, the ‘‘plant’’ to semiannual reports of reportable events to be low and would not be significant. which the NSPS applies is indeed a (if they occur); and (4) semiannual No production line or plant closures are single process line. EPA has chosen to reports of excess emissions. If excess expected.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31363

IV. Summary of Comments on Proposal the speciating difficulties of ascertaining Response. The Agency’s analysis of and Responses the exact fraction as HF, should be NESHAP for cooling ponds focused closer to the ‘‘1⁄3 rule’’ of chemistry (the upon HF emissions because direct A. Selection of Pollutants reaction of H2SiF6—> 2HF + SiF4), not measurement data were available. The 1. Hydrogen Fluoride the 28–49 percent range EPA is Agency is aware that those results Comment. One commenter said that considering. The commenter said that differed from those of prior studies, the Agency had no empirical data with silica present in all parts of the including the Agency’s own FTIR measuring whether and to what extent phosphoric acid process it is logical for studies. The variations in data result in HF is actually emitted from phosphoric the HF portion in air emissions to be a different possible estimates of total acid manufacturing and phosphate mere fraction of the 28–49 percent emissions. Nevertheless, these fertilizer production facilities, and, that range. differences are not important for the Response. The Agency responds to the Agency should not, and legally may purposes of the present rulemaking. The the statement that HF has not been not, propose or promulgate a NESHAP MACT floor determination is driven by directly measured or detected at for HF emissions from these facilities. the availability of existing control phosphate fertilizer complexes by The commenter questioned whether or techniques. Here, MACT for existing referring to docket items II–A–6 and II– not phosphoric acid manufacturing and cooling ponds is no control because A–12 which are reports of Agency tests phosphate fertilizer production facilities there are no demonstrated control which used Fourier transform infrared actually emit HF. The commenter said techniques used in practice which could spectroscopy (FTIR) sampling and have been applied to these sources, that no direct measurements of HF analysis to directly measure HF and regardless of estimated emissions. emissions from such facilities have ever silicon tetrafluoride at two facilities. Total fluorides were used as a been made. The commenter went on to Hydrogen fluoride was measured in surrogate for HF to establish MACT for question the calculations used to amounts that exceeded the major source emissions from process sources, in support the original listing of the source cutoff under Section 112. It was contrast to the ponds, because no direct categories and the validity of the noteworthy that no silicon tetrafluoride measurements of HF were available and listings. The commenter further was present in several test runs. In those because the NSPS are based on total questioned the suitability of the test runs where silicon tetrafluoride was fluorides. The Agency notes that the Agency’s use of a state permitting report measured, its concentrations were results of the FTIR analyses for cooling (docket item II–I–32cc) since it did not dwarfed by those of HF. In a third test ponds gave proportions of HF relative to contain results of direct measurements reported in docket item II–D–15, HF was total fluoride which were consistent of HF. The commenter read the March also measured. The significance of all of with those predicted by chemical 1995 review draft technical support these tests is that there are major stoichiometry and, therefore, are document (TSD) as recognizing, sources of HAP emissions and HF was supportive of the Agency’s approach to whether or not, and to what extent, HF in fact directly measured. The low estimating the impacts of the emission may be emitted by the sources affected amount of silicon tetrafluoride present standards for processes. Since the by the draft NESHAP is dependent to a is supportive of the Agency’s approach control of total fluorides and HF from large extent on the levels of silica of estimating the HF component of total process sources is accomplished with present in the processes in question. fluoride as one third of the total as the same control technology (scrubbers), The commenter postulated that predicted by the chemical equations the MACT analysis results in the same ammonia also ties up fluoride as cited in the TSD. The information in the level of control regardless of how the ammonium bifluoride, making it even State toxics permitting report (docket emissions are characterized. The use of less likely that phosphoric acid item II–I–32cc), which was submitted to total fluoride as a surrogate for HF manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer the State by a source in the industry, simply changes the manner in which production facilities actually emit HF. supports this approach. the emissions limit is quantified, not the Thus, the commenter concluded that it Comment. One commenter said the actual level of control. appears that the Agency is basing both Agency used inconsistent methodology its determination that the facilities in in evaluating and regulating HF from 2. HAP Metals question emit HF and its estimation of processes and the associated cooling Comment. Three commenters stated the amount of HF emitted on two ponds. It was the commenter’s position that particulate matter is an adequate sources: (1) ‘‘calculations’’ made by an that the Agency must use total fluoride performance measurement for the most EPA contractor; and (2) a report as a surrogate for HF in all situations, likely control technology (wet prepared by a company in connection including cooling pond emissions. scrubbers). However, they were with state toxic air pollutant permitting. Further, the commenter thought that use concerned that particulate matter used The commenter said that these of one HF test from one cooling pond as a surrogate may not accurately track ‘‘calculations’’ are unverified estimates was highly questionable given the all HAP metals emissions. Their and are not based on empirical data. historic wide variation in fluoride primary concern arose from the fact that The commenter continued that the state emission data from gypsum/cooling calciners operate at temperatures near permitting report was not based on ponds. The commenter cited an Agency 1,500 degrees F, which volatilize some actual measurements of HF emissions. publication that gave fluoride emission HAP metals (such as arsenic, cadmium, Rather, the silica content of monitoring data for gypsum/cooling ponds that has mercury and selenium). They noted that impingers employed to test total ranged from 0.2 to 10 lbs. of fluoride a such volatilized metals would likely fluoride emissions in two test runs was day per acre of surface area. The condense as sub-micron particles (for used to create a mass balance for various commenter concluded that gypsum/ which the scrubbers have significantly fluoride species across all of the fluoride cooling ponds remain a major source of lower control efficiency than they do for emission points at the facility in fluoride emissions and the Agency had the bulk of the calciner particulate question. not established a sound scientific basis matter) and that Method 5 One commenter said that the HF for concluding that HF was not a measurements would not reflect those fraction of the fluorides in air emissions significant part of the large fluoride emissions. This could lead to an from phosphate-ore plants, in view of emissions from the cooling ponds. erroneous conclusion that those

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31364 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations pollutants were adequately reduced. In Also, the docket includes item II–I– on the emission control devices (usually consideration of these concerns, the 52u that refers to information provided scrubber pressure drop and the liquid commenters suggested that the final rule to a State regulatory agency that flow rate) was needlessly restrictive. should require affected sources to indicates that HAP compounds are The commenter recommended a ±17 collect appropriate data (such as that emitted from calciners that a commenter percent restriction limit as being less established by Method 29) with which operated and for which the commenter restrictive and serving as a ‘‘surrogate’’ to determine the extent of HAP has current operating permits. indicator for continuous monitoring of emissions from calciners. Commenter’s point that some dryers and equipment whose function is to Response. As the commenters noted, calciners may not be major HAP maintain emission limits. the MACT floor technology consists of emitters by themselves would not The primary industry commenter wet scrubbers. EPA used available excuse the Agency from a duty to argued that there is nothing in the particulate matter emissions data to establish emissions limits for that record of this rulemaking to establish serve as a surrogate for HAP metals. equipment when it is located at major that an operating parameter exceedance This PM Surrogate will require the sources of HAPs. is ‘‘credible evidence’’ of the duration, installation of equipment at least as much less the existence, of a violation efficient as the technology that is 3. Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) of the proposed NESHAP emission representative of the floor level of Comment. One commenter expressed limits. The commenter noted that the emissions. Emission tests and analysis concern that the NESHAP would not data contained in the record of this for metals is more costly than simply address TRS emissions from WPPA rulemaking consist entirely of testing for particulate and would not plants. The commenter gave as an performance test results and there are result in a different floor technology. example one facility that emits 1690 absolutely no data or information in the Therefore the Agency is requiring that tons per year of TRS and noted that record upon which the Agency could particulate testing be performed to those emissions dwarfed those of kraft base a determination that the operating demonstrate compliance. pulp mills in its jurisdiction. The parameter exceedances identified in the Comment. One commenter said that commenter suggested that TRS should proposal can be equated with a violation no direct information was presented to be regulated and the most appropriate of the proposed NESHAP emission confirm the existence of HAP from way to do so would be through the next limits. The commenter provided data for dryers and calciners at phosphoric acid review of the NSPS in subpart T. the purpose of indicating that sources manufacturing facilities. The Response. Because the TRS pollutants might meet proposed emissions limits commenter asked that all sections of the are not listed as HAPs for the purposes over a wide range of operating proposal dealing with these sources be of the Act, the Agency presently is not conditions. The data covered a period of deleted in the absence of some evidence required to regulate TRS under section years and included a wide range of that they are major HAP emitters. 112 of the Act. The commenter’s operating conditions. As a group, these Another commenter said that the data suggestion of considering limits on TRS commenters were of the opinion that cited by the Agency are not a sufficient during the next review of the NSPS in control device operating parameters basis for the establishment of a NESHAP Subpart T will be addressed in that such as scrubber pressure drop and for such metals. The commenter stated context. liquid flow rate could be used as that there are no stack test data specific indicators of proper operation and the to HAP metals and the only data on B. Compliance Provisions need for maintenance. HAP metals cited are those included in 1. Use of Monitored Operating In the event that the monitoring a state toxic air pollutant permitting Parameters for Establishing Violations of provisions of the proposal were report (docket item II–I–32cc). The the Standards retained, three commenters commenter said the establishment of recommended that sources electing to NESHAP (or for particulate matter as a Comment. A number of commenters use historic test results to establish a surrogate for such metals) is beyond the expressed their opinions on the range of operation for control device legal authority of the Agency under the Agency’s proposal to relate operation operating parameters as provided by Act. outside established site-specific ranges proposed §§ 63.604(d)(2) or 63.624(f)(2) Response. Since HAP metals are of wet scrubber pressure drop and should be given the same opportunity to present in phosphate rock, they will liquid flow rate to exceedances of the retest to demonstrate that prior also be emitted from equipment emissions limits. The commenters were exceedances did not constitute subjecting the ore to high temperatures. unanimous in questioning such violations of emission limits as The information in the TSD and the relationships for emissions levels for provided in §§ 63.604(d)(1) or docket, to which commenters allude, is total fluorides and particulates for the 63.624(f)(1). Pursuing the logic of the air toxics information provided to the sources subject to these NESHAP. One previous paragraph, one of the State of North Carolina (docket items II– commenter claimed that there was no commenters said the basis for the retest I–32aa and cc) that certifies that a basis for limiting the variation in option would be the fact that particular source in that State emits operating parameter monitoring results compliance with the emission limits can HAP metals from dryers and calciners. to plus or minus ten percent of the level be achieved even if operating parameter The State has endorsed the submittals of observed during a performance test. The values are outside the range observed that source in the form of approved air commenter said there were no data in during a compliance performance test. toxics permits. In particular, item II–I– the record to support any correlation The commenter held that this rationale 32aa, which is an attachment to item II– between operating parameter was valid whether the operating I–32cc, contains results of direct testing exceedances and a violation of the parameter ranges are established by the of particulate matter from calciner proposed NESHAP emission limits, plus or minus ten percent method or by emissions. The testing found arsenic, much less a correlation between a the owner or operator under the manganese, nickel, and cadmium, all of greater than ten percent variation in alternative method. which are HAPs. Thus, the Agency operating parameter values and such a Some commenters believe it is concluded that PM is an effective violation. Another commenter said the prudent to keep the continuous surrogate for HAP metals. proposed ±10 percent restriction limit parameter monitoring requirements in

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31365 the proposed rule to assist operators in emission reductions. The operating reasonable assurance of the source’s determining whether their controls are limit is a separately enforceable compliance status. As an additional operating properly. They note that while requirement of the rule and is not safeguard to ensure that these operating it is not necessarily true that sources are secondary to the emission limit. requirements are set to help assure in compliance with the emission This standard requires sources using continuous compliance with the standards just because their two wet scrubbers to continuously monitor emission limit, when performance monitored operating parameters are the scrubber liquid flow rate and the testing shows emissions near the within the range of values established pressure drop across the scrubbers and emission limits, the permitting agencies during the performance test, to maintain these operating parameters have the discretion to shrink a exceedances of operating parameters are within ranges under which the source previously-established operating range good indicators of control device demonstrates, via a performance test, when a source operating within the malfunctions. These commenters the source can comply with the broader range could be expected to recommended not allowing sources that emission limit. The operating limits exceed the emission limits. On the other exceed the continuous monitoring established during a performance test hand, the Agency does not believe that parameters set during the performance help assure continuous compliance with it is necessary to further expand these test to have the opportunity to retest the emission limit. The EPA has operating margins, as some commenters within 30 days to demonstrate that the considered the commenters’ argument suggest, because the rule permits prior exceedance did not constitute a that an exceedance of an operating sources to undertake additional violation of an emission limit, as parameter is not necessarily an performance testing to establish proposed. The commenters believe it exceedance of an emission limit and has operating limits which reflect would be very difficult to ensure that consequently not made operating limit compliance with the emission limit for the proposed provisions requiring the exceedances automatic violations of the the full range of operating conditions at source to establish and maintain during emission limit; however, the Agency has the source. the re-test the same operating conditions made these operating limits separately Finally, because the final rule does that existed during the exceedance of enforceable requirements of the rule in not make operating limit exceedances the operating range could be properly order to promote continuous automatic violations of the emission followed and that the retest would, in compliance with the emission limit. limit, and because the operating limits By doing so, the final rule accounts all probability, not represent conditions are separately enforceable requirements for the commenters’ claims in two ways: present during the exceedance. of the rule, a provision which allows the (1) the operating limits include an Furthermore, they commented that the source to retest to show that certain operating margin of ±20 percent for allowance to retest would add another operating parameter levels do not equate sources that base the operating limit layer of complications for determining with an emission limit violation is upon the baseline values of operating compliance under the rule. They unnecessary. Accordingly, the Agency parameters established in the most recommended deleting the allowance to has deleted the retest provision, as recent performance test; and (2) by retest from the final rule. suggested by the State commenters. Response. The final rule allowing sources to establish operating Comment. Two commenters said, in accommodates the concerns raised with limit ranges based upon baseline values many cases, the pressure drops involved regard to the Agency’s proposal linking of operating parameters established in are less than one inch and the exceedances of operating parameter either historic performance tests or ranges to compliance with the emission performance tests conducted commenter is unaware of monitoring limit. Specifically, the final rule specifically to establish such ranges. equipment that can measure at the tenth eliminates this direct linkage, based on Thus, sources have two options to of an inch level necessary to determine data submitted by commenters’ establish operating limit ranges within whether or not the measured pressure indicating that compliance with an which the source will still be in drop is plus or minus ten percent of that operating parameter range does not compliance with the operating limit. By observed during a performance test. always correlate to compliance with the including an operating margin, the EPA Response. As a result of the comments emission limit, and it establishes recognizes that control devices can be concerning possible unavailability of instead operating parameter limits operated and maintained under a range instrumentation with suitable which help assure continuous of conditions and still help assure sensitivity, the Agency contacted an compliance with the emission limit. In compliance with the emission limit instrument vendor and was advised that so doing, the rule also reflects other through continuous emission reduction. the necessary equipment is available. concerns that the standard should For the final rule, the Agency has Comment. One commenter speaking contain operating requirements aimed at increased the operating margins in the for the industry as a whole said that ensuring proper operation and first instance described above from ±10 operating parameter exceedances may maintenance of sources’ control devices. percent at proposal to ±20 percent. This not be denominated as violations of Consequently, although the data change was made in response to the NESHAP emission limits. The available to the Agency did not establish Agency’s review of data submitted by commenter said the Act provides no an exact correlation between operating the industry commenters that showed a legal authority to denominate operating parameter values and specific exhaust wide range of variability in the level of parameter exceedances as violations of gas concentrations, the rule retains the operating parameters over which the emission limits. The commenter said requirement to maintain operating emissions limits could be achieved. The this is particularly the case when, as parameter values within established Agency believes that sources which here, the emission limits have been ranges, in order to help assure that operate in these expanded margins and developed using a database which MACT is being complied with on a sources which keep operating consists entirely of performance test continuous basis. parameters within a range established results. In such a case, the Monitoring of an operating parameter, on the basis of test data generally will denomination of operating parameter with an enforceable operating limit, will be meeting the emission limit and, thus, exceedances as a violation of the help assure continuous compliance with these changes make the operating emission limit would have the effect of the emission limit through continuous requirements more likely to provide a changing the emission limit without

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31366 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations sufficient technical support in the full-scale performance testing. The suggested by the commenters, would be record. commenter thought that data other than insufficient because there would be no The commenter anticipated that the that obtained during full-scale link established between such ranges Agency could argue that section 113(e) performance testing could validly and the emission limits as is the case of the Act provides the necessary legal establish operating ranges for pressure when ranges are set during performance authority and noted that the section drop and liquid flow rate that are testing. The general provisions provide provides that the duration of a violation representative of compliance with the the opportunity for sources to obtain may be established by ‘‘any credible NESHAP emission limits. The consideration of alternative monitoring, evidence (including evidence other than commenter believed that because other as needed. the applicable test method).’’ However, data may be used to establish the 3. Frequency of Testing the commenter posited that any required operating ranges, and because argument that section 113(e) provides the ranges must be approved by Comment. Two commenters said that legal authority to denominate operating appropriate government officials, the the proposed one-time performance parameter exceedances as a violation of proposed §§ 63.604(d)(2) and testing was inadequate. The commenters emission limits in general, and the 63.624(d)(2) should be revised to permit cited the example of one source that is proposed NESHAP in particular, would the establishment of the required required to test WPPA plants, phosphate be without merit. The commenter operating ranges on the basis of any rock dryers and calciners, DAP/MAP argued section 113(e) permits any relevant data or information, including plants and GTSP plants on an annual credible evidence other than the engineering assessments and basis. The commenters recommended applicable test method to be used only manufacturer’s recommendations. that the Agency require testing either to establish the duration of a violation, Another commenter said that changes annually or once every permit cycle. not the fact that a violation has in pressure drop are not always an The commenters consider one-time occurred. accurate indication of changes in performance testing insufficient and a Response. The final rule does not performance for certain types of step backwards from their current make exceedances of operating scrubbers. In particular, the commenter requirements. requirements per se violations of the said phosphoric acid production and The commenters considered the emission limitation. As such, the DAP/MAP fertilizer production are each proposed one-time performance test commenter’s concern presumably has highly scaling (e.g. depositing hard requirement for sources ineffective and been addressed by changes since incrustations inside process vessels) inadequate to demonstrate compliance proposal. The Agency, however, services, and pressure taps necessary for with each applicable numerical specifically disagrees with the continuous pressure drop monitoring emission limit for total fluorides and commenter’s suggestion that, under the readily scale over in both services. The particulate matter (surrogate pollutants). Act, parameter deviations cannot be commenter said that while it is certainly They stated that most sources at the denominated as violations of applicable possible to operate a continuous affected facilities currently perform at emission standards. Section 113(a) of pressure drop monitoring system in least annual stack testing for the the Act directly contradicts the these services, keeping the pressure taps surrogate pollutants identified above. commenter’s position. It permits from scaling over can be a maintenance- They commented that air pollution enforcement actions for violations of the intensive effort. So, the commenter control agencies have required this level statutory requirements ‘‘on the basis of suggested that the final version of the of testing because their experience any information available to the proposed rule should allow for indicates that these sources are prone to Administrator* ** *’’ This broad continuous monitoring and recording of problems with control device language means that the Agency can some other appropriate indicator maintenance. They note that many prove a violation based on any parameter(s) in lieu of pressure drop in affected facilities, which represent large information available, limited only by cases where other parameters provide a industrial complexes that have general evidentiary rules. more accurate indication of scrubber undertaken this type of stack testing for In addition, the commenter’s reading performance. numerous years, use their own of section 113(e) is too constrained. As Response. Since the scrubber pressure environmental compliance staff to the Agency stated in the Credible drop and liquid flow rate are direct conduct the tests, minimizing any Evidence rulemaking, section 113(e)’s indicators of the operation of the control economic burden. Accordingly, the focus on the duration of a violation grew device and its performance during the commenters recommended that the out of Congress’s desire to reverse a most recent testing, the final standards minimum requirement for ensuring judicial decision prohibiting the Agency continue to require that those compliance with the proposed emission from establishing a violation’s duration parameters be monitored. The standards should be annual stack testing by non-reference test methods. See 62 commenters’ suggestions that other using the methods described in the FR 8314, 8320–22 (February 24, 1997). ‘‘relevant’’ or ‘‘appropriate’’ indicators performance tests and compliance Section 113(e) should not, therefore, be should be specified in lieu of pressure provisions sections (§§ 63.606 and read to limit the Agency’s ability to drop and liquid flow rate are vague and 63.626). prove the fact of an emission violation, would result in case-by-case debates as Response. The Agency has taken note in addition to the duration of such to whether any of innumerable options of the comments that the equipment and violation, by any credible evidence. may or may not accomplish the same control devices in these source degree of feedback on the performance categories are subject to harsh 2. Selection of Monitored Parameters of emissions controls. The commenters conditions that cause corrosion and Comment. One commenter said provided no data as to how other scaling of the process components and operating parameter ranges should be parameters correlate with emissions that State agencies already require established on the basis of any relevant limits. Likewise, establishment of the annual tests of these facilities. So, the data as opposed to the proposal that required operating ranges on the basis of performance of the emissions controls would allow alternatives to the plus or any relevant data or information, will vary over time and so may minus ten percent operating range to be including engineering assessments and emissions. Thus, the Agency is established using data obtained during manufacturer’s recommendations, as promulgating a requirement for annual

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31367 testing in the final rule. This change is Agency decided not to make subject to the proposed NESHAP. In the also important in light of the decision simultaneous testing mandatory in the intervening 23 years, AOAC has not to make operating parameter final rule. The site-specific test plan developed and specified more advanced exceedances violations of the emission required by § 63.7(c)(2) of the general methods for making the P2O5 standards, which raises concerns as to provisions will cause development of determination, including Methods how to ensure appropriate enforcement test plans that can address the concerns 962.02, 969.02, and 978.03. The of the NESHAP. As was noted by which lead the Agency to propose commenter recommended that in order commenters, most jurisdictions already simultaneous testing. to avoid specifying outdated methods require annual, or more frequent testing for the P2O5 determination; and in order 5. Process Monitoring Requirements for and, so, this will add minimal burden to keep this section of the NESHAP Purified Phosphoric Acid (PPA) Plants beyond that already required of the ‘‘evergreen,’’ proposed 40 CFR sources. Comment. One commenter 63.605(c)(3)(ii) and 63.625(c)(3)(ii) be Comment. One commenter said that recommended that the proposed process revised to read: ‘‘(ii) The P2O5 content in the event that the Agency retains the feed rate monitoring requirements be (Rp) of the feed shall be determined in provisions for designating exceedances amended to delete reference to PPA accordance with the method(s) of the of operating parameter ranges as plants. They noted that their plant Association of Official Analytical violations, he supports the alternative records P2O5 feed to the process on a Chemists.’’ method of setting the operating range for daily basis, and that, given the averaging Response. The Agency agrees that the parameters of the air pollution control period for MIBK additions, continuous specified AOAC methods are device. recording of feed rate is unnecessary. In appropriate methods to determine the Response. The alternative for addition, the commenter recommended total phosphorus content of fertilizer, establishing operating ranges based substituting ‘‘product’’ for ‘‘stripped’’ in has amended § 63.14 to incorporate by upon prior performance test results was connection with the descriptions of the reference AOAC methods 929.01, retained in the final rule. acid streams in proposed § 63.604(f)(1) 929.02, 957.02, 958.01, 962.02, 969.02, to distinguish them from those 4. Simultaneous Testing and 978.01, and has added appropriate referenced in proposed § 63.604(f)(2). references to those methods in the rule. Comment. Two commenters said the Response. The Agency agrees with the The Agency also has identified requirement for simultaneous testing commenter and the regulations have appropriate test methods published by would be burdensome for most facilities been appropriately changed. The Association of Florida Phosphate with multiple emission points because, 6. Other Chemists to quantify total phosphorus read strictly, this would require content of fertilizer. In addition the multiple test crews and equipment Comment. One commenter opined Agency has added appropriate whenever dealing with multiple that approval authority for operating references to methods published by The emission points. One of the commenters parameter ranges should be broadened. Association of Florida Phosphate said this requirement would add As proposed, §§ 63.604(d)(2) and Chemists to quantify total phosphorus nothing to the quality of the information 63.624(d)(2) required that pressure drop content of phosphoric acid, gathered. The other commenter found and liquid flow rate ranges be approved superphosphoric acid, triple ambiguity in the word ‘‘simultaneous.’’ by ‘‘the permitting authority.’’ The superphosphate, and ammonium He questioned whether ‘‘simultaneous’’ commenter was concerned that limiting phosphate. meant exactly at the same time, or approval authority to the permitting The commenter suggested that a within a certain number of minutes or authority was unnecessarily restrictive general reference to AOAC methods was hours. Also, the commenter said the and could result in the inability of an a way to avoid citing outdated methods. processes undertaken at these facilities owner or operator to establish operating The Agency does not agree that this is are continuous operations and parameter ranges because there may be, acceptable since changes to a method variations within these continuous at the relevant time, no ‘‘permitting could affect the stringency of the operations would be expected to be authority’’ to give approval. To address regulation. It is therefore important that slight. Finally, the commenter said this potential problem, the commenter the Agency review changes in simultaneous performance testing had recommended that operating parameter consensus methods to assure that this never been required by the existing range approval authority be vested in does not inadvertently happen. The NSPS on which the proposed NESHAP the ‘‘Administrator.’’ Agency accomplishes this by citing a were based. The commenter said under Response. That term was deleted from specific version of a consensus method. the NSPS, the relevant regulatory the final rule which, instead, now refers Comment. A commenter authority establishes performance to the Administrator as defined in the recommended that the determination of testing requirements based on the General Provisions 40 CFR, part 63, 63.2 whether pressure drop is measured circumstances presented by individual Definitions. across each scrubber in the process facilities. The commenter said that the Comment. One commenter scrubbing system or across the entire NSPS performance testing requirements recommended that the proposal scrubbing system be left to the have been in place for more than 20 (§§ 63.605(c)(3)(ii) and 63.625(c)(3)(ii)), Administrator on a case-by-case basis. years and there is no suggestion that the which would require that the P2O5 The commenter noted that production current approach to performance testing content of the feed to the processes facilities subject to the NESHAP employ is inadequate or inappropriate. So, he subject to the NESHAP be determined in various types of scrubbers, and various recommended that the timing of accordance with Method 9 of the scrubber configurations, as a means of performance testing be decided by the Association of Official Analytical achieving compliance with the current Administrator on a case-by-case basis. Chemists (AOAC), be revised. The NSPS and that these same systems will Response. Since there is a limited commenter observed that Method 9 was be used to achieve compliance with the number of sources where multiple the accepted method for P2O5 NESHAP. The commenter said that, emissions points are present and there determinations in 1974 when it was because of the variation in the types and are no known instances where testing specified by, and incorporated by configurations of scrubbers used to has been a problem in the past, the reference in, the NSPS for the processes achieve compliance, a requirement to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31368 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations measure the total pressure drop across commenter suggested that the per-run proposed reasonable emissions limits each scrubber in the process scrubbing sampling time for particulate matter which can be reasonably met using system in all cases could be performance testing of phosphate rock commercially available control unnecessarily burdensome. The calciners be set at one hour. technologies. commenter went on to say that Response. There are two factors Response. None required. monitoring of both pressure drop and generally considered when specifying a 2. Wet Process Phosphoric Acid (WPPA) flow rate may not be appropriate in all minimum particulate matter (Method 5) Plants cases and that the determination of the sampling time in a regulation. The first appropriate operating parameter(s) for priority is to assure that sufficient Comment. One commenter said the monitoring should be made on a case- sample mass would be collected to Agency should amend the standard for by-case basis. The commenter posited obtain quantitative results with an existing WPPA facilities to be the same that the requirement to install acceptable degree of confidence at the as for new WPPA facilities because the continuous parameter monitoring level of the emission limit. The sample proposed action failed to consider and systems for both pressure drop and flow size needed to determine compliance at analyze the economic advantage that the rate in all cases could be unduly concentrations of 0.040 grains per dry proposed standard would give existing burdensome, inappropriate and not standard cubic foot is small enough that facilities over new facilities. supported by the record. The one hour is a sufficient sampling time. Also, the commenter said the commenter said whether pressure drop The second factor is the time necessary proposed MACT floor standard for or flow rate is the relevant parameter for to obtain a sample that represents existing facilities failed to consider the benefits of airborne radionuclides monitoring turns largely on the HAP normal process operational cycles. reductions achieved by the proposed being controlled by the relevant Calcination is a continuous operation. new facility standard. Citing the NESHAP. Hence, this is not an overriding factor. Agency’s proposal not to exercise its Response. The documentation of the Thus, consistent with the commenter’s statutory authority to go ‘‘beyond-the- proposed NESHAP made clear that the suggestion, the Agency is specifying a floor’’ and require more stringent Agency was aware of the wide range of minimum sampling time for each controls on existing WPPA plants based possible scrubber configurations that performance test run of 1 hour. upon EPA’s analysis of the health can be and are used to meet the Comment. One commenter said the impacts of HF and HAP metals, the NESHAP level of control. As written, Agency recognized in the preamble to commenter was unaware of any Agency the rules provide sources with the proposed NESHAP that performance analysis of the human health and flexibility to meet the emission limits in testing requirements for uncontrolled environmental benefit. The commenter the manner most efficient for a given GTSP storage buildings have not yet maintained that the Agency was source. Accordingly, when choosing to been proposed by the agency and required by section 112(d) to evaluate use multiple control devices to achieve reserved the right to comment on these the public health benefit and the limits that can be met by a single device, performance testing requirements when environmental benefit which would a source also accepts the requirements they are proposed. attendant to operating and monitoring Response. The Agency previously result from the decreased radionuclide those devices. To allow sources to promulgated Methods 13 A and B which emissions associated with the monitor only chosen components of are applicable to GTSP storage particulate if existing WPPA facilities control systems as suggested by the buildings. Sources electing to determine were required to meet the new source commenters would undermine the compliance without control devices or WPPA standard for HF emissions. Response. The Agency’s actions have effectiveness of the monitoring stacks need to develop site-specific test been guided by the language of the Act. requirements in assessing the overall protocols that are equivalent to Method The Act clearly states that standards for performance of controls. The control 13. Source owners wanting to assure new and existing sources should be systems are essentially doing the same compliance in an alternative manner determined differently. The commenter job regardless of whether removal of should propose a measurement was correct in his observation that the pollutants is occurring in one or a series procedure in their site-specific test Agency has a duty to consider going of vessels. The main concern is one of plans, required by § 63.7(c)(2). The beyond the floor level of control for providing sufficient time for the effluent regulation requires that the owner or gases to contact an absorbent liquid. The existing sources. operator submit those plans to the For this rulemaking, there were no key parameters therefore are contact Agency for review within twelve time as reflected by pressure drop and data which to base analyses of months of promulgation. The additional reductions in radionuclide sufficient quantities of absorbent as Administrator’s review procedure is reflected by liquid flow rate. The overall emissions. There was information on HF governed by § 63.7(c)(3). In the interest and HAP metals emissions. So, the operating effectiveness of the controls is of maintaining uniformity in the reflected in those two parameters. Agency’s analysis for going beyond the implementation of the NESHAP, the Comment. One commenter questioned MACT floor focused upon those Administrator has retained from the two hour test time in proposed pollutants. § 63.605(e)(1) which would require that delegation the authority to approve site- As a part of that consideration, the the sampling time for each run of a specific test plans for uncontrolled Agency first explored the possibility performance test for phosphate rock granular triple superphosphate storage that different control technologies were calciner particulate matter emissions be buildings developed pursuant to available and demonstrated for the ‘‘at least 2 hours.’’ Further, the § 63.7(c)(2)(i). This retention of classes of sources being controlled by commenter believed that the equipment authority is contained in § 63.629 today’s action. None were found that employed in performing the relevant entitled ‘‘Miscellaneous requirements.’’ had been demonstrated and could be reference method would be incapable of C. Emission Limits applied without creating additional producing accurate results when negative impacts on other operated for a two-hour period due to 1. General environmental media. The Agency also the plugging of the particulate matter Comment. One commenter expressed considered whether the new source filters involved. Consequently, the the opinion that the Agency has emission limits could be applied to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31369 existing sources. The emissions data Comment. Two commenters noted standards nor those suggested in the showed that high levels of control were that the language for existing and new commenter’s recommendations. To being achieved in both cases and that evaporative cooling towers does not clarify the comment, the commenter there was minimal opportunity for agree and proposed that § 63.602(e) consulted with its State air pollution incremental reductions to be achieved should be used for both. control agency to discuss alternatives. in a cost-effective manner by going from Response. The Agency agrees that the Two commenters stated that the leak the existing-source MACT floors to the language for existing and new detection and repair (LDAR) provisions levels of new source MACT. As evaporative cooling towers should have of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H would be discussed above (I. B.), a simple been identical. It was the Agency’s a workable means of addressing fugitive calculation of the application of new intent to use the language described for emissions. Other commenters stated that source MACT in place of existing source existing sources for new ones also and the LDAR program would not address MACT for the subcategory of WPPA this has been changed on the final rule. tank and stack emissions and they plants, which have the greatest 4. Phosphate Rock Calciners and Dryers supported keeping the proposed differential between the two levels of requirements to maintain the chiller control, indicates that the costs would Comment. One commenter expressed stack temperature and the MIBK be unreasonable. In that example, the the opinion that the proposed concentration of the raffinate (process annualized capital cost of achieving the particulate matter limit of 0.040 grain waste materials) and product acid additional annual HF reduction of 0.34 per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) for within specified limits. tons per year was $17,253 per year. calciners is readily achievable and went Response. One commenter There, the cost effectiveness of the on to note that emissions below 0.025 manufactures PPA through a solvent additional reduction would be $50,744 gr/dscf have been achieved for at least extraction method. The plant emits per ton of additional HF removed, one calciner. The commenter suggested MIBK, which is a HAP. Fugitive which the Agency considers to be that the Agency should also limit emissions of MIBK from valves, flanges, inappropriate at this time. emissions of fluorides from calciners. and seals are reduced by means of an Response. The Agency agrees with the ongoing maintenance and repair 3. Evaporative Cooling Towers at comments upon the achievability of the program. As the lone PPA facility in the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants proposed emissions limits. The first source category, its control methods Comment. Commenters support the number referred to by the commenter constitute the MACT floor for Agency’s proposed requirement to was selected as MACT for existing controlling fugitive emissions of MIBK. forbid the introduction of liquids calciners via the rationale in the At proposal, the Agency translated the containing the effluent from air proposal. The limit selected for existing source’s maintenance and repair pollution control devices into any sources was established on the basis of program into a numerical limit on MIBK evaporative cooling tower. They agree test data for several calciners that that was to be determined through plant that it does not make sense to scrub actually process phosphate ore and the production and MIBK makeup records. hydrogen fluoride and other HAPs from data show that the emissions limits can The proposal was based upon the potential emission points and then be met on an ongoing basis. The lower premise that the MIBK makeup allow these HAPs to evaporate when the number given by the commenter has requirement was a result of fugitive scrubber water is routed to evaporative been achieved by calciners in other emissions. That approach was proposed cooling towers. categories. However, the commenter because the Agency thought that doing One commenter said that separating provided no information that this level so would simplify enforcement of a water discharges of pollution control of control is achievable for phosphate standard based upon effectiveness of the devices from the evaporative cooling rock calciners. The selection of new work practices in place at the plant for towers would cost one source in its source MACT described in the proposal limiting process losses of MIBK. In jurisdiction approximately $0.4 million was made using data specific to this response to a commenter, the Agency for process alterations. The commenter industry to ensure achievability. The reviewed information in the record prior stated that it could cause the source Agency did consider setting a fluoride to proposal and the additional various operational problems of limit for calciners. The wet scrubbers information provided by the commenter increased water consumption and plant used in the industry for control of for the purpose of determining whether water effluent, for which the source has particulate matter also capture hydrogen the proposed numerical limit would be no water effluent-handling facilities fluoride. Even if the Agency had an appropriate means of implementing outside of land application. established an HF floor, it would have MACT. The data indicated that a One commenter stated that his is the been based upon the same control numerical limit could not be only existing facility affected by this devices that provided the basis for established. Emissions were not related proposal and estimates compliance setting the particulate limit. to production and, therefore, the costs will be several hundred thousand proposed standard which tied allowable 5. Purified Phosphoric Acid (PPA) dollars. He commented that the Agency emissions to the production rate was not Plants had not considered the benefits or the a valid approach. compliance costs of the proposed work Comment. One commenter initially The MIBK cannot be emitted through standard and that § 63.602(e) should be recommended that the level of the a conveyance designed and constructed deleted. proposed MIBK standard should be to capture this pollutant. Response. For phosphoric acid changed from that which was proposed. Upon consideration of the fugitive manufacturing, the Agency has elected Included with the comments was nature of these emissions, the available to base NESHAP upon the floor level of information describing plant information and the public comments control. This is the least stringent option modifications, updated MIBK inventory received, the Agency has concluded that permitted by the Act. Any consideration records and process records from which it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce of costs would be of significance only emissions could be determined. The an emission standard for control of for consideration of options for control Agency reviewed the updated these emissions. In section 112(h)(1), levels exceeding the floor level of information and concluded that it the Act provides that the Administrator stringency. supported neither the proposed may prescribe a work practice standard

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31370 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations consistent with the provisions of section were based directly upon the pre- requiring producers of GTSP not to ship 112(d) in lieu of an emission standard, existing NSPS and said his review of the freshly produced GTSP until it had if it is not feasible to prescribe or background documents associated with cured. In effect, the producers were to enforce an emission standard for control the original NSPS rulemaking indicated hold the GTSP in their storage buildings of a HAP. In this instance, the work it was clear that the Agency intended until the HF emissions had tapered off practices at the plant constitute the floor that the NSPS apply only to collocated as a result of curing. This, in effect, level of control. The Agency agrees with GTSP storage facilities. Furthermore, he accomplished the purpose of the the commenters recommendation that noted the only GTSP storage facilities proposed NESHAP with regard to the leak detection and repair (LDAR) sampled in connection with the limiting applicability to co-located provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H development of the NSPS were storage buildings. In fact, the approach provides a means of expressing the work collocated facilities. of the revised NSPS better accomplished practices as a regulatory requirement. As a consequence of review of the that purpose by more clearly addressing The LDAR provisions in subpart H were public record, the commenter made which storage buildings were subject to determined during development of the several specific suggestions about the the rules. Since, the revised NSPS hazardous organics NESHAP to be proposed rules. First, he said the addresses the concerns voiced by the MACT for fugitive emissions sources definition of ‘‘fresh’’ GTSP in proposed commenter and the Agency considers with similar characteristics to those of § 63.621 should be redefined if the the revised NSPS to better accomplish the one plant emitting MIBK. After Agency does not limit the applicability the purposes of establishing MACT, the considering all available information, of the NESHAP to collocated GTSP final rule for this NESHAP has been the Agency has concluded that subpart storage facilities. The commenter amended to reflect the requirements of H is at least equivalent to the facility’s suggested that for regulatory purposes, the NSPS, as revised. current practices and has adopted the the appropriate inquiry is the extent to 7. Cooling Ponds. LDAR provisions of the HON as part of which GTSP in storage actually emits the MACT controls for this process. significant amounts of fluorides. The Comment. One commenter said that Accordingly, the Agency has referenced commenter provided engineering data the Agency must regulate the corrosive the subpart H requirements in today’s on measured fluoride emissions from hazardous waste in the cooling pond rulemaking. The Agency is keeping the stored GTSP and said the data either under this rule or by a definitive proposed requirements to monitor and demonstrate that the vast majority of deadline under RCRA. The commenter maintain the chiller stack temperature fluoride emissions occur within 48 said that the proposed HF standards and the MIBK concentration of the hours of the production of GTSP. The would require the discharge of air raffinate and product acid within commenter recommended that the pollution scrubber water containing HF specified limits. definition of ‘‘fresh’’ GTSP be revised to into cooling pond water resulting in Comment. One commenter suggested read: ‘‘Fresh granular Triple unregulated corrosive hazardous waste generalizing the definition of a PPA superphosphate means granular Triple discharge to ground waters and surface plant by modifying the proposed superphosphate produced within the waters. The commenter added that the language to read as follows: ‘‘Purified preceding 72 hours’’ based on the data Agency’s analysis of the non-air impacts phosphoric acid plant means any provided. of releases of pollution from cooling facility which uses solvent extraction to The commenter also said that the ponds did not discuss the cooling pond separate impurities from wet process percentage of fresh GTSP that must be water pH issue and the commenter was phosphoric acid product acid for the present during performance testing unable to find any discussion of the purposes of rendering the product would also have to be revised non-air impacts of the surface and suitable for industrial, manufacturing or accordingly. If this were not done, no groundwater releases from these ponds food grade uses.’’ existing GTSP plant would be capable of resulting from putting additional HF Response. The Agency found the producing ‘‘fresh’’ GTSP at a rate which into the ponds. The commenter commenter’s suggestion acceptable and would permit the current 20 percent suggested that addition of more HF to has incorporated it into the final rule limitation to be met. The commenter the cooling ponds will lower the pH of with a wording change that clarifies that recommended that the percentage of the these ponds even further below the coverage is limited to those sources total amount of stored GTSP which corrosive hazardous waste standard of a employing a HAP compound as a must be fresh at performance testing pH of 2.0. As such, the commenter solvent. So, the rules will effectively should also be revised from 20 percent maintained that the proposal did not cover only one of the two processes now to six percent. accomplish the section 112(d)(2) in use because the second process does Response. In general, the Agency mandate that emission standards ‘‘shall not emit HAPs. agrees with the commenter’s require the maximum degree of conclusions and recommendations. The reduction in the emissions of the 6. Granular Triple Superphosphate proposed approach was to adopt the hazardous air pollutants subject to this (GTSP) Storage Buildings technical component of the NSPS and to section’’ achievable ‘‘taking into Comment. One commenter supported add language exempting GTSP storage consideration costs and any non-air the Agency’s proposed approach buildings co-located with GTSP process quality health and environmental limiting applicability for GTSP storage lines. Shortly after proposal, the co- impacts and energy impacts.’’ The buildings to only those storage buildings location issue and the technical commenter believed that section co-located with GTSP plants. The concerns raised by the commenter also 112(d)(2) required EPA to consider: (a) commenter concurred with the Agency’s arose in the context of the NSPS itself. the enclosure of systems to eliminate rationale and cited additional reasons The NSPS was subsequently revised emissions; (b) the collection, capture or why the NESHAP for GTSP storage (see 62 FR 18308) to address those treatment of such pollutants when buildings should be made applicable concerns. The main features of the released from a process, stack or storage only to such storage buildings revised NSPS were a change to the facility; or, (c) design standards for collocated with GTSP plants. The definition of ‘‘fresh GTSP’’ that was processes. commenter said requirements of the consistent with the commenter’s In addition, the commenter said the proposed NESHAP for such facilities recommendation and a provision proposed rule also did not comply with

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31371 the Pollution Prevention Act because to the final NESHAP, that the Response. The Agency agrees with the the proposed rule did not address the calculations and the permit report used commenter and has replaced the term cooling pond water corrosive hazardous as the basis for the estimates referred to ‘‘process component’’ with the term issue by EPA using its powers under in the proposal notice are not the ‘‘affected source.’’ Further, while section 112 of the Act or under RCRA exclusive sources to be relied upon in reviewing the proposed exemption to to eliminate or reduce the surface and making such major source determine its response to the groundwater pollution from the HF in determinations. The commenter commenter, the Agency found that the the cooling ponds. requested the Agency to explicitly state timing of the performance test as Response. Although this rulemaking that such determinations may be made required in the general provisions could is focused upon air emissions and upon any relevant data or information, lead to further confusion as to a source’s regulating cooling ponds with respect to including, but not limited to, the compliance status during the period RCRA goals would be outside the scope calculation procedure used by the between the compliance date of the of this action, the Agency has Agency. NESHAP and completion of the considered the impacts of MACT upon Response. It is a normal practice for performance test. The final rule has other media. An engineering analysis of the Agency to examine the impacts of its been re-worded to require the source to options for addressing the HF content of rules upon the environment and upon demonstrate compliance via a cooling ponds was included in the the regulated community. In its performance test by the compliance date docket prior to proposal as item II-B–9. estimates of the impacts of the proposed for the NESHAP and to have a valid As part of that analysis, consideration rules, the Agency projected that 15 operating permit pursuant to Title V to was given to a process that would facilities may be major sources subject qualify for the NSPS exemption. eliminate flows to cooling ponds as to this NESHAP. Those estimates are the Agency’s expectations and do not 3. Draft Technical Support Document encouraged by the Pollution Prevention (TSD) Act. While the Agency found the new constitute a determination of major process promising, it was not source status for individual sources for Comment. One commenter said that demonstrated under commercial purposes of Title V operating permits. throughout the draft TSD, companies conditions and could not be adopted as However, the Agency does consider its involved in the manufacture of an available control technology. This methods of estimation to be sound and phosphoric acid or the production of was specifically discussed in the would carefully examine any analyses phosphate fertilizer were often proposal (61 FR 68444). provided by sources that indicated misidentified. Also, the commenter As the preamble to the proposed rules lesser amounts of emissions. In noted that several of the production and indicated, it is the Agency’s expectation particular, the argument by industry other values given in the TSD were that five process lines would need to that silica or free ammonia remove all inaccurate and urged the Agency to use upgrade or replace existing controls to available HF is not supported by the the most accurate and up-to-date values meet the NESHAP. Since those facilities FTIR data available for this rulemaking. available. With regard to the discussion currently route their scrubber effluent to If one could assume that sufficient on nutrient carry-over and industry cooling ponds, the effects of the rule quantities of reactants, such as silica trends, the commenter cited some would constitute a very small and ammonia in this case, were present concerns and asked that the sections incremental change to current practices to theoretically drive a reaction to quoted in his comment letter be deleted at those facilities. Given the relatively completion, real world actualities such from the draft TSD or revised. One commenter provided additional small contribution of scrubber effluent as imperfect mixing or equilibrium information on the type of processes to the ponds and buffering effects of the limitations would prevent complete present at two plants in its jurisdiction. complex mixture of chemicals in the reactions of available ingredients from The commenter highlighted the ponds, there would be no observable occurring. Thus, regardless of the silica production of a unique kind of GTSP effect resulting from changes to the air or ammonia content of the emissions from phosphate ore and limestone at pollution controls. streams for this industry, it is expected that HF will be present in the final one plant. That source makes ‘‘GTSP’’ D. Other Comments exhaust. The most definitive approach by acidizing limestone with phosphoric acid and is different from the normal 1. Determination of Major Source Status for sources to employ to determine their individual major source status would be process which acidifies phosphate ore Comment. One commenter noted that for sources to directly measure for HAP with phosphoric acid. The commenter pursuant to 40 CFR 63.1 (b)(3), owners compounds using FTIR via a test said GTSP thus made from limestone or operators of stationary sources method validated per EPA Method 301. does not fall under the definition stated potentially subject to the NESHAP must in the proposed standards. The make an initial applicability 2. NSPS Exemption information about the second source determination concerning whether or Comment. One commenter observed noted a change of ownership. not they are a major source and, that proposed §§ 63.610 and 63.630 Response. The original draft of the therefore, subject to the NESHAP. The would exempt any ‘‘process TSD was sent to outside reviewers, commenter acknowledged that this component’’ subject to the NESHAP including the commenters, and was applicability determination is from otherwise applicable NSPS. The subsequently revised according to specifically made the responsibility of commenter stated that the term ‘‘process comments received. The draft TSD in the owner or operator of a stationary component’’ is not defined in the the docket was current as of May 1995. source. The commenter asked that in proposed NESHAP or in the Act. In The purpose of the draft TSD was to order to ensure that the statements order to avoid any subsequent confusion assemble the information upon which concerning the number of major sources on the scope of the NSPS exemption, MACT could be established and various contained in the December 27, 1996 the commenter recommended that the environmental and economic impacts preamble do not inadvertently lead to term ‘‘process component’’ be replaced could be assessed. The draft TSD also ‘‘prejudgments’’ on major source by the term ‘‘affected source’’ or, presented the Agency’s methodologies determinations, the Agency should alternatively, that the term ‘‘process and projections of the impacts of the specifically recognize, in the preamble component’’ be specifically defined. NESHAP as they were envisioned at that

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31372 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations time. Subsequently, companies have laboratory facility that is operated under promulgating the part 63 general been bought and sold and the the close supervision of technically provisions did not support the productive output of the industry has trained personnel the primary purpose commenter’s points concerning their changed. Newer information and of which is to conduct research and application to sources subject to prior analyses pertinent to the rulemaking development into new processes and regulations. Instead, the discussions have since been made available and products and that is not engaged in the made clear that the part 63 added to the docket. Thus, given that manufacture of products for sale or requirements, while patterned after the draft TSD has served its original exchange for commercial profit, except those parts 60 and 61, were made more purpose and any newer relevant in a de minimis manner.’’ extensive because of the need to information is in the docket, the Agency Response. The Agency agrees with the incorporate specific legal requirements will not revise the draft TSD. commenter and has added appropriate added by the 1990 Amendments to the language, including an R&D facility 4. Applicability Diammonium and/or Act. The Agency also mentioned the definition similar to the commenter’s, importance of maintaining consistent Monoammonium Phosphate (DAP/ into the rules. The Agency plans to MAP) Emission Limits requirements for the various source issue a NESHAP applicable to R&D categories affected by NESHAP and Comment. One commenter described facilities at a later date. minimizing case-by-case negotiations on one of his sources that manufactures 6. Notification timing and content of notification and MAP/DAP using thermal process recordkeeping activities. Last, the phosphoric acid, instead of WPPA. The Comment. One commenter Agency does not concur with the commenter cited the information in the recommended that notification, commenter’s interpretation of 40 CFR TSD to support his observation that recordkeeping and reporting 63.10(a)(7). That language is specifically information available to the Agency requirements should be coextensive aimed at instances where affected with those required under the current indicate that HAP emissions are a sources are subject to both NSPS and NSPS. The proposed rules would apply concern only in those instances where NESHAP. Since this rule specifically §§ 63.9 and 63.10 of the NESHAP WPPA is used to manufacture DAP/ exempts those sources subject to its general provisions with their MAP. The commenter requested that the requirements from duplicate coverage recordkeeping and reporting that in the Agency clarify the applicability of the by NSPS, the language of § 63.10(a)(7) is commenter’s opinion is neither NESHAP to exclude those sources not not applicable. using WPPA to manufacture DAP/MAP. appropriate nor justified. The Response. The Agency agrees with the commenter said the record of the Comment. One commenter asked for commenter and the regulations in NESHAP general provisions rulemaking the intent of §§ 63.608 and 63.628 to be subpart BB have been revised by makes it clear that the notification, clarified. The commenter said proposed incorporating language the commenter recordkeeping and reporting §§ 63.608 and 63.628 specified that provided. requirements were developed to address particular reporting requirements of situations where the NESHAP for a § 63.10 would be applicable to owners 5. Applicability—Research and particular chemical or process would be and operators of phosphoric acid Development Facilities the initial federal regulation addressing manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer Comment. One commenter that chemical or process. The production facilities. Furthermore, recommended that the Agency include commenter said that phosphoric acid proposed §§ 63.604 and 63.605 specified an exemption for research and manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer the monitoring requirements applicable development (R&D) facilities. The production facilities have long been to owners and operators of such commenter cited section 112(c)(7) of the subject to federal regulation under the facilities. Certain of the monitoring Clean Air Act (the Act) and its direction NSPS and State regulation under requirements otherwise applicable to establish a separate source category provisions similar to the NSPS and under 40 CFR 63.8 were not made for R&D facilities as necessary to ensure owner/operators of regulated sources applicable to phosphoric acid equitable treatment of such facilities. and government regulators are familiar manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer The commenter cited other recent and adept with these preexisting production facilities. Concomitantly, the NESHAP that have included R&D notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of § 63.10 exemptions and said that this reporting requirements. The commenter associated with those monitoring rulemaking needed to include such an recommended that notification, requirements also were not made exemption for consistency. The recordkeeping and reporting applicable to such facilities by proposed commenter suggested that the following requirements be coextensive with the §§ 63.608 and 63.628. However, the language be added to the definitions requirements of the pre-existing NSPS excess emissions report which was contained in the rule: ‘‘Research and and submitted that such an approach is made applicable to such facilities by development activities means (1) consistent with 40 CFR 63.10(a)(7) proposed §§ 63.608(a)(2) and activities conducted at a laboratory to which permits owners and operators 63.628(a)(2) was required, by the analyze air, soil, water or product subject to both NSPS and NESHAP, NESHAP general provisions, to include samples for contaminants, along with the Administrator or the information concerning certain of the environmental impact, or quality state permitting authority, to mutually monitoring requirements not made control, (2) activities conducted to test agree on a common schedule for applicable to phosphoric acid more efficient production processes or submitting required reports. The manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer methods for preventing or reducing commenter said his recommendation production facilities. The commenter adverse environmental impacts, was also consistent with 40 CFR 63.10(f) asked that the Agency’s intent be made provided that the activities do not which permits the Administrator to specific in the final NESHAP so that it include the production of an waive the recordkeeping and reporting would be clear that the excess emissions intermediate or final product for sale or requirements of the NESHAP general report required by proposed exchange for commercial profit, except provisions. §§ 63.608(a)(2) and 63.628(a)(2) is to in a de minimis manner, and (3) Response. The Agency discussion in include only the information relevant to activities conducted at a research or the preambles proposing and the monitoring requirements

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31373 specifically imposed on phosphoric acid recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel Federal agencies to assess the effects of manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer legal or policy issues arising out of legal their regulatory actions on State, local production facilities pursuant to mandates, the President’s priorities, or and tribal governments and the private proposed §§ 63.604 and 63.624. the principles set forth in the Executive sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Response. The Agency explored the Order. the EPA generally must prepare a commenter’s concerns and came to It has been determined that this rule written statement, including a cost- agree that the coordination of the is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ benefit analysis, for proposed and final general provisions requirements for under the terms of Executive Order rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may notification, recordkeeping, reporting, 12866 and is therefore not subject to result in expenditures by State, local and compliance dates as proposed could OMB review. The nationwide capital and tribal governments, in the aggregate, be improved. The sections of the rule and annualized costs of the NESHAP, or by the private sector, of $100 million addressing those points have been re- including emission controls and or more in any one year. Before structured and a table has been added associated monitoring equipment, are promulgating an EPA rule for which a to specifically state the applicability of estimated at $1.4 million and $862,000/ written statement is needed, section 205 the components of the general yr, respectively. of the UMRA generally requires the EPA provisions. The timing of the initial C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental to identify and consider a reasonable performance test relative to the Partnership Under Executive Order number of regulatory alternatives and compliance date and the exemption 12875 adopt the least costly, most cost- from new source performance standards effective or least burdensome alternative were further clarified to eliminate Under Executive Order 12875, the that achieves the objectives of the rule. ambiguity. These changes should ease Agency may not issue a regulation that The provisions of section 205 do not implementation via Title V operating is not required by statute and that apply when they are inconsistent with creates a mandate upon a State, local or permits. applicable law. Moreover, section 205 tribal government, unless the Federal allows the EPA to adopt an alternative V. Administrative Requirements government provides the funds other than the least costly, most cost- necessary to pay the direct compliance A. Docket effective or least burdensome alternative costs incurred by those governments, or if the Administrator publishes with the The docket is an organized and EPA consults with those governments. If final rule an explanation why that complete file of all the information the Agency complies by consulting, alternative was not adopted. Before the considered by EPA in the development Executive Order 12875 requires the EPA establishes any regulatory of this rulemaking. The docket is a Agency to provide to the Office of requirements that may significantly or dynamic file, because material is added Management and Budget a description uniquely affect small governments, it throughout the rulemaking of the extent of the Agency’s prior must have developed under section 203 development. The docketing system is consultation with representatives of of the UMRA a small government intended to allow members of the public affected State, local and tribal agency plan. The plan must provide for and industries involved to readily governments, the nature of their notifying potentially affected small identify and locate documents so that concerns, copies of any written governments, enabling officials of they can effectively participate in the communications from the governments, affected small governments to have rulemaking process. Along with the and a statement supporting the need to meaningful and timely input in the proposed and promulgated standards issue the regulation. In addition, development of EPA regulatory and their preambles, the contents of the Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to proposals with significant Federal docket will serve as the record in the develop an effective process permitting intergovernmental mandates, and case of judicial review. (See section elected officials and other informing, educating and advising small 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.) representatives of State, local and tribal governments on compliance with the governments ‘‘to provide meaningful B. Executive Order 12866 regulatory requirements. and timely input in the development of Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR regulatory proposals containing The EPA has determined that these 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency significant unfunded mandates.’’ final rules do not contain a Federal must determine whether the regulatory Today’s rule does not create a mandate that may result in expenditures action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore mandate on State, local or tribal of $100 million or more for State, local subject to review by the Office of governments. The rule does not impose and tribal governments, in the aggregate, Management and Budget (OMB), and any enforceable duties on State, local or or the private sector in any one year. the requirements of the Executive Order. tribal governments, because they do not The EPA projects that annual economic The Order defines ‘‘significant own or operate any sources subject to impacts would be far less than $100 regulatory action’’ as one that is likely this rule and therefore are not required million. Thus, today’s final rules are not to result in a rule that may: (1) have an to purchase control systems to meet the subject to the requirements of sections annual effect on the economy of $100 requirements of this rule. Accordingly, 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, million or more or adversely affect in a the requirements of section 1(a) of the EPA has determined that these final material way the economy, a sector of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to rules contain no regulatory the economy, productivity, competition, this rule. Nevertheless, in developing requirements that might significantly or jobs, the environment, public health or this rule, EPA consulted with States to uniquely affect small governments safety, or State, local, or tribal enable them to provide meaningful and because they do not impose any governments or communities; (2) create timely input in the development of this enforceable duties on small a serious inconsistency or otherwise rule. governments; such governments own or interfere with an action taken or operate no sources subject to these planned by another agency; (3) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act proposed rules and therefore would not materially alter the budgetary impact of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates be required to purchase control systems entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public to meet the requirements of these programs, or the rights and obligation of Law 104–4, establishes requirements for proposed rules.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31374 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

E. Regulatory Flexibility authority of the Clean Air Act to requirements contained in this final The Agency has determined that it is monitor and record operating rule. parameters to assure that they were not necessary to prepare a regulatory H. National Technology Transfer and maintained within approved ranges, flexibility analysis in connection with Advancement Act this final rule. The Agency has also based upon values determined during the performance tests. One source will Section 12(d) of the National determined that this rule will not have be required to monitor potential Technology Transfer and Advancement a significant economic impact on a emissions from equipment leaks and to Act (NTTAA), directs all Federal substantial number of small entities. keep records of leaks detected and agencies to use voluntary consensus The Agency has found that two of the repairs made to correct leaks. The standards in regulatory and twenty-one firms that potentially could purpose of the monitoring and procurement activities unless to do so be subject to the standards are small recordkeeping requirements is to would be inconsistent with applicable firms. Of the two, data indicate that one provide implementing agencies law or otherwise impracticable. is an area source which would not be information to assure that MACT is Voluntary consensus standards are covered by the standards. The second implemented on an ongoing basis. technical standards (e.g., materials source could be major and subject to the The Agency estimated the projected specifications, test methods, sampling requirements of the standards. cost and hour burden of the standards. procedures, and business practices) Information available to the Agency The average annual reporting burden developed or adapted by one or more shows that the second source is able to was estimated to be 132 hours per voluntary consensus bodies. The achieve the control levels of the response. There will be fifteen likely NTTAA requires Federal agencies to NESHAP using existing equipment. The respondents and reports will required provide Congress, through annual testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and twice a year. The total burden would reports to OMB, with explanations reporting requirements are essentially equate to 3790 hours per year when an agency does not use available identical to current requirements and, nationwide and the corresponding cost and applicable voluntary consensus thus, should cause little or no change in was estimated to be $121,773 per year. standards. these burdens. The total capital cost of the monitoring Consistent with the requirements of F. Submission to Congress and the devices was estimated to be $564,200 of the NTTAA, today’s rulemaking Comptroller General which the major cost would be for the incorporates the analytical methods of installation of sensors to measure and two consensus standard bodies. Instead The Congressional Review Act, 5 record the flow of scrubbing liquid to of developing its own methods for U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small the control devices. The annualized cost determining the phosphate content of Business Regulatory Enforcement of that capital would be $53,200 per feedstocks to the processes covered by Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides year and the operation and maintenance the standards, the Agency is that before a rule may take effect, the of the monitoring equipment was incorporating by reference into today’s agency promulgating the rule must estimated as $13,300 per year. Thus, the rules certain analytical protocols of the submit a rule report, which includes a total annualized capital and operation Association of Official Analytical copy of the rule, to each House of the and maintenance costs were estimated Chemists and of The Association of Congress and to the Comptroller General to be $66,500 per year. Florida Phosphate Chemists. of the United States. The Agency will Burden means the total time, effort, or Also, consistant with the NTTAA, the submit a report containing this rule and financial resources expended by persons EPA conducted a search to identify other required information to the U.S. to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose voluntary consensus standards for Senate, the U.S. House of or provide information to or for a emissions test methods. The search Representatives, and the Comptroller Federal agency. This includes the time identified 17 voluntary consensus General of the United States prior to needed to review instructions; develop, standards that appeared to have possible publication of the rule in the Federal acquire, install, and utilize technology use in lieu of EPA standard reference Register. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ and systems for the purposes of methods. However, after reviewing as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule collecting, validating, and verifying available standards, EPA determined will be effective on the date of information, processing and that 12 of the candidate consensus publication in the Federal Register. maintaining information, and disclosing standards identified for measuring G. Paperwork Reduction Act and providing information; adjust the emissions of the HAPs or surrogates existing ways to comply with any subject to emission standards in the rule The Office of Management and Budget previously applicable instructions and would not be practical due to lack of (OMB) has approved the information requirements; train personnel to be able equivalency, documentation, validation collection requirements contained in to respond to a collection of data and other important technical and this rule under the provisions of the information; search data sources; policy considerations. Five of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. complete and review the collection of remaining candidate consensus 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB information; and transmit or otherwise standards are new standards under control number 2060–0361. disclose the information. An Agency development that EPA plans to follow, The information to be collected may not conduct or sponsor, and a review and consider adopting at a later includes the results of annual person is not required to respond to, a date. This rule requires standard EPA performance testing to be conducted to collection of information unless it methods known to the industry and demonstrate compliance with the displays a currently valid OMB control States. Approved alternative methods emissions limits in the rules. At the number. The OMB control numbers for also may be used with prior EPA time that performance testing will be EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR epproval. performed, sources will be required to part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. EPA is measure and record operating amending the table in 40 CFR part 9, I. Executive Order 13045 parameters for the processes and control § 9.1 of currently approved ICR control Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of devices. Following the performance numbers issued by OMB for various Children from Environmental Health testing, sources will be required under regulations to list the information Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31375

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 2. Section 63.14 is amended by (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically Environmental protection, Air adding new paragraphs (g) and (h) to significant’’ as defined under E.O. pollution control, Incorporation by read as follows: 12866, and (2) concerns an reference. Intergovernmental relations, § 63.14 Incorporation by Reference. environmental health or safety risk that Reporting and recordkeeping * * * * * EPA has reason to believe may have a requirements. disproportionate effect on children. If (g) The materials listed below are the regulatory action meets both criteria, Dated: April 14, 1999. available for purchase from AOAC the Agency must evaluate the Carol M. Browner, International, Customer Services, Suite environmental health or safety effects of Administrator. 400, 2200 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, the planned rule on children, and For the reasons set out in the Virginia, 22201–3301, Telephone (703) explain why the planned regulation is preamble, parts 9 and 63 of title 40, 522–3032, Fax (703) 522–5468. preferable to other potentially effective chapter I of the Code of Federal (1) AOAC Official Method 978.01 and reasonably feasible alternatives Regulations are amended as follows: Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, considered by the Agency. Automated Method, Sixteenth edition, This final rule is not subject to E.O. PART 9ÐOMB APPROVALS UNDER 1995, IBR approved for 13045, entitled Protection of Children THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT § 63.626(d)(3)(vi). from Environmental Health Risks and (2) AOAC Official Method 969.02 Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1. The authority citation for part 9 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 1997), because it does not involve continues to read as follows: Alkalimetric Quinolinium decisions on environmental health risks Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y; Molybdophosphate Method, Sixteenth or safety risks that may 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671; edition, 1995, IBR approved for disproportionately affect children. 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 § 63.626(d)(3)(vi). U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, (3) AOAC Official Method 962.02 J. Executive Order 13084 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, Under Executive Order 13084, EPA (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, Gravimetric Quinolinium may not issue a regulation that is not 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, Molybdophosphate Method, Sixteenth required by statute, that significantly or 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, edition, 1995, IBR approved for uniquely affects the communities of 300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq., § 63.626(d)(3)(vi). Indian tribal governments, and that 6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, (4) AOAC Official Method 957.02 imposes substantial direct compliance 11023, 11048. Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, costs on those communities, unless the 2. In § 9.1 the table is amended by Preparation of Sample Solution, Federal government provides the funds adding new entries under the indicated Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved necessary to pay the direct compliance heading in numerical order to read as for § 63.626(d)(3)(vi). costs incurred by the tribal follows: (5) AOAC Official Method 929.01 governments, or EPA consults with Sampling of Solid Fertilizers, Sixteenth those governments. If EPA complies by § 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork edition, 1995, IBR approved for consulting, Executive Order 13084 Reduction Act. § 63.626(d)(3)(vi). requires EPA to provide to the Office of * * * * * (6) AOAC Official Method 929.02 Management and Budget, in a separately Preparation of Fertilizer Sample, identified section of the preamble to the 40 CFR citation OMB control Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s No. for § 63.626(d)(3)(vi). prior consultation with representatives (7) AOAC Official Method 958.01 of affected tribal governments, a ***** Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, summary of the nature of their concerns, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Spectrophotometric and a statement supporting the need to Air Pollutants for Source Categories 3 Molybdovanadophosphate Method, issue the regulation. In addition, Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to ***** for § 63.626(d)(3)(vi). develop an effective process permitting (h) The materials listed below are elected officials and other 63.602±63.603 ...... 2060±0361 available for purchase from The representatives of Indian tribal 63.605±63.608 ...... 2060±0361 Association of Florida Phosphate governments ‘‘to provide meaningful 63.625±63.628 ...... 2060±0361 Chemists, P.O. Box 1645, Bartow, and timely input in the development of 63.630 ...... 2060±0361 Florida, 33830, Book of Methods Used regulatory policies on matters that and Adopted By The Association of significantly or uniquely affect their ***** Florida Phosphate Chemists, Seventh communities.’’ 3 The ICRs referenced in this section of the Edition 1991, IBR. Today’s rule does not significantly or table encompass the applicable general provi- (1) Section IX, Methods of Analysis uniquely affect the communities of sions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, for Phosphate Rock, No. 1 Preparation of which are not independent information collec- Indian tribal governments. The rule tion requirements. Sample, IBR approved for does not impose any enforceable duties § 63.606(c)(3)(ii) and § 63.626(c)(3)(ii). on the communities of Indian tribal PART 63ÐNATIONAL EMISSION (2) Section IX, Methods of Analysis governments, because they do not own STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 Phosphorus— or operate any sources subject to this POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method A- rule and therefore are not required to CATEGORIES Volumetric Method, IBR approved for purchase control systems to meet the § 63.606(c)(3)(ii) and § 63.626(c)(3)(ii). requirements of this rule. Accordingly, 1. The authority for part 63 continues (3) Section IX, Methods of Analysis the requirements of section 3(b) of to read as follows: for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 Phosphorus- Executive Order 13084 do not apply to Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method B— this rule. Gravimetric Quimociac Method, IBR

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31376 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations approved for § 63.606(c)(3)(ii) and (b) The requirements of this subpart list of hazardous air pollutants in § 63.626(c)(3)(ii). apply to emissions of hazardous air section 112 of the Clean Air Act. HAP (4) Section IX, Methods of Analysis pollutants (HAPs) emitted from the metals include, but are not limited to: For Phosphate Rock, No. 3 Phosphorus- following new or existing affected antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method C— sources at a phosphoric acid chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and Spectrophotometric Method, IBR manufacturing plant: selenium expressed as particulate approved for § 63.606(c)(3)(ii) and (1) Each wet-process phosphoric acid matter as measured by the methods and § 63.626(c)(3)(ii). process line. The requirements of this procedures in this subpart or an (5) Section XI, Methods of Analysis subpart apply to the following emission approved alternative method. For the for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, points which are components of a wet- purposes of this subpart, HAP metals Triple Superphosphate, and process phosphoric acid process line: are expressed as particulate matter as Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total reactors, filters, evaporators, and hot measured by 40 CFR part 60, appendix Phosphorus-P2O5, Method A— wells; A, Method 5. Volumetric Method, IBR approved for (2) Each evaporative cooling tower at Phosphate rock calciner means the § 63.606(c)(3)(ii), § 63.626(c)(3)(ii), and a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant; equipment used to remove moisture and § 63.626(d)(3)(v). (3) Each phosphate rock dryer located organic matter from phosphate rock (6) Section XI, Methods of Analysis at a phosphoric acid manufacturing through direct or indirect heating. for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, plant; Phosphate rock dryer means the Triple Superphosphate, and (4) Each phosphate rock calciner equipment used to reduce the moisture Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total located at a phosphoric acid content of phosphate rock through manufacturing plant; Phosphorus-P2O5, Method B— direct or indirect heating. Gravimetric Quimociac Method, IBR (5) Each superphosphoric acid Phosphate rock feed means all approved for § 63.606(c)(3)(ii), process line. The requirements of this material entering any phosphate rock § 63.626(c)(3)(ii), and § 63.626(d)(3)(v). subpart apply to the following emission dryer or phosphate rock calciner (7) Section XI, Methods of Analysis points which are components of a including moisture and extraneous for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, superphosphoric acid process line: material as well as the following ore Triple Superphosphate, and evaporators, hot wells, acid sumps, and materials: fluorapatite, hydroxylapatite, Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total cooling tanks; and chlorapatite, and carbonateapatite. (6) Each purified acid process line. Purified phosphoric acid process line Phosphorus-P2O5, Method C— Spectrophotometric Method, IBR The requirements of this subpart apply means any process line which uses a approved for § 63.606(c)(3)(ii), to the following emission points which HAP as a solvent in the separation of § 63.626(c)(3)(ii), and § 63.626(d)(3)(v). are components of a purified impurities from the product acid for the phosphoric acid process line: solvent purposes of rendering that product * * * * * extraction process equipment, solvent suitable for industrial, manufacturing or 3. Part 63 is amended by adding stripping and recovery equipment, seal food grade uses. subpart AA consisting of §§ 63.600 tanks, carbon treatment equipment, Research and development facility through 63.610 to read as follows: cooling towers, storage tanks, pumps means research or laboratory operations Subpart AAÐNational Emission Standards and process piping. whose primary purpose is to conduct for Hazardous Air Pollutants From (c) The requirements of this subpart research and development into new Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants do not apply to the owner or operator processes and products, where the Sec. of a new or existing phosphoric acid operations are under the close 63.600 Applicability. manufacturing plant that is not a major supervision of technically trained 63.601 Definitions. source as defined in § 63.2. personnel, and where the facility is not 63.602 Standards for existing sources. (d) The provisions of this subpart do engaged in the manufacture of products 63.603 Standards for new sources. not apply to research and development for commercial sale in commerce or 63.604 Operating requirements. facilities as defined in § 63.601. other off-site distribution, except in a de 63.605 Monitoring requirements. 63.606 Performance tests and compliance minimis manner. § 63.601 Definitions. Superphosphoric acid process line provisions. Terms used in this subpart are 63.607 Notification, recordkeeping, and means any process line which reporting requirements. defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, concentrates wet-process phosphoric 63.608 Applicability of general provisions. or in this section as follows: acid to 66 percent or greater P2O5 63.609 Compliance dates. Equivalent P2O5 feed means the content by weight. 63.610 Exemption from new source quantity of phosphorus, expressed as Total fluorides means elemental performance standards. phosphorous pentoxide, fed to the fluorine and all fluoride compounds, process. Appendix A to Subpart AA of Part 63— including the HAP hydrogen fluoride, as Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Evaporative cooling tower means an measured by reference methods Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart AA open water recirculating device that specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix uses fans or natural draft to draw or A , Method 13 A or B, or by equivalent Subpart AAÐNational Emission force ambient air through the device to or alternative methods approved by the Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants remove heat from process water by Administrator pursuant to § 63.7(f). From Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing direct contact. Wet process phosphoric acid process Plants Exceedance means a departure from line means any process line an indicator range established under manufacturing phosphoric acid by § 63.600 Applicability. this subpart, consistent with any reacting phosphate rock and acid. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs averaging period specified for averaging (c) and (d) of this section, the the results of the monitoring. § 63.602 Standards for existing sources. requirements of this subpart apply to HAP metals mean those metals and (a) Wet process phosphoric acid the owner or operator of each their compounds (in particulate or process line. On and after the date on phosphoric acid manufacturing plant. volatile form) that are included on the which the performance test required to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31377 be conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.606 is (1) Each owner or operator subject to any evaporative cooling tower any required to be completed, no owner or the provisions of this subpart shall liquid effluent from any wet scrubbing operator subject to the provisions of this comply with the provisions of subpart H device installed to control emissions subpart shall cause to be discharged into of this part. from process equipment. Each owner or the atmosphere from any affected source (2) For any existing purified operator of an affected source subject to any gases which contain total fluorides phosphoric acid process line, any of the this paragraph (e) must certify to the in excess of 10.0 gram/metric ton of following shall constitute a violation of Administrator annually that he/she has equivalent P2O5 feed (0.020 lb/ton). this subpart: complied with the requirements (b) Superphosphoric acid process (i) A thirty day average of daily contained in this section. line. concentration measurements of methyl (f) Purified phosphoric acid process (1) Vacuum evaporation process. On isobutyl ketone in excess of twenty parts line. and after the date on which the per million for each product acid (1) Each owner or operator subject to performance test required to be stream. the provisions of this subpart shall conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.606 is (ii) A thirty day average of daily comply with the provisions of subpart H required to be completed, no owner or concentration measurements of methyl of this part. operator subject to the provisions of this isobutyl ketone in excess of thirty parts (2) For any new purified phosphoric subpart shall cause to be discharged into per million for each raffinate stream. acid process line, any of the following the atmosphere from any affected source (iii) A daily average chiller stack exit shall constitute a violation of this any gases which contain total fluorides gas stream temperature in excess of fifty subpart: in excess of 5.0 gram/metric ton of degrees Fahrenheit. (i) A thirty day average of daily concentration measurements of methyl equivalent P2O5 feed (0.010 lb/ton). § 63.603 Standards for new sources. (2) Submerged combustion process. isobutyl ketone in excess of twenty parts (a) Wet process phosphoric acid per million for each product acid On and after the date on which the process line. On and after the date on performance test required to be stream. which the performance test required to (ii) A thirty day average of daily conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.606 is be conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.606 is required to be completed, no owner or concentration measurements of methyl required to be completed, no owner or isobutyl ketone in excess of thirty parts operator subject to the provisions of this operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into per million for each raffinate stream. subpart shall cause to be discharged into (iii) A daily average chiller stack exit the atmosphere from any affected source the atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain total fluorides gas stream temperature in excess of fifty any gases which contain total fluorides degrees Fahrenheit. in excess of 100.0 gram/metric ton of in excess of 6.750 gram/metric ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.20 lb/ton). equivalent P2O5 feed (0.01350 lb/ton). § 63.604 Operating requirements. (c) Phosphate rock dryer. On or after (b) Superphosphoric acid process On or after the date on which the the date on which the performance test line. On and after the date on which the performance test required to be required to be conducted by §§ 63.7 and performance test required to be conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.606 is 63.606 is required to be completed, no conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.606 is required to be completed, the owner/ owner or operator subject to the required to be completed, no owner or operator using a wet scrubbing emission provisions of this subpart shall cause to operator subject to the provisions of this control system must maintain three- be discharged into the atmosphere from subpart shall cause to be discharged into hour averages of the pressure drop any affected source any gases which the atmosphere from any affected source across each scrubber and of the flow rate contain particulate matter in excess of any gases which contain total fluorides of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber 0.10750 kilogram/metric ton of in excess of 4.350 gram/metric ton of within the allowable ranges established phosphate rock feed (0.2150 lb/ton). equivalent P2O5 feed (0.00870 lb/ton). pursuant to the requirements of (d) Phosphate rock calciner. On or (c) Phosphate rock dryer. On or after § 63.605(d)(1) or (2). after the date on which the performance the date on which the performance test test required to be conducted by §§ 63.7 required to be conducted by §§ 63.7 and § 63.605 Monitoring requirements. and 63.606 is required to be completed, 63.606 is required to be completed, no (a) Each owner or operator of a new no owner or operator subject to the owner or operator subject to the or existing wet-process phosphoric acid provisions of this subpart shall cause to provisions of this subpart shall cause to process line, superphosphoric acid be discharged into the atmosphere from be discharged into the atmosphere from process line, phosphate rock dryer, or any affected source any gases which any affected source any gases which phosphate rock calciner subject to the contain particulate matter in excess of contain particulate matter in excess of provisions of this subpart shall install, 0.1380 gram per dry standard cubic 0.030 kilogram/metric ton per megagram calibrate, maintain, and operate a meter (g/dscm) [0.060 grains per dry of phosphate rock feed (0.060 lb/ton). monitoring system which can be used to standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)]. (d) Phosphate rock calciner. On or determine and permanently record the (e) Evaporative cooling tower. No after the date on which the performance mass flow of phosphorus-bearing feed owner or operator shall introduce into test required to be conducted by §§ 63.7 material to the process. The monitoring any evaporative cooling tower any and 63.606 is required to be completed, system shall have an accuracy of ±5 liquid effluent from any wet scrubbing no owner or operator subject to the percent over its operating range. device installed to control emissions provisions of this subpart shall cause to (b)(1) Each owner or operator of a new from process equipment. Each owner or be discharged into the atmosphere from or existing wet-process phosphoric acid operator of an affected source subject to any affected source any gases which process line or superphosphoric acid this paragraph (e) must certify to the contain particulate matter in excess of process line subject to the provisions of Administrator annually that he/she has 0.0920 gram per dry standard cubic this subpart shall maintain a daily complied with the requirements meter (g/dscm) [0.040 grain per dry record of equivalent P2O5 feed by first contained in this section. standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)]. determining the total mass rate in metric (f) Purified phosphoric acid process (e) Evaporative cooling tower. No ton/hour of phosphorus bearing feed line. owner or operator shall introduce into using a monitoring system for

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31378 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations measuring mass flowrate which meets adjustment be reduced to less than ± 10 (1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and the requirements of paragraph (a) of this percent. The owner or operator must operate a monitoring system which section and then by proceeding notify the Administrator of the baseline continuously measures and according to § 63.606(c)(3). average value and must notify the permanently records the stack gas exit (2) Each owner or operator of a new Administrator each time that the temperature for each chiller stack. or existing phosphate rock calciner or baseline value is changed as a result of (2) Measure and record the phosphate rock dryer subject to the the most recent performance test. The concentration of methyl isobutyl ketone provisions of this subpart shall maintain baseline average values used for in each product acid stream and each a daily record of phosphate rock feed by compliance shall be based on the values raffinate stream once daily. determining the total mass rate in metric determined during the most recent ton/hour of phosphorus bearing feed performance test. The new baseline § 63.606 Performance tests and using a monitoring system for average value shall be effective on the compliance provisions. measuring mass flowrate which meets date following the performance test. (a)(1) On or before the applicable the requirements of paragraph (a) of this (2) The owner or operator of any new compliance date in § 63.609 and once section. or existing affected source shall per annum thereafter, each owner or (c) Each owner or operator of a new establish, and provide to the operator of a phosphoric acid or existing wet-process phosphoric acid Administrator for approval, allowable manufacturing plant shall conduct a process line, superphosphoric acid ranges of baseline average values for the performance test to demonstrate process line, phosphate rock dryer or pressure drop across and of the flow rate compliance with the applicable phosphate rock calciner using a wet of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber emission standard for each existing wet- scrubbing emission control system shall in the process scrubbing system for the process phosphoric acid process line, install, calibrate, maintain, and operate purpose of assuring compliance with superphosphoric acid process line, the following monitoring systems: this subpart. Allowable ranges may be phosphate rock dryer, and phosphate (1) A monitoring system which based upon baseline average values rock calciner. The owner or operator continuously measures and recorded during previous performance shall conduct the performance test permanently records the pressure drop tests using the test methods required in according to the procedures in subpart across each scrubber in the process this subpart and established in the A of this part and in this section. scrubbing system in 15-minute block manner required in § 63.606(c)(4), (d)(4), (2) As required by § 63.7(a)(2) and averages. The monitoring system shall or (e)(2). As an alternative, the owner or once per annum thereafter, each owner be certified by the manufacturer to have operator can establish the allowable or operator of a phosphoric acid an accuracy of ±5 percent over its ranges of baseline average values using manufacturing plant shall conduct a operating range. the results of performance tests performance test to demonstrate (2) A monitoring system which conducted specifically for the purposes compliance with the applicable continuously measures and of this paragraph using the test methods emission standard for each new wet- permanently records the flow rate of the required in this subpart and established process phosphoric acid process line, scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in the in the manner required in § 63.606(c)(4), process scrubbing system in 15-minute (d)(4), or (e)(2). The source shall certify superphosphoric acid process line, block averages. The monitoring system that the control devices and processes phosphate rock dryer, and phosphate shall be certified by the manufacturer to have not been modified subsequent to rock calciner. The owner or operator have an accuracy of ±5 percent over its the testing upon which the data used to shall conduct the performance test operating range. establish the allowable ranges were according to the procedures in subpart (d) Following the date on which the obtained. The allowable ranges of A of this part and in this section. performance test required in § 63.606 is baseline average values developed (b) In conducting performance tests, completed, the owner or operator of a pursuant to the provisions of this each owner or operator of an affected new or existing affected source using a paragraph must be submitted to the source shall use as reference methods wet scrubbing emission control system Administrator for approval. The owner and procedures the test methods in 40 and subject to emissions limitations for or operator must request and obtain CFR part 60, appendix A, or other total fluorides or particulate matter approval of the Administrator for methods and procedures as specified in contained in this subpart must establish changes to the allowable ranges of this section, except as provided in allowable ranges for operating baseline values. When a source using § 63.7(f). parameters using the methodology of the methodology of this paragraph is (c) Each owner or operator of a new either paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this retested, the owner operator shall or existing wet-process phosphoric acid section: determine new allowable ranges of process line or superphosphoric acid (1) The allowable range for the daily baseline average values unless the retest process line shall determine compliance averages of the pressure drop across indicates no change in the operating with the applicable total fluorides each scrubber and of the flow rate of the parameters from previous tests. Any standards in § 63.602 or § 63.603 as scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in the new allowable ranges of baseline follows: ± process scrubbing system is 20 percent average values resulting from the most (1) The emission rate (E) of total of the baseline average value recent performance test shall be fluorides shall be computed for each run determined as a requirement of effective on the date following the using the following equation: § 63.606(c)(4), (d)(4), or (e)(2). The retest. Until changes to allowable ranges Administrator retains the right to reduce of baseline average values are approved  N  the ± 20 percent adjustment to the = () by the Administrator, the allowable E∑ Csi Qsdi  / PK baseline average values of operating ranges for use in § 63.604 shall be based  i=1  ranges in those instances where upon the range of baseline average performance test results indicate that a values proposed for approval. Where: source’s level of emissions is near the (e) Each owner or operator of a new E = emission rate of total fluorides, g/ value of an applicable emissions or existing purified phosphoric acid metric ton (lb/ton) of equivalent standard, but, in no instance shall the process line shall: P2O5 feed.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31379

Csi = concentration of total fluorides Triple Superphosphate, and test runs shall be used as the baseline from emission point ‘‘i,’’ mg/dscm Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total average values for the purposes of (mg/dscf). Phosphorus-P2O5, Method B- § 63.605(d) (1) or (2). Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent Gravimetric Quimociac Method. (e) Each owner or operator of a new gas from emission point ‘‘i,’’ dscm/ (G) Section XI, Methods of Analysis or existing phosphate rock calciner shall hr (dscf/hr). For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, demonstrate compliance with the N = number of emission points Triple Superphosphate, and particulate matter standards in associated with the affected facility. Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total §§ 63.602 and 63.603 as follows: P = equivalent P2O5 feed rate, metric Phosphorus-P2O5, Method C- (1) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, ton/hr (ton/hr). Spectrophotometric Method. appendix A) shall be used to determine K = conversion factor, 1000 mg/g (4) To comply with § 63.605(d) (1) or the particulate matter concentration. (453,600 mg/lb). (2), the owner or operator shall use the The sampling time and volume for each (2) Method 13A or 13B (40 CFR part monitoring systems in § 63.605(c) to test run shall be at least 60 minutes and 60, appendix A) shall be used to determine the average pressure loss of 1.70 dscm. determine the total fluorides the gas stream across each scrubber in (2) To comply with § 63.605(d) (1) or concentration (Csi) and volumetric flow the process scrubbing system and to (2), the owner or operator shall use the rate (Qsdi) of the effluent gas from each determine the average flow rate of the monitoring systems in § 63.605(c) to of the emission points. If Method 13B is scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the determine the average pressure loss of used, the fusion of the filtered material process scrubbing system during each of the gas stream across each scrubber in described in Section 7.3.1.2 and the the total fluoride runs. The arithmetic the process scrubbing system and to distillation of suitable aliquots of averages of the three runs shall be used containers 1 and 2, described in section determine the average flow rate of the as the baseline average values for the scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the 7.3.3 and 7.3.4. in Method 13 A, may be purposes of § 63.605(d) (1) or (2). omitted. The sampling time and sample process scrubbing system during each of (d) Each owner or operator of a new the particulate matter runs. The volume for each run shall be at least 60 or existing phosphate rock dryer shall minutes and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf). arithmetic average of the one-hour demonstrate compliance with the averages determined during the three (3) The equivalent P2O5 feed rate (P) particulate matter standards in § 63.602 test runs shall be used as the baseline shall be computed using the following or § 63.603 as follows: equation: average values for the purposes of (1) The emission rate (E) of particulate § 63.605(d) (1) or (2). P = Mp Rp matter shall be computed for each run Where: using the following equation: § 63.607 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Mp = total mass flow rate of phosphorus- E = (Cs Qsd)/(P K) bearing feed, metric ton/hr (ton/hr). Where: (a) Each owner or operator subject to Rp = P2O5 content, decimal fraction. E = emission rate of particulate matter, the requirements of this subpart shall (i) The accountability system kg/Mg (lb/ton) of phosphate rock comply with the notification described in § 63.605(a) and (b) shall be feed. requirements in § 63.9. used to determine the mass flow rate Cs = concentration of particulate matter, (b) Each owner or operator subject to (Mp) of the phosphorus-bearing feed. g/dscm (g/dscf). the requirements of this subpart shall (ii) The P2O5 content (Rp) of the feed Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent comply with the recordkeeping shall be determined using as gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr). requirements in § 63.10. appropriate the following methods P = phosphate rock feed rate, Mg/hr (c) The owner or operator of an (incorporated by reference—see 40 CFR (ton/hr). affected source shall comply with the 63.14) specified in the Book of Methods K = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (453.6 reporting requirements specified in Used and Adopted By The Association g/lb). § 63.10 as follows: Of Florida Phosphate Chemists, Seventh (2) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, (1) Performance test report. As Edition 1991, where applicable: required by § 63.10, the owner or (A) Section IX, Methods of Analysis appendix A) shall be used to determine operator shall report the results of the For Phosphate Rock, No. 1 Preparation the particulate matter concentration (cs) initial and annual performance tests as of Sample. and volumetric flow rate (Qsd) of the (B) Section IX, Methods of Analysis effluent gas. The sampling time and part of the notification of compliance For Phosphate Rock, No. 3 Phosphorus- sample volume for each run shall be at status required in § 63.9. (2) Excess emissions report. As P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method A- least 60 minutes and 0.85 dscm (30 Volumetric Method. dscf). required by § 63.10, the owner or (C) Section IX, Methods of Analysis (3) The system described in operator of an affected source shall For Phosphate Rock, No. 3 Phosphorus- § 63.605(a) shall be used to determine submit an excess emissions report for P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method B- the phosphate rock feed rate (P) for each any exceedance of an operating Gravimetric Quimociac Method. run. parameter limit. The report shall (D) Section IX, Methods of Analysis (4) To comply with § 63.605(d) (1) or contain the information specified in For Phosphate Rock, No. 3 Phosphorus- (2), the owner or operator shall use the § 63.10. When no exceedances of an P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method C- monitoring systems in § 63.605(c) to operating parameter have occurred, Spectrophotometric Method. determine the average pressure loss of such information shall be included in (E) Section XI, Methods of Analysis the gas stream across each scrubber in the report. The report shall be submitted For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, the process scrubbing system and to semiannually and shall be delivered or Triple Superphosphate, and determine the average flow rate of the postmarked by the 30th day following Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the the end of the calendar half. If Phosphorus-P2O5, Method A-Volumetric process scrubbing system during each of exceedances are reported, the owner or Method. the particulate matter runs. The operator shall report quarterly until a (F) Section XI, Methods of Analysis arithmetic average of the one-hour request to reduce reporting frequency is For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, averages determined during the three approved as described in § 63.10.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31380 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

(3) Summary report. If the total § 63.608 Applicability of general reconstruction of an affected source duration of control system exceedances provisions. after December 27, 1996 shall achieve for the reporting period is less than 1 The requirements of the general compliance with the requirements of percent of the total operating time for provisions in subpart A of this part that this subpart upon startup of operations the reporting period, the owner or are applicable to the owner or operator or by June 10, 1999, whichever is later. operator shall submit a summary report subject to the requirements of this subpart are shown in appendix A to this § 63.610 Exemption from new source containing the information specified in performance standards. § 63.10 rather than the full excess subpart. emissions report, unless required by the § 63.609 Compliance dates. Any affected source subject to the Administrator. The summary report (a) Each owner or operator of an provisions of this subpart is exempted shall be submitted semiannually and existing affected source at a phosphoric from any otherwise applicable new shall be delivered or postmarked by the acid manufacturing plant shall achieve source performance standard contained 30th day following the end of the compliance with the requirements of in 40 CFR part 60, subpart T, subpart U calendar half. this subpart no later than June 10, 2002. or subpart NN. To be exempt, a source must have a current operating permit (4) If the total duration of control Notwithstanding the requirements of pursuant to Title V of the Act and the system operating parameter exceedances § 63.7(a)(2)(iii), each owner or operator source must be in compliance with all for the reporting period is 1 percent or of an existing source at an affected existing phosphoric acid manufacturing requirements of this subpart. For each greater of the total operating time for the plant shall fulfill the applicable affected source, this exemption is reporting period, the owner or operator requirements of § 63.606 no later than effective upon the date that the owner shall submit a summary report and the June 10, 2002. or operator demonstrates to the excess emissions report. (b) Each owner or operator of a Administrator that the requirements of phosphoric acid manufacturing plant §§ 63.604, 63.605 and 63.606 have been that commences construction or met.

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63.ÐAPPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART AA

Applies to 40 CFR citation Requirement subpart AA Comment

63.1(a)(1) through (4) ...... General Applicability ...... Yes. 63.1(a)(5) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.1(a)(6) through (8) ...... Yes. 63.1(a)(9) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.1(a)(10) through (14) ...... Yes. 63.1(b) ...... Initial Applicability Determination ...... Yes. 63.1(c)(1) ...... Applicability After Standard Established ...... Yes. 63.1(c)(2) ...... Yes...... Some plants may be area sources. 63.1(c)(3) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.1(c)(4) and (5) ...... Yes. 63.1(d) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.1(e) ...... Applicability of Permit Program ...... Yes. 63.2 ...... Definitions ...... Yes...... Additional definitions in § 63.601. 63.3 ...... Units and Abbreviations ...... Yes. 63.4(a)(1) through (3) ...... Prohibited Activities ...... Yes. 63.4(a)(4) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.4(a)(5) ...... Yes. 63.4(b) and (c) ...... Circumvention/Severability ...... Yes. 63.5(a) ...... Construction/Reconstruction Applicability ...... Yes. 63.5(b)(1) ...... Existing, New, Reconstructed Sources Require- Yes. ments. 63.5(b)(2) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.5(b)(3) through (6) ...... Yes. 63.5(c) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.5(d) ...... Application for Approval of Construction/ Recon- Yes. struction. 63.5(e) ...... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction ...... Yes. 63.5(f) ...... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based Yes. on State Review. 63.6(a) ...... Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Yes. Applicability. 63.6(b)(1) through (5) ...... New and Reconstructed Sources Dates ...... Yes. See also § 63.609. 63.6(b)(6) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.6(b)(7) ...... Yes. 63.6(c)(1) ...... Existing Sources Dates ...... Yes. § 63.609 specifies dates. 63.6(c)(2) ...... Yes. 63.6(c)(3) and (4) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.6(c)(5) ...... Yes. 63.6(d) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.6(e)(1) and (2) ...... Operation & Maintenance Requirements ...... Yes. § 63.604 specifies additional requirements.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31381

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63.ÐAPPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART AAÐContinued

Applies to 40 CFR citation Requirement subpart AA Comment

63.6(e)(3) ...... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan ...... Yes. § 63.604 specifies additional requirements. 63.6(f) ...... Compliance with Emission Standards ...... Yes. §§ 63.602 through 605 specify additional requirements. 63.6(g) ...... Alternative Standard ...... Yes. 63.6(h) ...... Compliance with Opacity/VE Standards ...... No ...... Subpart AA does not include VE/opacity standards. 63.6(i)(1) through (14) ...... Extension of Compliance ...... Yes. 63.6(i)(15) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.6(i)(16) ...... Yes. 63.6(j) ...... Exemption from Compliance ...... Yes. 63.7(a) ...... Performance Test Requirements Applicability .... Yes. § 63.609(a) applies rather than § 63.7(a)(2)(iii). 63.7(b) ...... Notification ...... Yes. 63.7(c) ...... Quality Assurance/Test Plan ...... Yes. 63.7(d) ...... Testing Facilities ...... Yes. 63.7(e) ...... Conduct of Tests ...... Yes. §§ 63.604 and 63.605 specify additional requirements. 63.7(f) ...... Alternative Test Method ...... Yes. 63.7(g) ...... Data Analysis ...... Yes. 63.7(h) ...... Waiver of Tests ...... Yes. 63.8(a)(1) ...... Monitoring Requirements Applicability ...... Yes. 63.8(a)(2) ...... No ...... Subpart AA does not require CMS performance specifications. 63.8(a)(3) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.8(a)(4) ...... Yes. 63.8(b) ...... Conduct of Monitoring ...... Yes. 63.8(c)(1) through (4) ...... CMS Operation/Maintenance ...... Yes. 63.8(c)(5) through (8) ...... No ...... Subpart AA does not require COMS/ CEMS or CMS performance specifications. 63.8(d) ...... Quality Control ...... Yes. 63.8(e) ...... CMS Performance Evaluation ...... No ...... Subpart AA does not require CMS performance evaluations 63.8(f)(1) through (5) ...... Alternative Monitoring Method ...... Yes. 63.8(f)(6) ...... Alternative to RATA Test ...... No ...... Subpart AA does not require CEMS. 63.8(g)(1) ...... Data Reduction ...... Yes. 63.8(g)(2) ...... No ...... Subpart AA does not require COMS or CEMS 63.8(g)(3) through (5) ...... Yes. 63.9(a) ...... Notification Requirements Applicability ...... Yes. 63.9(b) ...... Initial Notifications ...... Yes. 63.9(c) ...... Request for Compliance Extension ...... Yes. 63.9(d) ...... New Source Notification for Special Compliance Yes. Requirements. 63.9(e) ...... Notification of Performance Test ...... Yes. 63.9(f) ...... Notification of VE/Opacity Test ...... No ...... Subpart AA does not include VE/opacity standards. 63.9(g) ...... Additional CMS Notifications ...... No ...... Subpart AA does not require CMS performance evaluation, COMS, or CEMS. 63.9(h)(1) through (3) ...... Notification of Compliance Status ...... Yes. 63.9(h)(4) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.9(h)(5) and (6) ...... Yes. 63.9(i) ...... Adjustment of Deadlines ...... Yes. 63.9(j) ...... Change in Previous Information ...... Yes. 63.10(a) ...... Recordkeeping/Reporting-Applicability ...... Yes. 63.10(b) ...... General Recordkeeping Requirements ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(1) ...... Additional CMS Recordkeeping ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(2) through (4) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.10(c)(5) ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(6) ...... No ...... Subpart AA does not require CMS performance specifications. 63.10(c)(7) and (8) ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(9) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.10(c)(10) through (13) ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(14) ...... No ...... Subpart AA does not require a CMS quality control program. 63.10(c)(15) ...... Yes. 63.10(d)(1) ...... General Reporting Requirements ...... Yes.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31382 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63.ÐAPPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART AAÐContinued

Applies to 40 CFR citation Requirement subpart AA Comment

63.10(d)(2) ...... Performance Test Results ...... Yes. 63.10(d)(3) ...... Opacity or VE Observations ...... No ...... Subpart AA does not include VE/opacity standards. 63.10(d)(4) and (5) ...... Progress Reports/Startup, Shutdown, and Mal- Yes. function Reports. 63.10(e)(1) and (2) ...... Additional CMS Reports ...... No ...... Subpart AA does not require CEMS or CMS performance evaluations. 63.10(e)(3) ...... Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports ... Yes...... § 63.606(c)(2) includes additional requirements. A CMS performance report is not required. 63.10(e)(4) ...... COMS Data Reports ...... No ...... Subpart AA does not require COMS. 63.10(f) ...... Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver ...... Yes. 63.11(a) ...... Control Device Requirements Applicability ...... Yes. 63.11(b) ...... Flares ...... No ...... Flares not applicable. 63.12 ...... State Authority and Delegations ...... Yes. 63.13 ...... Addresses ...... Yes. 63.14 ...... Incorporation by Reference ...... Yes. 63.15 ...... Information Availability/Confidentiality ...... Yes.

4. Part 63 is amended by adding apply to the following emission points Equivalent P2O5 feed means the subpart BB consisting of §§ 63.620 which are components of a quantity of phosphorus, expressed as through 63.631 to read as follows: diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphorous pentoxide, fed to the Subpart BBÐNational Emission Standards phosphate process line: reactors, process. for Hazardous Air Pollutants From granulators, dryers, coolers, screens, and Equivalent P2O5 stored means the Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants mills. quantity of phosphorus, expressed as Sec. (2) Each granular triple phosphorus pentoxide, being cured or 63.620 Applicability superphosphate process line. The stored in the affected facility. 63.621 Definitions. requirements of this subpart apply to Exceedance means a departure from 63.622 Standards for existing sources. the following emission points which are an indicator range established for 63.623 Standards for new sources. components of a granular triple monitoring under this subpart, 63.624 Operating requirements. superphosphate process line: mixers, consistent with any averaging period 63.625 Monitoring requirements. curing belts (dens), reactors, granulators, specified for averaging the results of the 63.626 Performance tests and compliance provisions. dryers, coolers, screens, and mills. monitoring. 63.627 Notification, recordkeeping, and (3) Each granular triple Fresh granular triple superphosphate reporting requirements. superphosphate storage building. The means granular triple superphosphate 63.628 Applicability of general provisions. requirements of this subpart apply to produced within the preceding 72 63.629 Miscellaneous requirements. the following emission points which are hours. 63.630 Compliance dates. components of a granular triple Granular triple superphosphate 63.631 Exemption from new source superphosphate storage building: process line means any process line, not performance standards. storage or curing buildings, conveyors, including storage buildings, Appendix A to Subpart BB of Part 63— elevators, screens and mills. manufacturing granular triple Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR (c) The requirements of this subpart superphosphate by reacting phosphate Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart BB do not apply to the owner or operator rock with phosphoric acid. Granular triple superphosphate Subpart BBÐNational Emission of a new or existing phosphate storage building means any building Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants fertilizers production plant that is not a curing or storing fresh granular triple From Phosphate Fertilizers Production major source as defined in § 63.2. superphosphate. Plants (d) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to research and development Research and development facility § 63.620 Applicability. facilities as defined in § 63.621. means research or laboratory operations (a) Except as provided in paragraphs whose primary purpose is to conduct § 63.621 Definitions. (c) and (d) of this section, the research and development into new requirements of this subpart apply to Terms used in this subpart are processes and products, where the the owner or operator of each phosphate defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, operations are under the close fertilizers production plant. or in this section as follows: supervision of technically trained (b) The requirements of this subpart Diammonium and/or personnel, and where the facility is not apply to emissions of hazardous air monoammonium phosphate process engaged in the manufacture of products pollutants (HAPs) emitted from the line means any process line for commercial sale in commerce or following new or existing affected manufacturing granular diammonium other off-site distribution, except in a de sources at a phosphate fertilizers and/or monoammonium phosphate by minimis manner. production plant: reacting ammonia with phosphoric acid Total fluorides means elemental (1) Each diammonium and/or which has been derived from or fluorine and all fluoride compounds, monoammonium phosphate process manufactured by reacting phosphate including the HAP hydrogen fluoride, as line. The requirements of this subpart rock and acid. measured by reference methods

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31383 specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix in excess of 61.50 grams/metric ton of shall install, calibrate, maintain, and A, Method 13 A or B, or by equivalent equivalent P2O5 feed (0.1230 lb/ton). operate the following monitoring or alternative methods approved by the (c) Granular triple superphosphate systems: Administrator pursuant to § 63.7(f). storage building (1) A monitoring system which (1) On and after the date on which the continuously measures and § 63.622 Standards for existing sources. performance test required to be permanently records the pressure drop (a) Diammonium and/or conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.626 is across each scrubber in the process monoammonium phosphate process required to be completed, no owner or scrubbing system in 15-minute block line. On and after the date on which the operator subject to the provisions of this averages. The monitoring system shall performance test required to be subpart shall cause to be discharged into be certified by the manufacturer to have conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.626 is the atmosphere from any affected source an accuracy of ±5 percent over its required to be completed, no owner or any gases which contain total fluorides operating range. operator subject to the provisions of this in excess of 0.250 grams/hr/metric ton (2) A monitoring system which ¥4 subpart shall cause to be discharged into of equivalent P2O5 stored (5.0 X 10 lb/ continuously measures and 5 the atmosphere from any affected source hr/ton of equivalent P2O stored). permanently records the flow rate of the any gases which contain total fluorides (2) No owner or operator subject to scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in the in excess of 30 grams/metric ton of the provisions of this subpart shall ship process scrubbing system in 15-minute equivalent P2O5 feed (0.060 lb/ton). fresh granular triple superphosphate block averages. The monitoring system (b) Granular triple superphosphate from an affected facility. shall be certified by the manufacturer to process line. On and after the date on have an accuracy of ±5 percent over its which the performance test required to § 63.624 Operating requirements. operating range. be conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.626 is On or after the date on which the (d) The owner or operator of any required to be completed, no owner or performance test required to be granular triple superphosphate storage operator subject to the provisions of this conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.626 is building subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into required to be completed, the owner/ subpart shall maintain an accurate the atmosphere from any affected source operator using a wet scrubbing emission account of granular triple any gases which contain total fluorides control system must maintain three- superphosphate in storage to permit the in excess of 75 grams/metric ton of hour averages of the pressure drop determination of the amount of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.150 lb/ton). across each scrubber and of the flow rate equivalent P2O5 stored. (c) Granular triple superphosphate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber (e)(1) Each owner or operator of a new storage building. within the allowable ranges established or existing granular triple (1) On and after the date on which the pursuant to the requirements of superphosphate storage building subject performance test required to be § 63.625(f)(1) or (2). to the provisions of this subpart shall conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.626 is maintain a daily record of total § 63.625 Monitoring requirements. required to be completed, no owner or equivalent P2O5 stored by multiplying operator subject to the provisions of this (a) Each owner or operator of a new the percentage P2O5 content, as subpart shall cause to be discharged into or existing diammonium and/or determined by § 63.626(d)(3), times the the atmosphere from any affected source monoammonium phosphate process total mass of granular triple any gases which contain total fluorides line or granular triple superphosphate superphosphate stored. in excess of 0.250 grams/hr/metric ton process line subject to the provisions of (2) The owner or operator of any ¥4 of equivalent P2O5 stored (5.0 X 10 lb/ this subpart shall install, calibrate, granular triple superphosphate storage hr/ton of equivalent P2O5 stored). maintain, and operate a monitoring building subject to the provisions of this (2) No owner or operator subject to system which can be used to determine subpart shall develop for approval by the provisions of this subpart shall ship and permanently record the mass flow the Administrator a site-specific fresh granular triple superphosphate of phosphorus-bearing feed material to methodology including sufficient from an affected facility. the process. The monitoring system recordkeeping for the purposes of shall have an accuracy of ±5 percent demonstrating compliance with § 63.623 Standards for new sources. over its operating range. § 63.622(c)(2) or § 63.623(c)(2), as (a) Diammonium and/or (b) Each owner or operator of a new applicable. monoammonium phosphate process or existing diammonium and/or (f) Following the date on which the line. On and after the date on which the monoammonium phosphate process performance test required in § 63.626 is performance test required to be line or granular triple superphosphate completed, the owner or operator of a conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.626 is process line subject to the provisions of new or existing affected source using a required to be completed, no owner or this subpart shall maintain a daily wet scrubbing emission control system operator subject to the provisions of this record of equivalent P2O5 feed by first and subject to emissions limitations for subpart shall cause to be discharged into determining the total mass rate in metric total fluorides or particulate matter the atmosphere from any affected source ton/hour of phosphorus bearing feed contained in this subpart must establish any gases which contain total fluorides using a monitoring system for allowable ranges for operating in excess of 29.0 grams/metric ton of measuring mass flowrate which meets parameters using the methodology of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.0580 lb/ton). the requirements of paragraph (a) of this either paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this (b) Granular triple superphosphate section and then by proceeding section: process line. On and after the date on according to § 63.626(c)(3). (1) The allowable range for the daily which the performance test required to (c) Each owner or operator of a new averages of the pressure drop across be conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.626 is or existing diammonium and/or each scrubber and of the flow rate of the required to be completed, no owner or monoammonium phosphate process scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in the operator subject to the provisions of this line, granular triple superphosphate process scrubbing system is ±20 percent subpart shall cause to be discharged into process line, or granular triple of the baseline average value the atmosphere from any affected source superphosphate storage building using a determined as a requirement of any gases which contain total fluorides wet scrubbing emission control system § 63.626(c)(4) or (d)(4). The

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31384 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Administrator retains the right to reduce retest. Until changes to allowable ranges Csi = concentration of total fluorides the ±20 percent adjustment to the of baseline average values are approved from emission point ‘‘i,’’ mg/dscm baseline average values of operating by the Administrator, the allowable (mg/dscf). ranges in those instances where ranges for use in § 63.624 shall be based Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent performance test results indicate that a upon the range of baseline average gas from emission point ‘‘i,’’ dscm/ source’s level of emissions is near the values proposed for approval. hr (dscf/hr). value of an applicable emissions N = number of emission points § 63.626 Performance tests and associated with the affected facility. standard, but, in no instance shall the compliance provisions. adjustment be reduced to less than ±10 P = equivalent P2O5 feed rate, metric (a)(1) On or before the applicable percent. The owner or operator must ton/hr (ton/hr). compliance date in § 63.630 and once notify the Administrator of the baseline K = conversion factor, 1000 mg/g per annum thereafter, each owner or average value and must notify the (453,600 mg/lb). operator of a phosphate fertilizers Administrator each time that the (2) Method 13A or 13B (40 CFR part production plant subject to the baseline value is changed as a result of 60, appendix A) shall be used to provisions of this subpart shall conduct the most recent performance test. The determine the total fluorides a performance test to demonstrate baseline average values used for concentration (Csi) and volumetric flow compliance with the applicable compliance shall be based on the values rate (Qsdi) of the effluent gas from each emission standard for each existing determined during the most recent of the emission points. If Method 13 B diammonium and/or monoammonium is used, the fusion of the filtered performance test. The new baseline phosphate process line, granular triple material described in section 7.3.1.2 and average value shall be effective on the superphosphate process line, or the distillation of suitable aliquots of date following the performance test. granular triple superphosphate storage containers 1 and 2, described in sections (2) The owner or operator of any new building. The owner or operator shall 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 in Method 13 A, may be or existing affected source shall conduct the performance test according establish, and provide to the to the procedures in subpart A of this omitted. The sampling time and sample Administrator for approval, allowable part and in this section. volume for each run shall be at least one ranges of baseline average values for the (2) As required by § 63.7(a)(2) and hour and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf). pressure drop across and of the flow rate once per annum thereafter, each owner (3) The equivalent P2O5 feed rate (P) of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber or operator of a phosphate fertilizers shall be computed using the following in the process scrubbing system for the production plant subject to the equation: purpose of assuring compliance with provisions of this subpart shall conduct P = Mp Rp this subpart. Allowable ranges may be a performance test to demonstrate Where: based upon baseline average values compliance with the applicable Mp = total mass flow rate of phosphorus- recorded during previous performance emission standard for each new bearing feed, metric ton/hr (ton/hr). tests using the test methods required in diammonium and/or monoammonium Rp = P2O5 content, decimal fraction. this subpart and established in the phosphate process line, granular triple (i) The accountability system manner required in § 63.626(c)(4) or superphosphate process line, or described in § 63.625(a) and (b) shall be (d)(4). As an alternative, the owner or granular triple superphosphate storage used to determine the mass flow rate operator can establish the allowable building. The owner or operator shall (Mp) of the phosphorus-bearing feed. ranges of baseline average values using conduct the performance test according (ii) The P2O5 content (Rp) of the feed the results of performance tests to the procedures in subpart A of this shall be determined using as conducted specifically for the purposes part and in this section. appropriate the following methods of this paragraph using the test methods (b) In conducting performance tests, (incorporated by reference—see 40 CFR required in this subpart and established each owner or operator of an affected 63.14) specified in the Book of Methods in the manner required in § 63.626(c)(4) source shall use as reference methods Used and Adopted By The Association or (d)(4). The source shall certify that and procedures the test methods in 40 Of Florida Phosphate Chemists, Seventh the control devices and processes have CFR part 60, appendix A, or other Edition 1991, where applicable: not been modified subsequent to the methods and procedures as specified in (A) Section IX, Methods of Analysis testing upon which the data used to this section, except as provided in for Phosphate Rock, No. 1 Preparation of establish the allowable ranges were § 63.7(f). Sample. obtained. The allowable ranges of (c) Each owner or operator of a new (B) Section IX, Methods of Analysis baseline average values developed or existing diammonium and/or for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 Phosphorus— monoammonium phosphate process pursuant to the provisions of this P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method A— paragraph must be submitted to the line or granular triple superphosphate Volumetric Method. Administrator for approval. The owner process line shall determine compliance (C) Section IX, Methods of Analysis or operator must request and obtain with the applicable total fluorides For Phosphate Rock, No. 3 Phosphorus- approval of the Administrator for standards in § 63.622 or § 63.623 as P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method B— changes to the allowable ranges of follows: Gravimetric Quimociac Method. baseline average values. When a source (1) The emission rate (E) of total (D) Section IX, Methods of Analysis using the methodology of this paragraph fluorides shall be computed for each run For Phosphate Rock, No. 3 Phosphorus- using the following equation: is retested, the owner operator shall P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method C— determine new allowable ranges of Spectrophotometric Method. baseline average values unless the retest  N  (E) Section XI, Methods of Analysis E= ∑ C Q /() PK indicates no change in the operating  si sdi  For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, parameters from previous tests. Any i=1 Triple superphosphate, and Ammonium new allowable ranges of baseline Where: Phosphates, No. 3 Total Phosphorus- average values resulting from the most E = emission rate of total fluorides, g/ P2O5, Method A—Volumetric Method. recent performance test shall be metric ton (lb/ton) of equivalent (F) Section XI, Methods of Analysis effective on the date following the P2O5 feed. For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate,

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31385

Triple Superphosphate, and Csi = concentration of total fluorides methods (incorporated by reference— Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total from emission point ‘‘i,’’ mg/dscm see 40 CFR 63.14) specified in the Phosphorus-P2O5, Method B— (mg/dscf). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC Gravimetric Quimociac Method. Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent International, sixteenth Edition, 1995, (G) Section XI, Methods of Analysis gas from emission point ‘‘i,’’ dscm/hr where applicable: for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, (dscf/hr). (A) AOAC Official Method 957.02 Triple Superphosphate, and N = number of emission points in the Phosphorus (Total) In Fertilizers, Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total affected facility. Preparation of Sample Solution. Phosphorus-P2O5, Method C— P = equivalent P2O5 stored, metric tons (B) AOAC Official Method 929.01 Spectrophotometric Method. (tons). Sampling of Solid Fertilizers. (4) To comply with § 63.625(f)(1) or K = conversion factor, 1000 mg/g (C) AOAC Official Method 929.02 (2), the owner or operator shall use the (453,600 mg/lb). Preparation of Fertilizer Sample. monitoring systems in § 63.625(c) to (ii) Method 13A or 13B (40 CFR part (D) AOAC Official Method 978.01 determine the average pressure loss of 60, appendix A) shall be used to Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, the gas stream across each scrubber in determine the total fluorides Automated Method. the process scrubbing system and to concentration (Csi) and volumetric flow (E) AOAC Official Method 969.02 determine the average flow rate of the rate (Qsdi) of the effluent gas from each Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the of the emission points. If Method 13B is Alkalimetric Quinolinium process scrubbing system during each of used, the fusion of the filtered material Molybdophosphate Method. the total fluoride runs. The arithmetic described in section 7.3.1.2 and the (F) AOAC Official Method 962.02 averages of the three runs shall be used distillation of suitable aliquots of Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, as the baseline average values for the containers 1 and 2, described in Gravimetric Quinolinium purposes of § 63.625(f)(1) or (2). Sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 in Method 13 A, Molybdophosphate Method. (d) Each owner or operator of a new may be omitted. The sampling time and (G) AOAC Official Method 958.01 or existing granular triple sample volume for each run shall be at Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, superphosphate storage building shall least one hour and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf). Spectrophotometric determine compliance with the (iii) The equivalent P2O5 feed rate (P) Molybdovanadophosphate Method. applicable total fluorides standards in shall be computed using the following (4) To comply with § 63.625(f) (1) or § 63.622 or § 63.623 as follows: equation: (2), the owner or operator shall use the (1) The owner or operator shall P = Mp Rp monitoring systems described in conduct performance tests only when Where: § 63.625(c) to determine the average the following quantities of product are pressure loss of the gas stream across Mp = amount of product in storage, each scrubber in the process scrubbing being cured or stored in the facility. metric ton (ton). (i) Total granular triple system and to determine the average Rp = P2O5 content of product in storage, flow rate of the scrubber liquid to each superphosphate is at least 10 percent of weight fraction. the building capacity, and scrubber in the process scrubbing (iv) The accountability system (ii) Fresh granular triple system during each of the total fluoride described in § 63.625(d) and (e) shall be superphosphate is at least six percent of runs. The arithmetic averages of the used to determine the amount of the total amount of granular triple three runs shall be used as the baseline product (Mp) in storage. superphosphate, or average values for the purposes of (v) The P2O5 content (Rp) of the (iii) If the provision in paragraph § 63.625(f) (1) or (2). product stored shall be determined (d)(1)(ii) of this section exceeds using as appropriate the following § 63.627 Notification, recordkeeping, and production capabilities for fresh methods (incorporated by reference— reporting requirements. granular triple superphosphate, fresh see 40 CFR 63.14) specified in the Book (a) Each owner or operator subject to granular triple superphosphate is equal of Methods Used and Adopted By The the requirements of this subpart shall to at least 5 days maximum production. Association Of Florida Phosphate comply with the notification (2) In conducting the performance Chemists, Seventh Edition 1991, where requirements in § 63.9. test, the owner or operator shall use as applicable: (b) Each owner or operator subject to reference methods and procedures the (A) Section XI, Methods of Analysis the requirements of this subpart shall test methods in 40 CFR part 60, For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, comply with the recordkeeping appendix A, or other methods and Triple superphosphate, and Ammonium requirements in § 63.10. procedures as specified in this section, Phosphates, No. 3 Total Phosphorus— (c) The owner or operator of an except as provided in § 63.7(f). P2O5, Method A—Volumetric Method. affected source shall comply with the (3) The owner or operator shall (B) Section XI, Methods of Analysis reporting requirements specified in determine compliance with the total For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, § 63.10 as follows: fluorides standard in §§ 63.622 and Triple superphosphate, and Ammonium (1) Performance test report. As 63.623 as follows: Phosphates, No. 3 Total Phosphorus— required by § 63.10, the owner or (i) The emission rate (E) of total P2O5, Method B—Gravimetric operator shall report the results of the fluorides shall be computed for each run Quimociac Method. initial and annual performance tests as using the following equation: (C) Section XI, Methods of Analysis part of the notification of compliance For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, status required in § 63.9.  N  E= ∑ C Q/() PK Triple superphosphate, and Ammonium (2) Excess emissions report. As  si sdi  Phosphates, No. 3 Total Phosphorus— required by § 63.10, the owner or  i=1  P2O5, Method C—Spectrophotometric operator of an affected source shall Where: Method, or, submit an excess emissions report for E = emission rate of total fluorides, g/ (vi) The P2O5 content (Rp) of the any exceedance of an operating hr/metric ton (lb/hr/ton) of product stored shall be determined parameter limit. The report shall equivalent P2O5 stored. using as appropriate the following contain the information specified in

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31386 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

§ 63.10. When no exceedances of an § 63.628 Applicability of general after December 27, 1996 shall achieve operating parameter have occurred, provisions. compliance with the requirements of such information shall be included in The requirements of the general this subpart upon startup of operations the report. The report shall be submitted provisions in subpart A of this part that or by June 10, 1999, whichever is later. semiannually and shall be delivered or are applicable to the owner or operator (c) The owner or operator of any postmarked by the 30th day following subject to the requirements of this existing uncontrolled granular triple the end of the calendar half. If subpart are shown in appendix A to this superphosphate storage building subject exceedances are reported, the owner or subpart. to the provisions of this subpart shall operator shall report quarterly until a § 63.629 Miscellaneous requirements. submit for approval by the request to reduce reporting frequency is Administrator a site-specific test plan approved as described in § 63.10. The Administrator retains the authority to approve site-specific test for each such building according to the (3) Summary report. If the total plans for uncontrolled granular triple provisions of § 63.7(b)(2)(i) no later than duration of control system exceedances superphosphate storage buildings June 12, 2000. for the reporting period is less than 1 developed pursuant to § 63.7(c)(2)(i). percent of the total operating time for § 63.631 Exemption from new source performance standards. the reporting period, the owner or § 63.630 Compliance dates. operator shall submit a summary report (a) Each owner or operator of an Any affected source subject to the containing the information specified in existing affected source at a phosphate provisions of this subpart is exempted § 63.10 rather than the full excess fertilizers production plant shall from any otherwise applicable new emissions report, unless required by the achieve compliance with the source performance standard contained Administrator. The summary report requirements of this subpart no later in 40 CFR part 60, subpart V, subpart W, shall be submitted semiannually and than June 10, 2002. Notwithstanding the or subpart X. To be exempt, a source shall be delivered or postmarked by the requirements of § 63.7(a)(2)(iii), each must have a current operating permit 30th day following the end of the owner or operator of an existing affected pursuant to Title V of the Act and the calendar half. source at a phosphate fertilizers source must be in compliance with all (4) If the total duration of control production plant shall fulfill the requirements of this subpart. For each system operating parameter exceedances applicable requirements of § 63.626 no affected source, this exemption is for the reporting period is 1 percent or later than June 10, 2002. effective upon the date that the owner greater of the total operating time for the (b) Each owner or operator of a or operator demonstrates to the reporting period, the owner or operator phosphate fertilizers production plant Administrator that the requirements of shall submit a summary report and the that commences construction or §§ 63.624, 63.625 and 63.626 have been excess emissions report. reconstruction of an affected source met.

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63.ÐAPPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART BB

Applies to 40 CFR citation Requirement subpart BB Comment

63.1(a)(1) through (4) ...... General Applicability ...... Yes. 63.1(a)(5) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.1(a)(6) through (8) ...... Yes. 63.1(a)(9) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.1(a)(10) through (14) ...... Yes. 63.1(b) ...... Initial Applicability Determination ...... Yes. 63.1(c)(1) ...... Applicability After Standard Established ...... Yes. 63.1(c)(2) ...... Yes ...... Some plants may be area sources. 63.1(c)(3) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.1(c)(4) and (5) ...... Yes. 63.1(d) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.1(e) ...... Applicability of Permit Program ...... Yes. 63.2 ...... Definitions ...... Yes ...... Additional definitions in § 63.621. 63.3 ...... Units and Abbreviations ...... Yes. 63.4(a)(1) through (3) ...... Prohibited Activities ...... Yes. 63.4(a)(4) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.4(a)(5) ...... Yes. 63.4(b) and (c) ...... Circumvention/Severability ...... Yes. 63.5(a) ...... Construction/Reconstruction Applicability ...... Yes. 63.5(b)(1) ...... Existing, New, Reconstructed Sources Require- Yes. ments. 63.5(b)(2) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.5(b)(3) through (6) ...... Yes. 63.5(c) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.5(d) ...... Application for Approval of Construction/Recon- Yes. struction. 63.5(e) ...... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction ...... Yes. 63.5(f) ...... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based Yes. on State Review. 63.6(a) ...... Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Yes. Applicability. 63.6(b)(1) through (5) ...... New and Reconstructed Sources Dates ...... Yes ...... See also § 63.629. 63.6(b)(6) ...... No ...... [Reserved].

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31387

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63.ÐAPPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART BBÐContinued

Applies to 40 CFR citation Requirement subpart BB Comment

63.6(b)(7) ...... Yes. 63.6(c)(1) ...... Existing Sources Dates ...... Yes ...... § 63.629 specifies dates. 63.6(c)(2) ...... Yes. 63.6(c)(3) and (4) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.6(c)(5) ...... Yes. 63.6(d) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.6(e)(1) and (2) ...... Operation & Maintenance Requirements ...... Yes ...... § 63.624 specifies additional requirements. 63.6(e)(3) ...... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan ...... Yes ...... § 63.624 specifies additional requirements. 63.6(f) ...... Compliance with Emission Standards ...... Yes ...... §§ 63.622 through 625 specify additional requirements. 63.6(g) ...... Alternative Standard ...... Yes. 63.6(h) ...... Compliance with Opacity/VE Standards ...... No ...... Subpart BB does not include VE/opacity standards. 63.6(i)(1) through (14) ...... Extension of Compliance ...... Yes. 63.6(i)(15) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.6(i)(16) ...... Yes. 63.6(j) ...... Exemption from Compliance ...... Yes. 63.7(a) ...... Performance Test Requirements Applicability .... Yes ...... § 63.629(a) applies rather than § 63.7(a)(2)(iii). 63.7(b) ...... Notification ...... Yes. 63.7(c) ...... Quality Assurance/Test Plan ...... Yes. 63.7(d) ...... Testing Facilities ...... Yes. 63.7(e) ...... Conduct of Tests ...... Yes ...... §§ 63.624 and 63.625 specify additional requirements. 63.7(f) ...... Alternative Test Method ...... Yes. 63.7(g) ...... Data Analysis ...... Yes. 63.7(h) ...... Waiver of Tests ...... Yes. 63.8(a)(1) ...... Monitoring Requirements Applicability ...... Yes. 63.8(a)(2) ...... No ...... Subpart BB does not require CMS performance specifications. 63.8(a)(3) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.8(a)(4) ...... Yes. 63.8(b) ...... Conduct of Monitoring ...... Yes. 63.8(c)(1) through (4) ...... CMS Operation/Maintenance ...... Yes. 63.8(c)(5) through (8) ...... No ...... Subpart BB does not require COMS/ CEMS or CMS performance specifications. 63.8(d) ...... Quality Control ...... Yes. 63.8(e) ...... CMS Performance Evaluation ...... No ...... Subpart BB does not require CMS performance evaluations. 63.8(f)(1) through (5) ...... Alternative Monitoring Method ...... Yes. 63.8(f)(6) ...... Alternative to RATA Test ...... No ...... Subpart BB does not require CEMS. 63.8(g)(1) ...... Data Reduction ...... Yes. 63.8(g)(2) ...... No ...... Subpart BB does not require COMS or CEMS. 63.8(g)(3) through (5) ...... Yes. 63.9(a) ...... Notification Requirements Applicability ...... Yes. 63.9(b) ...... Initial Notifications ...... Yes. 63.9(c) ...... Request for Compliance Extension ...... Yes. 63.9(d) ...... New Source Notification for Special Compliance Yes. Requirements. 63.9(e) ...... Notification of Performance Test ...... Yes. 63.9(f) ...... Notification of VE/Opacity Test ...... No ...... Subpart BB does not include VE/opacity standards. 63.9(g) ...... Additional CMS Notifications ...... No ...... Subpart BB does not require CMS performance evaluation, COMS, or CEMS. 63.9(h)(1) through (3) ...... Notification of Compliance Status ...... Yes. 63.9(h)(4) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.9(h)(5) and (6) ...... Yes. 63.9(i) ...... Adjustment of Deadlines ...... Yes. 63.9(j) ...... Change in Previous Information ...... Yes. 63.10(a) ...... Recordkeeping/Reporting-Applicability ...... Yes. 63.10(b) ...... General Recordkeeping Requirements ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(1) ...... Additional CMS Recordkeeping ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(2) through (4) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.10(c)(5) ...... Yes.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 31388 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63.ÐAPPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART BBÐContinued

Applies to 40 CFR citation Requirement subpart BB Comment

63.10(c)(6) ...... No ...... Subpart BB does not require CMS performance specifications. 63.10(c)(7) and (8) ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(9) ...... No ...... [Reserved]. 63.10(c)(10 ) through (13) ...... Yes. 63.10(c)(14) ...... No ...... Subpart BB does not require a CMS quality control program. 63.10(c)(15) ...... Yes. 63.10(d)(1) ...... General Reporting Requirements ...... Yes. 63.10(d)(2) ...... Performance Test Results ...... Yes. 63.10(d)(3) ...... Opacity or VE Observations ...... No ...... Subpart BB does not include VE/opacity standards. 63.10(d)(4) and (5) ...... Progress Reports/Startup, Shutdown, and Mal- Yes. function Reports. 63.10(e)(1) and (2) ...... Additional CMS Reports ...... No ...... Subpart BB does not require CEMS or CMS performance evaluations. 63.10(e)(3) ...... Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports ... Yes ...... § 63.626(c)(2) includes additional requirements. A CMS performance report is not required. 63.10(e)(4) ...... COMS Data Reports ...... No ...... Subpart BB does not require COMS. 63.10(f) ...... Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver ...... Yes. 63.11(a) ...... Control Device Requirements Applicability ...... Yes. 63.11(b) ...... Flares ...... No ...... Flares not applicable. 63.12 ...... State Authority and Delegations ...... Yes ...... Authority for approval of site-specific test plans for GTSP storage buildings is retained (see § 63.628(a)). 63.13 ...... Addresses ...... Yes. 63.14 ...... Incorporation by Reference ...... Yes. 63.15 ...... Information Availability/Confidentiality ...... Yes.

[FR Doc. 99–10412 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560±50±P

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:27 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR2 eDt 6MY9 63 u 9 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\M1JP.X fm2PsN:10JNP2 pfrm02 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 16:34Jun09, 1999 VerDate 06-MAY-99 federal register June 10,1999 Thursday Notice Issues, andPublicScopingMeeting; Request forCommentsonEnvironmental Transmission OrganizationsRulemaking, Assessment fortheRegional Intent ToPrepareandEnvironmental Regional TransmissionOrganizations; Proposed Rule Regional TransmissionOrganizations; 18 CFRPart35 Federal EnergyRegulatoryCommission Energy Department of Part III 31389 31390 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY The Commission Issuance Posting 4. An RTO Would Result in Improved System (CIPS) provides access to the Market Performance Federal Energy Regulatory texts of formal documents issued by the 5. An RTO Would Facilitate Lighter- Commission Commission from November 14, 1994, Handed Governmental Regulation 6. Conclusion to the present. CIPS can be accessed via 18 CFR Part 35 C. Concerns Expressed by the State Internet through FERC’s Home page Commissions [Docket No. RM99±2±000] (http://www.ferc.fed.us) using the CIPS 1. Federal Mandate Link or the Energy Information Online 2. Regional Flexibility Regional Transmission Organizations; icon. Documents will be available on 3. Retail Markets Notice of Proposed Rulemaking CIPS in ASCII and WordPerfect 6.1. 4. Effect on States With Low Cost User assistance is available at 202–208– Generation May 13, 1999. 2474 or by E-mail to 5. Need for Independent Transmission Operation AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory [email protected]. Commission. 6. Transmission Cost Shifting This document is also available 7. Boundary Drawing ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. through the Commission’s Records and 8. Regional Approach to Reliability Information Management System 9. Pricing Reform SUMMARY: The Federal Energy (RIMS), an electronic storage and 10. Participation of Public Power Regulatory Commission (Commission) is retrieval system of documents submitted 11. State Role in RTO Governance proposing to amend its regulations to and issued by the Commission after 12. Existing Regional Transmission Entities under the Federal Power Act (FPA) to November 16, 1981. Documents from D. Minimum Characteristics and Functions facilitate the formation of Regional for a Regional Transmission November 1995 to the present can be Transmission Organizations (RTOs). Organization viewed and printed. RIMS is available The Commission proposes to require Minimum Characteristics in the Public Reference Room or that each public utility that owns, 1. Independence remotely via Internet through FERC’s operates, or controls facilities for the 2. Scope and Regional Configuration Home page using the RIMS link or the 3. Operational Authority transmission of electric energy in Energy Information Online icon. User 4. Short-term Reliability interstate commerce make certain filings assistance is available at 202–208–2222, Minimum Functions with respect to forming and or by E-mail to [email protected]. 1. Tariff Administration and Design participating in an RTO. The 2. Congestion Management Finally, the complete text on diskette Commission also proposes minimum 3. Parallel Path Flow in WordPerfect format may be characteristics and functions that a 4. Ancillary Services purchased from the Commission’s copy transmission entity must satisfy in order 5. OASIS and TTC and ATC contractor, RVJ International, Inc. RVJ to be considered to be an RTO. 6. Market Monitoring International, Inc. is located in the 7. Planning and Expansion DATES: Initial comments are due August Public Reference Room at 888 First E. Open Architecture 16, 1999. Reply comments are due Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. F. Ratemaking for Transmission Facilities September 15, 1999. under RTO Control Table of Contents ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Office of 1. Single Transmission Access Rate for Capital Cost Recovery the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory I. Introduction and Summary II. Background 2. Congestion Pricing Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 3. Performance Based Rate Regulation Washington, D.C. 20426. A. The Foundation for Competitive Markets: Order Nos. 888 and 889 4. Consideration of Incentive Pricing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B. Developments Since Order Nos. 888 and Proposals Alan Haymes (Technical Information), 889 G. Public Power Participation in RTOs Office of Electric Power Regulation, 1. Industry Restructuring and New Stresses H. Other Issues Federal Energy Regulatory on the Transmission Grid 1. Pre-existing Transmission Contracts Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 2. Successes, Failures and Haphazard 2. Treatment of Existing Regional Development of Regional Transmission Transmission Entities Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 219– 3. Participation by Canadian and Mexican 2919. Entities 3. The Commission’s ISO and RTO Entities Wilbur C. Earley (Technical Inquiries; Conferences with Stakeholders 4. Providing Service to Transmission- Information), Office of Economic and State Regulators owning Utilities That Do Not Participate Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory C. Statutory Framework in an RTO Commission, 888 First Street, NE., III. Discussion 5. RTO Filing Requirements Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208– A. Barriers to Assuring an Abundant 6. Power Exchanges (PXs) 0100 Supply of Electric Energy throughout the I. Implementation of the Rule Brian R. Gish (Legal Information), Office U.S. with the Greatest Possible Economy 1. Collaborative Process 1. Engineering and Economic Inefficiencies 2. Filing Requirements of the General Counsel, Federal IV. Environmental Statement Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 in the Operation, Planning, and Expansion of Regional Transmission V. Regulatory Flexibility Act First Street, NE., Washington, D.C. Grids VI. Public Reporting Burden and Information 20426, (202) 208–0996 2. Actual and Perceived Discriminatory Collection Statement SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Conduct by Transmission Owners to VII. Public Comment Procedures addition to publishing the full text of Favor Their Own or Affiliated Merchant Text of the Regulations this document in the Federal Register, Operations Appendix A: Staff Summary of the FERC- B. Benefits That RTOs Can Offer Industry ISO Conferences the Commission also provides all Appendix B: Staff Summary of FERC interested persons an opportunity to 1. An RTO Would Improve Efficiencies in the Management of the Transmission Consultations With the States inspect or copy the contents of this Grid Appendix C: Existing Configurations document during normal business hours 2. An RTO Would Improve Grid Reliability I. Introduction and Summary in the Public Reference Room at 888 3. An RTO Would Remove Opportunities First Street, N.E., Room 2A, for Discriminatory Transmission In 1996 the Commission put in place Washington, D.C. 20426. Practices the foundation necessary for

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31391 competitive wholesale power markets in remaining impediments to properly In light of important questions this country—open access functioning competitive markets. regarding the complexity of grid transmission.1 Since that time, the Our objective is for all transmission regionalization raised by state regulators industry has undergone sweeping owning entities in the Nation, including and applicants in individual cases, we restructuring activity, including a non-public utility entities, to place their are proposing a flexible approach. We movement by many states to develop transmission facilities under the control are not proposing to mandate that retail competition, the growing of appropriate regional transmission utilities participate in a regional divestiture of generation plants by institutions in a timely manner. We seek transmission institution by a date traditional electric utilities, a significant to accomplish our objective by certain. Instead, we act now to ensure increase in the number of mergers encouraging voluntary participation. We that they consider doing so in good among traditional electric utilities and are therefore proposing in this faith. Moreover, the Commission is not among electric utilities and gas pipeline rulemaking minimum characteristics proposing a ‘‘cookie cutter’’ companies, large increases in the and functions for appropriate regional organizational format for regional number of power marketers and transmission institutions; a transmission institutions or the independent generation facility collaborative process by which public establishment of fixed or specific developers entering the marketplace, utilities and non-public utilities that regional boundaries under section and the establishment of independent own, operate or control interstate 202(a) of the FPA. system operators (ISOs) as managers of transmission facilities, in consultation Rather, the Commission is proposing large parts of the transmission system. with the state officials as appropriate, to establish fundamental characteristics Trade in bulk power markets has will consider and develop regional and functions for appropriate regional continued to increase significantly and transmission institutions; a willingness transmission institutions. We will the Nation’s transmission grid is being to consider incentive pricing on a case- designate institutions that satisfy all of used more heavily and in new ways. specific basis and an offer of non- the minimum characteristics and As a result, the traditional means of monetary regulatory benefits, such as functions as Regional Transmission grid management is showing signs of deference in dispute resolution, reduced Organizations (RTOs). Hereinafter, the strain and may be inadequate to support or eliminated codes of conduct, and term Regional Transmission the efficient and reliable operation that streamlined filing and approval Organization, or RTO, will refer to an is needed for the continued procedures; and a time line for public organization that satisfies all of the development of competitive electricity utilities to make appropriate filings with minimum characteristics and functions. markets. In addition, there are the Commission and initiate operation Pursuant to our authority under indications that continued of regional transmission institutions. As section 205 of the FPA to ensure that discrimination in the provision of a result, we expect jurisdictional rates, terms and conditions of transmission services by vertically utilities to form Regional Transmission transmission and sales for resale in integrated utilities may also be Organizations (RTOs). interstate commerce by public utilities impeding fully competitive electricity As discussed in detail herein, regional are just, reasonable and not unduly markets. These problems may be institutions can address the operational discriminatory or preferential, and our depriving the Nation of the benefits of and reliability issues now confronting authority under section 202(a) of the lower prices, more reliance on market the industry, and any residual FPA to promote and encourage regional solutions, and lighter-handed regulation discrimination in transmission services districts for the voluntary that competitive markets can bring. that can occur when the operation of the interconnection and coordination of If electricity consumers are to realize transmission system remains in the transmission facilities by public utilities the full benefits that competition can control of a vertically integrated utility. and non-public utilities for the purpose bring to wholesale markets, the Appropriate regional transmission of assuring an abundant supply of Commission must address the extent of institutions could: (1) improve electric energy throughout the U.S. with these problems and appropriate ways of efficiencies in transmission grid the greatest possible economy, we mitigating them. Competition in management 2; (2) improve grid propose the following.3 wholesale electricity markets is the best reliability; (3) remove the remaining First, the Commission proposes way to protect the public interest and opportunities for discriminatory minimum characteristics and functions ensure that electricity consumers pay transmission practices; (4) improve that an RTO must satisfy. Industry the lowest price possible for reliable market performance; and (5) facilitate participants, however, retain flexibility service. We believe that further steps lighter handed regulation. in structuring RTOs that satisfy these may need to be taken to address grid Thus, we believe that appropriate characteristics and functions. For management if we are to achieve fully regional transmission institutions could example, we do not propose to require competitive power markets. We further successfully address the existing or prohibit any one form of organization believe that regional approaches to the impediments to efficient grid operation for RTOs or require or prohibit RTO numerous issues affecting the industry and competition and could ownership of transmission facilities. may be the best means to eliminate consequently benefit consumers through The characteristics and functions could lower electricity rates resulting from a be satisfied by different organizational 1 See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through wider choice of services and service forms, such as ISOs, transcos, Open Access Non-discriminatory Transmission providers. There are likely to be combinations of the two, or even new Services by Public Utilities and Recovery of substantial cost savings brought about organizational forms not yet discussed Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, 61 FR 21540 (1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. by regional transmission institutions. in the industry or proposed to the ¶ 31,036 (1996) (Order No. 888), order on reh’g, Commission. Order No. 888–A, 62 FR 12274 (1997), FERC Stats. 2 Appropriate regional institutions could improve Second, we propose to adopt an & Regs. ¶ 31,048 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No. efficiencies in grid management through improved ‘‘open architecture’’ policy regarding 888-B, 62 FR 64688, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), order pricing, congestion management, more accurate on reh’g, Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), estimates of Available Transmission Capability, RTOs, whereby all RTO proposals must appeal docketed, Transmission Access Policy Study improved parallel path flow management, more Group, et al. v. FERC, Nos. 97–1715 et al. (D.C. efficient planning, and increased coordination 3 The Commission’s legal authority is discussed Cir.). between regulatory agencies. in Section II.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31392 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules allow the RTO and its members the file an explanation of efforts, obstacles critical role in the realization of full flexibility to improve their organizations and plans with respect to conforming to competition at the retail level as well as in the future in terms of structure, these characteristics and functions. at the wholesale level. In addition, the operations, market support and Through the required filings, utilities Commission believes that RTOs will not geographic scope to meet market needs. will make known to the public any interfere with a state’s prerogative to In turn, the Commission will provide plans for RTO participation so that other keep the benefits of low-cost power for the regulatory flexibility to utilities and the competitive market can the state’s own retail consumers. accommodate such improvement. respond accordingly. This proposal Third, we propose to allow RTOs to Third, we propose guidance on relies primarily on the enlightened self- prevent transmission cost shifting by flexible transmission ratemaking that interest of stakeholders in each region. continuing our policy of flexibility with may be proposed by RTOs, including Such public disclosure of plans for respect to recovery of sunk transmission ratemaking treatments that will address transmission facilities will benefit the costs, such as the ‘‘license plate’’ congestion pricing and performance industry, the financial community, and approach. based regulation. We also propose to public policy makers as the electric Fourth, the existence of RTOs has not, consider on a case-by-case basis industry restructuring continues. and will not in the future, interfere with incentive pricing that may be To facilitate RTO formation in all traditional state and local regulatory appropriate for transmission facilities regions of the Nation, the Commission responsibilities such as transmission under RTO control. proposes to sponsor and support a siting, local reliability matters, and Finally, all public utilities (with the collaborative process under section regulation of retail sales of generation exception of those participating in an 202(a) to take place in the spring of and local distribution. In fact, RTOs approved regional transmission entity 2000. Under this process, we expect that offer the potential to assist the states in that conforms to the Commission’s ISO public utilities and non-public utilities, their regulation of retail markets and in principles) that own, operate or control in coordination with state officials, resolving matters among states on a interstate transmission facilities must Commission staff, and all affected regional basis. They also provide a file with the Commission by October 15, interest groups, will actively work vehicle for amicably resolving state and 2000 a proposal for an RTO with the toward the voluntary development of Federal jurisdictional issues. minimum characteristics and functions specific RTOs. Finally, we do not propose to adopted in the Final Rule,4 or, Prior to undertaking this proposed establish regional boundaries in this alternatively, a description of efforts to rulemaking, we held eight technical rulemaking. Our foremost concern is participate in an RTO, any existing conferences in 1998 with all industry that a proposed RTO’s regional obstacles to RTO participation, and any stakeholders as well as three technical configuration is sufficient to ensure that plans to work toward RTO participation. conferences this year with state the required RTO characteristics and Each proposed RTO must plan to be regulatory commissions to obtain their functions are satisfied. To this end, the operational by December 15, 2001. We views on the need for, and benefits of, Commission proposes guidance expect that such proposals would regional organizations. We gained regarding the scope and regional include the transmission facilities of valuable insight from the participants, configuration of RTOs. public utilities as well as transmission including many state commissions that We now turn to the state of the facilities of public power and other non- have undertaken or are considering state electric utility industry in the wake of public utility entities to the extent retail choice programs for the Order No. 888 and how the possible. consumers in their states. In light of the development of RTOs achieves efficient, A public utility that is a member of comments received, we wish to respond reliable and competitive power markets. to several concerns that were raised. an existing transmission entity that has II. Background been approved by the Commission as in First, we are not proposing to conformance with the eleven ISO mandate RTOs, nor are we proposing In April 1996, in Order Nos. 888 and principles set forth in Order No. 888 detailed specifications on a particular 889, the Commission established the must make a filing no later than January organizational form for RTOs. The goal foundation necessary to develop 15, 2001 that explains the extent to of this rulemaking is to get RTOs in competitive bulk power markets in the which the transmission entity in which place through voluntary participation. United States: non-discriminatory open it participates meets the minimum While this Commission has specific access transmission services by public characteristics and functions for an authorities and responsibilities under utilities and stranded cost recovery RTO, or proposes to modify the existing the FPA to protect against undue rules that would provide a fair institution to become an RTO. discrimination and remove transition to competitive markets. Order Alternatively, the public utility must impediments to wholesale competition, Nos. 888 and 889 were very successful we believe it is preferable to meet these in accomplishing much of what they set 4 An RTO proposal includes a basic agreement responsibilities in the first instance out to do. However, they were not filed under section 205 of the FPA setting out the through an open and collaborative intended to address all problems that rules, practices and procedures under which an process that allows for regional might arise in the development of RTO will be governed and operated, and requests flexibility and induces voluntary by the public utility members of the RTO under competitive power markets. Indeed, the section 203 of the FPA to transfer control of their behavior. nature of the emerging markets and the jurisdictional transmission facilities from Second, the development of RTOs is remaining impediments to full individual public utilities to the RTO. Most RTO not intended to interfere with state competition have become apparent in proposals by public utilities are likely to involve prerogatives in setting retail competition one or more filings under FPA sections 203, 205, the three years since the issuance of our or 206, but the number and types of filing may vary policy. The Commission believes that orders. depending upon the type of RTO proposed, and the RTOs can successfully accommodate the number of public utilities involved in the proposal. transmission systems of all states, A. The Foundation for Competitive Under the proposed rule, a utility may file a whether or not a particular state has Markets: Order Nos. 888 and 889 petition for a declaratory order asking whether a proposed transmission entity would qualify as an adopted retail competition. However, In Order Nos. 888 and 889, the RTO, to be followed by appropriate filings under for those states that have chosen to Commission found that unduly sections 203, 205 and/or 206. adopt retail wheeling, RTOs can play a discriminatory and anticompetitive

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31393 practices existed in the electric [W]e see many benefits in ISOs, and now has approximately 30,000 MW of industry, and that transmission-owning encourage utilities to consider ISOs as a tool generation proposed. That response utilities had discriminated against to meet the demands of the competitive comes almost entirely from independent 5 marketplace. generating plants that are able to sell others seeking transmission access. The As a further precaution against Commission stated that its goal was to discriminatory behavior, we will continue to power into the bulk power market ensure that customers have the benefits monitor electricity markets to ensure that through open access to the transmission of competitively priced generation, and functional unbundling adequately protects system. Power resources are now determined that non-discriminatory transmission customers. At the same time, acquired over increasingly large regional open access transmission services we will analyze all alternative proposals, areas, and interregional transfers of (including access to transmission including formation of ISOs, and, if it electricity have increased. information) and stranded cost recovery becomes apparent that functional unbundling The very success of Order Nos. 888 is inadequate or unworkable in assuring non- and 889, and the initiative of some were the most critical components of a discriminatory open access transmission, we successful transition to competitive will reevaluate our position and decide utilities that have pursued voluntary wholesale electricity markets.6 whether other mechanisms, such as ISOs, restructuring beyond the minimum Accordingly, Order No. 888 required should be required. 9 open access requirements , have put all public utilities that own, control or In section III.A.2 of this Notice of new stresses on regional transmission operate facilities used for transmitting Proposed Rulemaking, we discuss our systems—stresses that call for regional electric energy in interstate commerce to experiences to date with functional solutions. (1) file open access non-discriminatory unbundling. It has become apparent that 1. Industry Restructuring and New transmission tariffs containing, at a several types of regional transmission Stresses on the Transmission Grid minimum, the non-price terms and institutions, in addition to the kinds of Open access transmission and the conditions set forth in the Order, and (2) ISOs approved to date, may also be able opening of wholesale competition in the functionally unbundle wholesale power to provide the benefits attributed to electric industry have brought an array services. Under functional unbundling, ISOs in Order No. 888. of changes in the past several years: the public utility must: (a) take B. Developments Since Order Nos. 888 divestiture by many integrated utilities transmission services under the same and 889 of some or all of their generating assets; tariff of general applicability as do significantly increased merger activity others; (b) state separate rates for In the three years since Order Nos. both between electric utilities and wholesale generation, transmission, and 888 and 889 were issued, numerous between electric and natural gas ancillary services; and (c) rely on the significant developments have occurred in the electric utility industry. Some of utilities; increases in the number of new same electronic information network participants in the industry in the form that its transmission customers rely on these reflect changes in governmental policies; others are strictly industry of independent power marketers and to obtain information about its generators; increases in the volume of transmission system when buying or driven. These activities have resulted in a considerably different industry trade in the industry, particularly as selling power.7 Order No. 889 required landscape from the one faced at the time marketers make multiple sales; state that all public utilities establish or the Commission was developing Order efforts to create retail competition; and participate in an Open Access Same- No. 888, resulting in new regulatory and new and different uses of the Time Information System (OASIS) that industry challenges. transmission grid. meets certain specifications, and Order Nos. 888 and 889 required a With respect to divestiture, since comply with standards of conduct significant change in the way many August 1997, approximately 50,000 MW designed to prevent employees of a public utilities have done business for of generating capacity have been sold public utility (or any employees of its most of this century, and most public (or are under contract to be sold) by affiliates) engaged in wholesale power utilities accepted these changes and utilities, and an additional 30,000 MW marketing functions from obtaining made substantial good faith efforts to is currently for sale. In total, this preferential access to pertinent comply with the new requirements. represents more than 10 percent of U.S. transmission system information. Virtually all public utilities have filed generating capacity. In all, according to During the course of the Order No. tariffs stating rates, terms and publicly available data, 27 utilities have 888 proceeding, the Commission conditions for third-party use of their sold all or some of their generating received comments urging it to require transmission systems. In addition, assets and 7 others have assets for sale. generation divestiture or structural improved information about the Buyers of this generating capacity have institutional arrangements such as transmission system is available to all included traditional utilities with regional independent system operators participants in the market at the same specified service territories as well as (ISOs) to better assure non- time that it is available to the public independent power producers with no discrimination. The Commission utility as a result of utility compliance required service territory. responded that, while it believed that with the OASIS regulations. Since Order No. 888 was issued, there ISOs had the potential to provide The availability of tariffs and have been more than 20 applications significant benefits, efforts to remedy information about the transmission filed with us to approve proposed undue discrimination should begin by system has fostered a rapid growth in mergers involving public utilities. Most requiring the less intrusive functional dependence on wholesale markets for of these mergers have been approved by unbundling approach. Order No. 888 set acquisition of generation resources. various regulatory authorities, including forth eleven principles for assessing ISO Areas that have experienced generation the Commission, although a few have proposals submitted to the Commission. shortages have seen rapid development been rejected or withdrawn, and several 8 Order No. 888 also stated: of new generation resources. For mergers are pending regulatory example, New England, where there was approval. Most of these merger 5 Order No. 888, FERC Stats & Regs. at 31,682. deep concern about adequacy of proposals have been between electric 6 Id. at 31,652. generation supply only three years ago, utilities with contiguous service areas, 7 Id. at 31,654–55. while some of the proposed mergers 8 Id. at 31,730. 9 Id. at 31,655. have been between utilities with non-

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31394 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules contiguous service areas. The the North American Electric Reliability developed by independent power Commission has also been presented Council (NERC), ‘‘the adequacy of the producers.’’ 20 with merger applications involving the bulk transmission system has been The transition to new market combination of electric and natural gas challenged to support the movement of structures has resulted in new assets. power in unprecedented amounts and challenges and circumstances. For There has been significant growth in in unexpected directions.’’ 13 These example, during the week of June 22– the volume of trading in the wholesale changes in the use of the transmission 26, 1998, the wholesale electric market electricity market. In the first quarter of system ‘‘will test the electric industry’s in the Midwest experienced numerous 1995, according to power marketer ability to maintain system security in events that led to unprecedented high quarterly filings, marketer sales totaled operating the transmission system under spot market prices. Spot wholesale 1.8 million MWh, but by the second conditions for which it was not planned market prices for energy briefly rose as quarter of 1998, such sales escalated to or designed.’’ 14 It should be noted that, high as $7,500 per MWh, compared to 513 million MWh.10 Many new despite the increased transmission an average price for the summer of competitors have entered the industry. system loadings, NERC believes that the approximately $40 per MWh in the For example, in the first quarter of 1995, ‘‘procedures and processes to mitigate Midwest if the price spikes are there were eight power marketers (either potential reliability impacts appear to be excluded. 21 This experience led to calls independent or affiliated with working reliably for now,’’ and that for price caps, allegations of market traditional utilities) actively trading in even though the system was particularly power, and a questioning of the wholesale power markets, but by the stressed during the summer of 1998, effectiveness of transmission open second quarter of 1998, there were 108 ‘‘the system performed reliably and firm access and wholesale electric actively trading power marketers. The demand was not interrupted due to competition. Commission has granted market-based transmission transfer limitations.’’ 15 The Commission staff undertook an rate authority to well over 500 An indication that the increased and investigation of the price spike incident. wholesale power marketers, of which different use of the transmission system Staff’s report concluded that the some are independent of traditional is stressing the grid is the increased use unusually high price levels were caused investor-owned utilities, some are of transmission line loading relief (TLR) by a combination of factors, particularly 16 affiliated with traditional utilities, and procedures. NERC’s TLR procedures above-average generation outages, some are traditional utilities were invoked 250 times between unseasonably hot temperatures, storm- themselves.11 January 1 and September 1, 1998 to related transmission outages, State commissions and legislatures prevent facility or interface overloads on transmission constraints, poor 17 have been active in the past few years the Eastern Interconnection. communication of price signals, studying competitive options at the It appears that the planning and lowered confidence in the market due to construction of transmission and retail level, setting up pilot retail access a few contract defaults, and transmission-related facilities may not programs, and, in some states, inexperience in dealing with be keeping up with increased implementing full scale retail access competitive markets. 22 requirements. According to NERC, programs. As of May 1, 1999, 18 states The Commission’s staff found that the ‘‘Business is increasing on the have enacted electric restructuring market institutions were not adequately transmission system, but very little is legislation, 3 have issued prepared to deal with such a dramatic being done to increase the load serving comprehensive regulatory orders, and series of events. Regarding regional and transfer capability of the bulk 28 others have legislation or orders transmission entities, the staff report 12 transmission system.’’ 18 The amount of pending or investigations underway. observed: ‘‘The necessity for Fifteen states have implemented full- new transmission capacity planned over the next ten years is significantly lower cooperation in meeting reliability scale or pilot retail competition concerns and the Commission’s intent programs that offer a choice of suppliers than the additions that had been planned five years ago, and most of the to foster competitive market conditions to at least some retail customers. Eight underscores the importance of better states have set in motion programs to planned projects are for local system support. 19 NERC states that, ‘‘The close regional coordination in areas such as offer access to retail customers by a date maintenance of transmission and certain. coordination of generation and transmission planning is diminishing as generation systems and transmission Because of the changes in the 23 vertically integrated utilities divest their planning and operation.’’ Support for structure of the electric industry, the this view comes from many sources. For transmission grid is now being used generation assets and most new generation is being proposed and example, the Public Utilities more intensively and in different ways Commission of Ohio, in its own report than in the past. The Commission is 13 on the price spikes, recommended that concerned that the traditional Reliability Assessment 1998–2007, North American Electric Reliability Council (September policy makers ‘‘take unambiguous approaches to operating the grid are 1998), at 26. action to require coordination of showing signs of strain. According to 14 Id. transmission system operations by 15 Id. regionwide Independent System 10 16 Power marketer quarterly filings, cited in Staff The TLR procedures are designed to remedy 24 Report to the Federal Energy Regulatory overloads that result when a transmission line or Operators.’’ Commission on the Causes of Wholesale Electric other transmission equipment carries or will carry On September 29, 1998, the Secretary Pricing Abnormalities in the Midwest During June more power than its rating, which could result in of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on 1998, (September 22, 1998) (Staff Price Spike either power outages or damage to property. The Electric System Reliability published its Report) at 3–1 to 3–2. It must be noted that a TLR procedures are designed to bring overloaded significant portion of the sales represent the transmission equipment to within NERC’s retrading of power by a number of different market Operating Security Limits essentially by curtailing 20 Id. participants. In other words, there may be multiple transactions contributing to the overload. See North 21 Staff Price Spike Report at 3–8 to 3–11. resales of the same generation. American Electric Reliability Council, 85 FERC ¶ 22 Id. at v. 11 Id. at 3–1. 61,353 (1998) (NERC). 23 Id. at 5–8. 12 ‘‘Status of Electric Utility Deregulation Activity 17 Reliability Assessment 1998–2007 at 27. 24 Ohio’s Electric Market, June 22–26, 1998, What as of May 1, 1999,’’ Energy Information 18 Id. at 26. Happened and Why, A Report to the Ohio General Administration. 19 Id. at 7. Assembly, at iii.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31395 final report. 25 The Task Force was operational regional transmission members. However, among the five, convened in January 1997 to provide institution. there is considerable variation in advice to the Department of Energy on Proposals for the establishment of five governance, operational responsibilities, critical institutional, technical, and ISOs have been submitted to and geographic scope and market policy issues that need to be addressed approved, or conditionally approved, by operations. Four of the ISOs rely on a in order to maintain bulk power electric the Commission. These are the two-tier form of governance with a non- system reliability in a more competitive California ISO,28 the PJM ISO,29 ISO stakeholder governing board on top that industry. The Task Force found that New England ISO,30 the New York is advised, either formally or informally, ‘‘the traditional reliability institutions ISO,31 and the Midwest ISO.32 In by one or more stakeholder groups. In and processes that have served the addition, the Texas Commission has general, the final decision making Nation well in the past need to be ordered an ISO for the Electric authority rests with the independent modified to ensure that reliability is Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).33 non-stakeholder board. One ISO, the maintained in a competitively neutral Moreover, our international neighbors California ISO, uses a board consisting fashion;’’ that ‘‘grid reliability depends in Canada and Mexico are also pursuing of stakeholders and non-stakeholders. heavily on system operators who electric restructuring efforts that include Four of the five ISOs operate monitor and control the grid in real various forms of regional transmission traditional control areas, but the 34 time;’’ and that ‘‘because bulk power entities. Midwest ISO does not currently plan to systems are regional in nature, they can The PJM, New England and New York operate a traditional control area. Three and should be operated more reliably ISOs were established on the platform of are multi-state ISOs (New England, PJM and efficiently when coordinated over existing tight power pools. It appears and Midwest), while two ISOs large geographic areas.’’ 26 that the principal motivation for (California and New York) currently creating ISOs in these situations was the operate within a single state. The The report noted that many regions of Order No. 888 requirement that there be current Midwest ISO members do not the United States are developing ISOs as a single system wide transmission tariff encompass one contiguous geographic a way to maintain electric system for tight pools. In contrast, the area and there are holes in its coverage. reliability as competitive markets establishment of the California ISO and The ISO New England administers a develop. According to the Task Force, the ERCOT ISO was the direct result of separate NEPOOL tariff, while the other ISOs are significant institutions to mandates by state governments. The four administer their own ISO assure both electric system reliability Midwest ISO, which is not yet transmission tariffs. and competitive generation markets. operational, is unique. It began through Three ISOs operate or propose to The Task Force concluded that a large a consensual process and was not operate centralized power markets (New ISO would: (1) be able to identify and driven by a pre-existing institution. Two England, PJM and New York), and one address reliability issues most states in the region subsequently ISO (California) relies on a separate effectively; (2) internalize much of the required utilities in their states to power exchange (PX) to operate such a loop flow caused by the growing participate in either a Commission- market.35 The Midwest ISO did not number of transactions; (3) facilitate approved ISO (Illinois and Wisconsin), originally envision an ISO-related transmission access across a larger or sell their transmission assets to an centralized market for its region.36 In portion of the network, consequently independent transmission company addition, at least one separate PX has improving market efficiencies and (Wisconsin). begun to do business in California apart promoting greater competition; and (4) The approved ISOs have similarities from the PX established through the eliminate ‘‘pancaking’’ of transmission as well as differences. All five restructuring legislation.37 rates, thus allowing a greater range of Commission-approved ISOs operate, or Not all efforts to create ISOs have economic energy trades across the propose to operate, as non-profit been successful. For example, after more network. 27 organizations. All five ISOs include than two years of effort, the proponents both public and non-public utility of the IndeGO ISO in the Pacific 2. Successes, Failures, and Haphazard Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions Development of Regional Transmission 28 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al., 77 FERC ended their efforts to create an ISO. Entities ¶61,204 (1996), order on reh’g, 81 FERC ¶61,122 (1997) (Pacific Gas & Electric). More recently, members of MAPP, an Since Order No. 888 was issued, there 29 Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland existing power pool that covers six U.S. have been both successful and Interconnection, et al., 81 FERC ¶61,257 (1997), unsuccessful efforts to establish ISOs, reh’g pending (PJM). 35 The California PX offers day-ahead and hour- 30 New England Power Pool, 79 FERC ¶61,374 ahead markets and the ISO operates a real-time and other efforts to form regional (1997), order on reh’g, 85 FERC ¶61,242 (1998) energy market. Participation in the PX market is entities to operate the transmission (order conditionally authorizing ISO New England); voluntary except that the three traditional investor- facilities in various parts of the country. New England Power Pool, 83 FERC ¶61,045 (1998), owned utilities in California must bid their While we are encouraged by the success reh’g pending (order on NEPOOL tariff and generation sales and purchases through the PX for restructuring)(NEPOOL). the first five years. New York will offer day-ahead of some of these efforts, it is apparent 31 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, et and real-time energy markets that will be operated that the results have been inconsistent, al., 83 FERC ¶61,352 (1998), order on reh’g, 87 by the ISO. PJM and New England offer only real- and much of the country’s transmission FERC ¶61,135 (1999) (Central Hudson). time energy markets, although PJM has proposed to facilities remain outside of an 32 Midwest Independent Transmission System operate a day-ahead market. The ERCOT ISO is the Operator, et al., 84 FERC ¶61,231, order on only other ISO that does not currently operate a PX. reconsideration, 85 FERC ¶61,250, order on reh’g, 36 There are indications, however, that the 25 Maintaining Reliability in a Competitive U.S. 85 FERC ¶61,372 (1998) (Midwest ISO). Midwest ISO is considering the formation of a Electricity Industry; Final Report of the Task Force 33 See 16 Texas Administrative Code § 23.67(p). power exchange. See Joint Committee for the on Electric System Reliability (Sept. 29, 1998) (Task 34 See Policy Proposal for Structural Reform of the Development of a Midwest Independent Power Force Report). The Task Force was comprised of 24 Mexican Electricity Industry, Secretary of Energy, Exchange, ‘‘Solicitation of Interest-Creation of an members representing all major segments of the Mexico (February 1999); Third Interim Report of the Independent Power Exchange for the U.S. electric industry, including private and public Ontario Market Design Committee (October 1998); Midwest,’’ February 5, 1999. suppliers, power marketers, regulators, TransAlta Enterprises Corporation, 75 FERC 37 See Automated Power Exchange, Inc., 82 FERC environmentalists, and academics. ¶61,268 at 61,875 (1996) (recognition of the ¶ 61,287, reh’g denied, 84 FERC ¶ 61,020 (1998), 26 Task Force Report at x–xi. restructuring in the Province of Alberta, Canada to appeals docketed, No. 98–1415 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 14, 27 Id. at 76. create a Grid Company of Alberta). 1998) and No. 98–1419 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 14, 1998).

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31396 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules states and two Canadian provinces, its proposal to transfer its transmission gain insight into participants’ views on failed to achieve consensus for assets (in the form of ownership or a the formation and role of ISOs in the establishing a long-planned ISO. In the lease) to a ‘‘transco’’ in return for a electric utility industry. The first Southwest, proponents of the Desert passive ownership interest in the conference was held in April 1998 at the Star ISO have not been able to reach transco, would satisfy the Commission’s Commission’s offices in Washington, agreement on a formal proposal after eleven ISO principles.42 D.C. Between May 28 and June 8, 1998, more than two years of discussion. As part of general restructuring the Commission held seven regional Various reasons have been advanced initiatives, several states now require conferences in Phoenix, Kansas City, to explain why it is difficult to form a independent grid management New Orleans, Indianapolis, Portland, voluntary, multi-state ISO. These organizations. For example, an Illinois Richmond and Orlando. As a result of include cost shifting in transmission law requires that its utilities become these conferences, the Commission capital costs; disagreements about members of a FERC-approved regional heard approximately 145 oral sharing of ISO transmission revenues ISO by March 31, 1999, and Wisconsin presentations and received a large among transmission owners; difficulties law gives its utilities the option of number of written comments on the in obtaining the participation of joining an ISO or selling their appropriate size, scope, organization publicly-owned transmission facilities; transmission assets to an independent and functions of regional transmission concerns about the loss of transmission transmission company by June 30, 2000. institutions. A number of different rights and prices embedded in existing In both states, the backstop is a single- viewpoints were expressed. They will transmission agreements; the likelihood state organization if regional be discussed elsewhere in this NOPR of not being able to maintain or gain a organizations are not developed. and are summarized in Appendix A competitive advantage in power markets Recently, Virginia and Arkansas have hereto. through the use of transmission also enacted legislation requiring their On October 1, 1998, the Secretary of facilities; and the preference of certain electric utilities to join or establish Energy delegated his authority under transmission owners to sell or transfer regional transmission entities. section 202(a) of the FPA to the their transmission assets to a for-profit Commission. In doing so the Secretary transmission company in lieu of 3. The Commission’s ISO and RTO stated that section 202(a) ‘‘provides DOE handing over control to a non-profit Inquiries; Conferences with with sufficient authority to establish ISO. Stakeholders and State Regulators boundaries for Independent System Apart from these efforts to create In light of the various restructuring Operators (ISOs) or other appropriate ISOs, we have received proposals for activities occurring throughout the U.S., transmission entities.’’ 44 The Secretary other types of transmission entities. For the Commission has, within the past also stated, example, in October 1998 a group of year, held 11 public conferences in 9 FERC is also increasingly faced with Arizona entities filed a request with the different cities across the country to reliability-related issues. Providing FERC Commission to create an ‘‘independent hear the views of industry, consumers, with the authority to establish boundaries for scheduling administrator’’ (ISA) in and state regulators with respect to the ISOs or other appropriate transmission 38 entities could aid in the orderly formation of Arizona. Unlike an ISO, this entity need for RTOs and their appropriate properly-sized transmission institutions and would not administer its own roles and responsibilities. in addressing reliability-related issues, transmission tariff nor would it have The Commission initiated an inquiry thereby increasing the reliability of the any direct operational responsibilities. in March 1998 pertaining to its policies transmission system. Instead, it appears that its functions on ISOs. A notice establishing On November 24, 1998, we gave would be limited to monitoring the procedures for a conference gave the notice in this docket of our intent to scheduling decisions and OASIS site following rationale: initiate a consultation process with operation of the Arizona utilities that In Order Nos. 888 and 889 and their State commissions pursuant to section 39 operate transmission facilities. In case progeny, the Commission established the 202(a).45 The purpose of the of disputes, the ISA would provide a fundamental principles of non- consultations was to afford State type of expedited dispute resolution discriminatory open access transmission commissions a reasonable opportunity services. Nevertheless, many issues remain to process. The applicants state that the to present their views with respect to ISA would be a transitional organization be addressed if the Nation is to fully realize the benefits of open access and more appropriate boundaries for regional that would ultimately evolve or be competitive electric markets. transmission institutions and other merged into a stronger, multi-state issues relating to RTOs. Conferences ISO.40 In other developments, one * * * * * Given the dramatic changes taking place in with State commissioners were held in public utility has recently made a filing both wholesale and retail electric markets St. Louis, Missouri on February 11, with us to sell its transmission assets to and the many proposals under consideration 1999; in Las Vegas, Nevada on February 41 a newly formed affiliate. Another with respect to the creation of ISOs or other 12, 1999; and in Washington, D.C. on public utility recently filed a request for transmission entities, such as transmission- February 17, 1999. In all, we heard oral declaratory order asking us to find that only utilities, it is time for the Commission presentations by representatives of 41 to take stock of its policies in order to determine whether they appropriately state commissions during these 38 Arizona Independent Scheduling consultations, with others monitoring or Administrator Association, Docket No. ER99–388– support our dual goals of eliminating undue 46 000 (filed October 29, 1998). discrimination and promoting competition in providing written comments. During 39 A proposal for a similar entity has been in the electric power markets.43 these sessions, we received much Pacific Northwest. This entity, described as an Accordingly, the Commission held a valuable advice. We have set forth in independent grid scheduler, would make actual series of eight conferences in 1998 to Appendix B a summary of the scheduling decisions rather than simply monitoring the decisions made by current transmission owners. comments received, and discuss in 42 See Regional ISO Conference (Portland), transcript Entergy Services, Inc., Docket No. EL99–57– at 39–40. 000 (filed April 5, 1999). 44 63 FR 53889 (1998). 40 See Applicant’s filing, Docket No. ER99–388– 43 Inquiry Concerning the Commission’s Policy 45 Notice of Intent to Consult Under Section 000, at 3. on Independent System Operators, Notice of 202(a), 63 FR 66158 1998*), FERC Stats & Regs. 41 FirstEnergy, Inc., Docket No. EC99–53–000 Conference, Docket No. PL98–5–000, at 1–2 (March ¶ 35,534 (1998). (filed March 19, 1999). 13, 1998). 46 See Appendix B for a list of commenters.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31397

Section III.B below our response to grant an application under section 203 gas industry after the initial step of open some of the major concerns expressed. upon such terms and conditions as it access transportation was taken. In finds necessary to secure the 1985, the Commission issued Order No. C. Statutory Framework maintenance of adequate service and the 436,51 which instituted open-access, The Commission is granted the coordination in the public interest of nondiscriminatory transportation of authority and responsibility by FPA jurisdictional facilities. natural gas with the goal of increasing sections 205 and 206, 16 U.S.C. 824d, Further, section 202(a) of the FPA, competition and permitting gas users to 824e, to ensure that the rates, charges, whose authority has recently been purchase gas directly from gas classifications, and service of public delegated to the Commission by the merchants. However, the Commission utilities (and any rule, regulation, Secretary of Energy,50 authorizes and subsequently found that open access practice, or contract affecting any of directs the Commission ‘‘to divide the alone was not sufficient to remove all these) are just and reasonable and not country into regional districts for the barriers to competition. 52 Because of unduly discriminatory, and to remedy voluntary interconnection and the different structures of the electric undue discrimination in the provision coordination of facilities for the and gas industries, the specific of such services. In fulfilling its generation, transmission, and sale of remaining impediments to competition responsibilities under FPA sections 205 electric energy * * *.’’ The purpose of may not be the same, but there are and 206, the Commission is required to this division into regional districts is for similarities in that open access, without address, and has the authority to ‘‘assuring an abundant supply of electric sufficient mechanisms for ensuring that remedy, undue discrimination and energy throughout the United States such access is equal and efficient for all anticompetitive effects. The with the greatest possible economy and participants, may not be enough to Commission has a statutory mandate with regard to the proper utilization and promote a fully competitive market. 53 under these sections to ensure that conservation of natural Our current understanding of industry transmission in interstate commerce and resources * * *.’’ Section 202(a) states conditions, as set forth below, will be rates, contracts, and practices affecting that it is ‘‘the duty of the Commission enhanced by future consultations with transmission services, do not reflect an to promote and encourage such and analysis from all industry undue preference or advantage (or interconnection and coordination stakeholders, including state undue prejudice or disadvantage) and within each such district and between commissions. The Commission seeks are just, reasonable, and not unduly such districts.’’ comments in order to achieve a deeper discriminatory or preferential.47 Additionally, as discussed in Order No. III. Discussion 51 Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines After 48 Partial Wellhead Decontrol, Order No. 436, 50 FR 888, there is a substantial body of case A. Barriers to Assuring an Abundant law that holds that the Commission’s 42408 (Oct. 18, 1985), FERC Stats. & Regs. Supply of Electric Energy Throughout [Regulations Preambles 1982–1985] ¶ 30,665 1985), regulatory authority under the FPA the United States with the Greatest vacated and remanded, Associated Gas Distributors ‘‘clearly carries with it the responsibility Possible Economy v. FERC, 824 F.2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, to consider, in appropriate 485 U.S. 1006 (1988), readopted on an interim circumstances, the anticompetitive In light of our experiences with ISOs basis, Order No. 500, 52 FR 30334 (Aug. 14, 1987), and other utility restructuring activity in FERC Stats. & Regs. [Regulations Preambles, 1986– effects of regulated aspects of interstate 1990] ¶30,761 (1987), remanded, American Gas utility operations pursuant to [FPA] the aftermath of Order Nos. 888 and Association v. FERC, 888 F.2d 136 (D.C. Cir. 1989), §§ 202 and 203, and under like 889, and after almost three years of readopted, Order No. 500–H, 54 FR 52334 (Dec. 21, directives contained in §§ 205, 206, and experience with implementation of 1989), FERC Stats. & Regs. [Regulations Preambles 49 Order Nos. 888 and 889, we believe that 1986–1990] ¶ 30,867 (1989), reh’g granted in part 207.’’ and denied in part, Order No. 500–I, 55 FR 6605 The Commission also has the there remain important transmission- (Feb. 26, 1990), FERC Stats. & Regs. [Regulations authority and responsibility under related impediments to a competitive Preambles 1986–1990] ¶ 30,880 (1990), aff’d in part section 203 of the FPA to review wholesale electric market. We have and remanded in part, American Gas Association mergers and other transactions grouped these remaining impediments v. FERC, 912 F.2d 1496 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 957 (1991). involving public utilities, including into two broad categories. The first 52 In the case of natural gas, we found that the dispositions of jurisdictional facilities category of impediments consists of principal remaining barrier was the continued by public utilities. This includes public engineering and economic inefficiencies existence of bundled city-gate firm sales service that utilities’ transfers of control of inherent in the current operation and had a transportation component of higher quality jurisdictional transmission facilities to than available through open access. Hence, we expansion of the transmission grid— issued Order No. 636 to unbundle services and entities such as RTOs. Under section inefficiencies that, in and of themselves, equalize the quality of service offered. See Pipeline 203, the Commission must approve a are hindering fully competitive power Service Obligations and Revisions to Regulations proposed disposition of jurisdictional markets and imposing unnecessary costs Governing Self-Implementing Transportation and facilities if it is consistent with the Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines After Partial on electric consumers. The second Wellhead Decontrol, 57 FR 13267 (April 16, 1992), public interest. The Commission may category of impediments consists of III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,939 (April 8, 1992), continuing opportunities for reh’g granted and denied in part, Order No. 636– 47 Once such a finding is made, the Commission transmission owners to unduly A, 57 FR 36128 (August 12, 1992), III FERC Stats. is required to remedy it. See, e.g., Southern discriminate in the operation of their & Regs. ¶ 30,950 (August 3, 1992), order on reh’g California Edison Company, 40 FERC ¶ 61,371 at Order No. 636–B, 57 FR 57911 (December 8, 1992), 62,151–52 (1987), order on reh’g 50 FERC ¶ 61,275 transmission systems so as to favor their 61 FERC ¶ 61,272 (1992), Notice of Denial of at 61,873 (1990), modified sub nom., Cities of own or their affiliates’ power marketing Rehearing (January 8, 1993), 62 FERC ¶ 61,007 Anaheim v. FERC, 941 F.2d 1234 (D.C. Cir. 1991); activities. Both sets of impediments (1993), aff’d in part and vacated and remanded in Delmarva Power and Light Company, 24 FERC part, United Dist. Companies v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105 ¶ 61,199 at 61,466, order on reh’g 24 FERC ¶ 61,380 unnecessarily restrict the scope of bulk (D.C. Cir. July 16, 1996), order on remand, Order (1983). power markets and inhibit the large- No. 636–C, 78 FERC ¶ 61,186 (1997). 48 Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. at 31,669. scale competition that we sought in 53 For a discussion of the similarities and 49 Gulf States Utilities Co. v. FPC, 411 U.S. 747, issuing Order Nos. 888 and 889. differences in the structure and regulation of the 758–59, reh’g denied, 412 U.S. 944 (1973) (Gulf The situation of the electric industry natural gas and electric industries, see generally States). See also City of Huntingburg v. FPC, 498 Santa and Sikora, Open Access And Transition F.2d 778, 783–84 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (Commission has is somewhat analogous to the natural Costs: Will The Electric Industry Transition Track a duty to consider the potential anticompetitive The Natural Gas Restructuring?, 15 Energy L.J. 273 effects of a proposed Interconnection Agreement.) 50 63 FR 53889 (1998). (1994).

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31398 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules appreciation of any impediments to vertically-integrated, self-sufficient institutions to ensure that reliability is competition in the Nation’s electricity public utilities that do not compete with maintained or improved in any new markets and how they should be each other. Instead, it is an increasingly industry structure.59 We fully agree with addressed. de-integrated and decentralized the findings of the DOE Reliability Task industry with many new and existing Force: 1. Engineering and Economic participants that actively compete ** * there is a critical need to be sure that Inefficiencies in the Operation, Planning against each other.56 reliability is not taken for granted as the and Expansion of Regional As a consequence of these changes in industry restructures, and thus does not ‘‘fall Transmission Grids 60 trade patterns and industry structure, through the cracks.’’ The DOE Reliability Task Force also The transmission facilities of any one certain operational problems have pointed out that with the entry of many utility in a region are part of a larger, become more significant and more new participants, dramatic increases in integrated transmission system. From an difficult to resolve. These include: unbundled power sales and shifts in electrical engineering perspective, each maintaining reliable grid operations; electrical flows, the nation’s bulk power of the three interconnections in the determining available transmission system is being stressed in ways that United States (the Eastern, the Western capability (ATC); 57 managing have never been experienced before. A and ERCOT) operates as a single transmission congestion; and planning 54 similar conclusion was reached by ‘‘machine.’’ The Eastern and investing in new transmission NERC in its 1998 summer assessment of Interconnection also extends into facilities. In addition, traditional bulk power reliability: Canada, and the Western approaches to the pricing and provision Interconnection includes parts of of transmission service may be Throughout the Regions, parallel path Canada and Mexico. hindering the further development of flows from increased electricity transfers are Problems have arisen over the last competitive and efficient bulk power stressing the transmission systems. These three years, in part, because we have flows are at magnitudes and in directions not markets. These impediments include: anticipated at the time the systems were multiple operators of each of these pancaking of transmission access machines. Each separate operator designed.* * *The transmission system will charges; non-market approaches to be required to operate under unprecedented, usually makes independent decisions managing congestion; the absence of and sometimes unstudied, conditions.61 about the use, limitations and expansion clear transmission rights; the absence of These stresses have always existed but of its piece of the interconnected grid secondary markets in transmission not in these magnitudes. Moreover, they based on incomplete information. This service; and the possible disincentives could be more readily accommodated approach—separate operation of each created by the level and structure of through voluntary ad hoc agreements utility’s own transmission facilities— transmission rates. The Commission when there were fewer industry would make engineering sense only if believes that properly structured RTOs participants who generally did not each system operated independently of can address both sets of problems and compete against each other in any the others. But the physical reality is further the development of competitive significant way.62 But as we have noted, that, within the three interconnected bulk power markets. this traditional industry structure is grids, any action taken by one rapidly disappearing. Our concern is a. Reliable Grid Operations transmission provider can have major that the reliability fault lines may and instantaneous effects on the The United States has one of the most become more prominent and dangerous. transmission facilities of all other reliable power systems in the world. For It is well accepted that the operation transmission providers.55 over thirty years, NERC and the regional of interconnected transmission This is not a new phenomenon. Since reliability councils have developed and networks requires careful coordination the very first transmission implemented voluntary standards to and the exchange of information interconnection between two maintain the security of the between many individual systems. Any neighboring utilities, interconnected transmission systems. There is no net operational change on one system in the utilities have had to cope with the fact public policy benefit to promoting network instantly affects other systems. that electricity will flow over others’ competition if reliability suffers as a For example, the shipment of power lines. In the past, these effects were consequence.58 The promotion of from one location to another will divide often small or infrequent and the utility competition must therefore go hand-in- among all transmission paths from could generally pass any costs through hand with the creation of new source to destination based on the laws to captive customers. Today, with the of physics.63 This is referred to as increase in bulk power trade and the 56 For example, there are now about 550 large shifts in power flows, the effects Commission-approved power marketers. 59 See George C. Loehr, ‘‘Ten Myths About may be large, frequent and not Decentralization has also increased because of Electric Deregulation: Electrons May Seem recoverable by the utility bearing the divestiture of generating plants by traditionally Imaginary, But Reliability Is Real,’’ Public Utilities vertically integrated utilities. Such sales are Fortnightly, April 15, 1998, at 28–31. cost. frequently required by state governments as one Another important change is that the element of the structural reforms that accompany 60 DOE Task Force Report, at xv. the introduction of retail competition. During the structure of the industry that exists 61 NERC, ‘‘1998 Summer Assessment: Reliability last three years, utilities have sold or have contracts today is very different from the industry of Bulk Electricity Supply in North America,’’ May to sell more than 50,000 MW of existing generating 1998, at 2–3. that existed three years ago when we capacity. About 30,000 MW of additional capacity 62 issued Order No. 888. The industry is is currently being offered for sale. In assessing the continued viability of the current system, NERC’s blue-ribbon Electric 57 See definition of ATC infra. no longer composed uniformly of Reliability Panel concluded that: ‘‘The competitive 58 Unless otherwise noted, we use the term dynamics among a much larger universe of players 54 North American Electric Reliability Council, ‘‘reliability’’ to refer to the reliable or secure is not at all conducive to a system of voluntary peer Electric Reliability Panel, ‘‘Reliable Power: operation of the bulk power grid. This is one compliance.’’ Electric Reliability Panel Report, Renewing the North American Electric Reliability component of the broader NERC definition, which December 1997, at 28. Oversight System,’’ December 1997, at 9. also includes ‘‘adequacy’’ (i.e., sufficient generation 63 The amount of power flowing on any path in 55 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology and transmission capacity) as a second component an electrical network is inversely proportional to Assessment, ‘‘Electric Power Wheeling and Dealing, of overall reliability. See North American Electric that path’s impedance. Impedance will depend on Technological Considerations for Increasing Reliability Council, ‘‘Glossary of Terms,’’ August the actual length of the line and its voltage. See U.S. Competition,’’ May, 1989. 1996, at 21. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Electric

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31399 parallel path or loop flow. Such flows not surprising because, as we have service providers, the calculations of will also affect a neighboring system’s noted before, information that is needed total transmission capability (TTC) and ability to determine ATC accurately. In for reliability purposes may also have a ATC are needed to make this addition, if a transmission facility is commercial value.68 If market determination. TTC and ATC are key already loaded close to its operating participants believe that the entity that elements of the OASIS information limit, the additional flow resulting from receives operational information for system.72 Order No. 889 requires each a transaction contracted for on a reliability reasons may use it for transmission provider to calculate and neighboring system may overload the commercial advantage, they will post TTC and ATC numbers to give its facility and threaten reliability. In order understandably be reluctant to supply transmission customers a reasonable to operate the system in a reliable the information. After spending more estimate of how much power can be manner, a single, independent grid than 18 months reviewing the current carried between any two locations on operator must know all sources and reliability system, the DOE Reliability destinations for each transaction. The Task Force concluded that this inherited the grid and how much capacity is Commission believes that an RTO, as system, with its patchwork of available to support additional trade at the only transmission provider and organizations, inadequate information any given time. security coordinator in its region, would sharing and overlapping and sometimes We have received many complaints have the information needed to identify unclear responsibilities, is ‘‘clearly about the accuracy and usefulness of the effects of parallel flows and unsustainable’’ and that until new posted ATC numbers. There are several accommodate them in its operations. policies and institutions are in place, reasons why it is difficult to determine At present, the industry’s ability to ‘‘substantial parts of North America will available transmission capability maintain reliable grid operation is be exposed to unacceptable risk.’’ 69 accurately. hindered by the existence of many This is not just a theoretical concern. separate organizations that directly or During last year’s regional ISO First, ATC numbers are still indirectly affect the operation and conferences, several industry calculated on an individual company expansion of the grid. There are more participants described three ‘‘reliability basis in many areas of the country. than 100 owners of the Nation’s grid near misses’’ in the Midwest. The three Separate calculations of ATC by who operate about 140 separate control incidents on July 22, 1993, August 7, individual companies are areas.64 In addition, there are 10 1996 and July 11, 1997 came very close fundamentally inconsistent with the regional reliability councils, 23 security to producing major outages throughout physical reality of an interconnected coordinators, 5 regional transmission the Midwest.70 While there has been transmission system. An individual groups (RTGs) and 5 independent some improvement in coordination transmission provider may post ATC system operators. With so many entities, among different systems, we believe that numbers in good faith, and attempt to the lines of authority and there are limits to the amount of provide transmission service based on communication are not always as clear coordination that can be achieved these numbers, only to learn later that as they should be.65 An additional between separate organizations, the transfer capability that it thought complication is that many of these especially if they are competing for the was available no longer exists because entities also own generation or have a right to use the same limited of decisions made by other transmission decision making process that continues transmission capacity and sometimes providers that it did not know about at to be dominated by traditional vertically competing for the same customers. the time it made its calculations. integrated utilities.66 Therefore, their While competition requires Accurate ATC numbers would require independence and commercial decentralization, we think that reliable reliable and timely information about neutrality as grid operators is subject to and efficient grid operation requires question. more coordination. The Commission load, generation, facility outages and It appears that information that is believes that a beneficial platform for transactions on neighboring systems. critical for maintaining reliability is not both competition and reliability is a Individual transmission operators will being shared as readily now as was single independent grid operator that generally not have this information. generally the case in the past. NERC sees the ‘‘big picture’’ by having access They also may apply differing recently observed that there is a growing to real-time information on conditions assumptions and criteria to ATC ‘‘reluctance on the part of the market and schedules for the entire regional calculations, which may produce wide participants to share operational real- grid.71 Such an entity does not exist in variations in posted ATC values for the time and operational planning data with several regions of the country. As a same transmission path.73 All these TPs [transmission providers].’’ 67 This is consequence, there is, at present, a considerations make it virtually disconnect between electrical flows and impossible for an individual Power Wheeling and Dealing: Technological information flows that could have major transmission provider that operates one Considerations for Increasing Competition, OTA–E– reliability consequences. 409, May 1989, at 110–11. 72 64 A control area is an electrical system bounded b. Determining Available Transmission ATC is a measure of transfer capability remaining in the physical transmission network for by interconnection (tie-line) metering and Capability (ATC) telemetry. Within a control area, resources are further commercial activity over and above already balanced against load, and generation is regulated Any transportation service provider committed uses. TTC is the amount of electric to maintain interchange schedules with other should know how much commodity it power that can be transferred over the control areas and to achieve the target frequency (60 interconnected transmission network in a reliable hz) for the entire Interconnection. See NERC can carry. For electric transmission manner based on certain specified conditions, Operating Policies Manual (available on the NERC North American Reliability Council, Glossary of website at www.nerc.com). 68 Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at 62, 158–159. Terms (1996). 65 See, e.g., Western Systems Coordinating 69 DOE Task Force Report at vii and xi. 73 This, in turn, creates other problems. Council, EL99–23–000, comments of Enron Power 70 Regional ISO Conference (Indianapolis), According to NERC, the ‘‘inconsistent calculation Marketing, Inc. at 4–5. transcript at 24–29. [of ATC] can increase the use of TLR and other 66 See, e.g., New England Power Pool, 86 FERC 71 The importance of a single operator for operational complexities, which has the potential to ¶ 61,262 at 61,965 (1999). reliability was stressed in comments of AMEREN cause reliability problems.’’ NERC, Reliability 67 NERC, Reliability Assessment 1998–2007 at 39 and Commonwealth Edison. See Regional ISO Assessment, 1998–2007, September, 1998, at 40. (1998). Conference (Indianapolis), transcript at 19–29. (See definition of TLR in section II.)

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31400 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules part of a large interconnected grid to solution, it may not always be cost allow transmission customers to ‘‘buy- calculate ATC accurately.74 effective. Because of this, we believe through’’ (i.e., firm up) transmission Second, requests for transmission that an efficiently operated transmission rights on congested flow gates. After six service are usually based on ‘‘contract system should have in place months of its one year experiment, we path’’ scheduling. This is the practice of mechanisms for pricing congestion and note that Commonwealth concluded finding a contiguous chain of utilities then managing congestion through that it is ‘‘difficult for one transmission from the power supplier to the power changes in the pattern of dispatch. owner to identify and implement consumer and contracting with those Without mechanisms for determining redispatch’’ when the physical utilities to transmit the power. The the cost of congestion, it will be limitations and cost effective options for implicit assumption is that all the virtually impossible to make rational, relief exist on other transmission power flows through the utilities along cost effective decisions to expand the systems that are beyond their reach.80 this ‘‘contract path.’’ In fact, the power grid. Third, RTOs will be able to establish divides up and flows along all paths The Commission believes that and define rights to the use of the grid. from the supplier to the buyer. All efficient congestion management is best At present, with multiple and utilities in the region are affected. performed at the regional level. At independent operators of the grid, Contract path scheduling provides little present, outside of the operational ISOs, individual users and owners have or no information about actual flows on transaction curtailment through unclear and conflicting rights to the the grid.75 In its October 1997 report to transmission loading relief (TLR) grid. This makes it difficult to establish the Commission, the Commercial procedures is the dominant approach congestion markets. A congestion Practices Working Group commented for dealing with congestion in the market, like any other market, cannot that: ‘‘Reserving and scheduling Eastern Interconnection. NERC has develop in the absence of clear rights.81 transmission on a contract path basis reported that its TLR procedures were Such rights, whether held by does not even closely resemble the invoked 329 times between July 1997 transmission users or owners, are a physical impact on the system.’’ 76 We and October 1998 on the Eastern necessary prerequisite for establishing note that NERC is encouraging Interconnection.78 Current TLR congestion markets. Without initiatives that would move the industry procedures are cumbersome, inefficient establishing such rights, the industry toward recognizing actual flows in and disruptive to bulk power markets will continue to grapple with the scheduling.77 because they rely exclusively on problem of incomplete markets. Thus, it c. Managing Congestion physical measures of flows with no is difficult to achieve efficient and attempt to assess the relative costs of competitive regional bulk power Congestion occurs when requests for different congestion management markets if congestion on the transmission service exceed the options. Moreover, TLR actions are transmission grid is not accurately capability of the grid. When typically taken by one utility without priced. transmission constraints limit the assessing the costs imposed on other d. Planning and Expanding amount of power that can be grid users. This inevitably raises the Transmission Facilities transmitted, the loads on the system suspicion that the TLR request could be may not be able to be served by the motivated by competitive rather than Transmission planning and expansion least-cost mix of available generators. reliability concerns. For these reasons, are more difficult today than three years The constraints may reflect voltage, the Commission has encouraged NERC ago. While uncertainty has always been temperature and dynamic limits. to develop regional market approaches a fact of life for any transmission Relieving congestion leads to a more to managing congestion.79 planning exercise, the level of costly pattern of generation dispatch. The Commission recognizes, however, uncertainty has increased with the The cost of congestion is the additional that NERC may not be able to comply increasing number and distance of energy cost associated with the new fully with this policy in the absence of unbundled transactions and the wider pattern of dispatch. regional organizations that have the variation in generation dispatch We recognize that even optimally authority and ability to promote patterns. Uncertainty has also increased designed systems will normally regional congestion markets. There are because: experience at least occasional three considerations that support this Generation developers are reluctant to congestion that at times can be conclusion. disclose their plans for future capacity significant and costly. In general, First, a regional organization would additions. Similarly, utilities intending to congestion can be managed in two ways: have accurate and reliable information purchase from others are reluctant to the construction of new transmission about existing and possible future speculate on whom or where their suppliers facilities that increase grid capacity; or conditions on the grid. Such might be, making modeling of such the redispatch of existing or new information is generally not available to transactions for transmission analysis virtually impossible.82 generators to reduce flows or create individual transmission providers. counterflows on the constrained facility. RTOs would have this information One troubling consequence of this The complete elimination of congestion because they would function as both uncertainty has been a noticeable would typically require the construction regional security coordinators and decline in planned transmission of new transmission facilities. While regional transmission providers. investments. NERC recently reported this may be a physically effective Second, congestion management is that the level of planned transmission best performed at a regional level. This 74 In addition, it has been frequently alleged that is shown in the largely unsuccessful 80 Commonwealth Edison, Interim Report on individual transmission may intentionally post efforts of Commonwealth Edison to Non-Firm Redispatch, Docket No. ER98–2279, inaccurate ATC numbers to favor their own power December 17, 1998, at 4, 10. marketing efforts. These allegations are discussed in create congestion markets that would 81 Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen, Law and section III.A.2. Economics, Scott, Foresman and Company, 1988, at 75 See Allegheny Power Service Corporation et 78 North American Electricity Reliability Council, 91 (‘‘From a legal viewpoint, property is a bundle al., 78 FERC ¶ 61,314 at 62,339. Interim Market Interface Committee, Minutes of Jan. of rights’’). 76 October 31, 1997 report, at 39. 12 and 13, 1999 meeting, Exhibit D. 82 NERC, ‘‘Reliability Assessment, 1998–2007,’’ 77 See NERC, 85 FERC at 62,363. 79 See NERC, 85 FERC at 62,364. September 1998, at 39.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31401 additions is significantly lower than five erodes. Incentives for transmission of transmission, pancaking reduces the years ago despite an overall increase in investment need to be related more to size of geographic power markets. This, load growth and unbundled the power needs of the region than the in turn, can result in concentrated transmission service.83 While this could generation stock of the transmission electricity markets. Balkanization of simply reflect better utilization of the owners. electricity markets hurts electricity existing grid, the Commission is Third, the transmission owner that consumers, in general, by forcing them concerned that it may also reflect an does invest in transmission to overcome to pay higher prices than they would in incompatibility of existing planning a constraint may be concerned about a larger, more competitive, bulk power institutions with the new market recovering its investment. Under market.86 realities. traditional ratemaking practices, it must The Commission has heard from We are also concerned that the recover its investment over a long many states about the negative effects of existing approach to transmission period of time, typically thirty years. pancaked rates in their efforts to pricing may not sufficiently encourage But subsequent generation construction introduce retail competition. At this the investments in transmission on the power-poor side of the constraint time, about 21 states have introduced or facilities that are needed to improve the may obviate the need for the line and are planning to introduce competition reliability and efficiency of the grid. threaten recovery of its capital cost. In for retail loads under their Inadequate investment could be a major addition, where there is higher risk, a jurisdiction.87 Because the Commission impediment to the development of higher return commensurate with the has jurisdiction over transmission regional bulk power markets and a higher risk may be appropriate. To service and rates for unbundled retail possible source of future reliability support this, customers and regulators customers, we have an obligation to problems. There are at least three would want assurance that the decision address these concerns.88 A retail choice concerns about the way transmission to invest in transmission is made in the initiative, no matter how well designed prices are set. best interests of the region, considering at the state level, may fail if the pool of First, although there are varying not only all the transmission options but potential competitors is effectively degrees of investment coordination also the generation and demand limited to a few nearby supply sources around the country, utilities ultimately management alternatives to because of pancaked transmission make transmission investment decisions transmission construction. Therefore, as charges. individually rather than through joint discussed below, we will consider This concern of pancaked rates was decisions that internalize commercial concrete proposals from regional highlighted to us in the recent and reliability effects of the investment. transmission organizations for consultations with our state commission It may be unclear which utility should transmission pricing reforms and the colleagues. Several state commissioners have the responsibility for expanding explicit use of pricing incentives to emphasized that the success of their capacity to relieve a transmission encourage RTOs to make efficient retail competition initiatives is related constraint. For example, power flows investments in new transmission to the adoption of non-pancaked scheduled by one utility with ample facilities. transmission tariffs and other ISO transmission capacity on its own lines policies.89 We believe that the may overload a neighbor’s lines. The e. Pancaked Transmission Rates likelihood of success for existing and first utility may be unwilling to expand With the exception of power pools, planned retail choice initiatives is transmission capacity because it needs open access under Order No. 888 significantly enhanced if the no extra transmission capacity itself, focuses on individual, existing Commission can ensure fair and and the second utility may be unwilling transmission providers. Order No. 888 efficient access to a regional market to expand transmission capacity does not require transmission pricing without pancaked transmission access because it collects no revenues from the reforms that are needed to support charges, and that we need to take steps power flows scheduled by others. In a efficient and competitive bulk power beyond Order No. 888 to accomplish multi-utility region, decisions about markets. The ‘‘missing’’ reforms this. where to site new facilities and who include, among others, the elimination f. Conclusion should pay for capacity expansions can of pancaked transmission access be even more complex unless a regional charges, the use of reservation-based (as We believe that the preferred solution body provides a forum for discussions opposed to load-based) transmission to the engineering and economic and a method for resolving disputes. tariffs and the availability of secondary problems discussed in this section is a Second, the motivation for markets in transmission rights.84 In this regional solution. Notwithstanding it constructing new facilities is changing section, we will focus on the problems success, Order No. 888 has not been as the industry changes. Formerly, a created by the widespread pancaking of able to produce a fully efficient and utility built transmission primarily to transmission access charges.85 competitive outcome because it does not deliver power from its generating plants In most of the United States, a address ATC calculations, congestion to its customers. Inadequate transmission customer pays separate, transmission would have hurt power additive access charges every time its 86 While it is difficult to estimate the exact impact contract path crosses the boundary of a on consumers, we note that there have been studies sales, the principal source of utility of the deregulated British power markets that have revenue. Today, facility expansion may transmission owner. By raising the cost found excessive concentration in generation has be needed to transmit power sold by produced prices 20 to 40 percent above competitive others. As generation and transmission 84 See, e.g., Capacity Reservation Open Access levels at certain times. Richard Green and David ownership become increasingly separate Transmission Tariffs, Notice of Proposed Newbery, Competition in the British Electricity Spot Rulemaking, FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 32,519 (1996) Market, 100 J. Pol. Econ., 929, 1992. and as many states implement or even and Inquiry Concerning the Commission’s Pricing 87 ‘‘Status of Electric Utility Deregulation as of merely consider retail access, the Policy for Transmission Services Provided by May 1, 1999,’’ Energy Information Administration. transmission owner’s traditional Public Utilities Under the Federal Power Act: 88 Order No. 888, FERC Stats. and Regs. at incentive for making new transmission Policy Statement, 69 FERC ¶ 61,086 (1994). 31,651–52. 85 We did, however, require non-pancaked rates 89 See, e.g., Comments of Gerald Thorpe investment to support its power sales for power pools that offer non-pancaked rates to (Maryland) and President Herbert Tate (New their own members in Order No. 888. Order No. Jersey), RTO Conference (Washington, DC), 83 Id. at 7. 888, FERC Stats, and Regs. at 31,727–28. transcript at 37–39; 49–51.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31402 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules management, reliability, pancaking of It was to eliminate this inherent to the Commission’s enforcement transmission access charges, and grid tendency of a vertically-integrated hotline, oral and written comments planning and expansion. These are utility to favor its own power sales that made in conjunction with public regional problems. Therefore, we are Order Nos. 888 and 889 required conferences held by the Commission, proposing a rule to encourage the utilities to functionally unbundle their and pleadings filed with the development of independent regional transmission and power merchant Commission in various dockets. transmission operators that can promote services. Generally, functional Compared to the situation before both electric system reliability and unbundling requires a public utility to: Order No. 888, transmission-owning competitive generation markets. separate its transmission system utilities must now resort to more subtle functions and staff from wholesale means to frustrate their marketing 2. Actual and Perceived Discriminatory generation marketing functions and competitors and favor their own Conduct by Transmission Owners to staff; abide by a standard of conduct to marketing interests. Continued Favor Their Own or Affiliated Merchant define impermissible contact between discrimination may be conscious and Operations generation and transmission personnel; deliberate, but it may also result from In addition to operational take transmission services under the the failure to make sufficient efforts to inefficiencies impeding full same open access tariff of general change the way integrated utilities have competition, there also exist questions applicability as do others; state separate done business for many years. In either about residual discrimination in the rates for wholesale generation, case, the tendency of transmission provision of transmission services by transmission, and ancillary services; owners to confer advantages, however public utilities. As discussed below, and rely on the same Open Access subtle, upon their own marketing many in the industry have expressed a Same-Time Information System (OASIS) interests is discriminatory as against fundamental mistrust of transmission that its transmission customers rely on other marketers. owners. In addition, there are to obtain information about its In the sections that follow, we will allegations, and in some circumstances transmission system when buying or outline the information derived from findings, of actual discrimination by selling power.92 The Commission filings and other sources about transmission owners. We discuss below imposed these requirements to establish remaining impediments to competition indications of discriminatory conduct a foundation for open grid access and caused by continued discriminatory by vertically integrated utilities and competitive electricity markets. conduct by transmission owners. We seek further comment on utility Functional unbundling did not note, and we are well aware, that many practices subsequent to Order No. 888. change the incentives of vertically- allegations that have been made in Utilities that control monopoly integrated utilities to use their various forums are unproved, and transmission facilities and also have transmission assets to favor their own perceived discrimination may in fact power marketing interests 90 have poor generation, but instead attempted to turn out to have justifiable explanations. incentives to provide equal quality reduce the ability of utilities to act on It is often hard to determine, on an after- transmission service to their power those incentives. In Order No. 888, the the-fact basis, whether an action was marketing competitors. It is, in fact, in Commission received and considered motivated by an intent to favor affiliates the economic self-interest of numerous comments that functional or simply resulted from the need to transmission-owning utilities to favor unbundling was unlikely to work, and serve native load customers or the their own power marketing interests and that more drastic restructuring, such as impartial application of operating or frustrate their competitors. As the corporate unbundling, was needed.93 technical requirements. Given our Commission stated in Order No. 888: However, the Commission decided at considerable difficulty in determining It is in the economic self-interest of the time to adopt what it considered to whether there has been compliance with transmission monopolists, particularly those be the less intrusive and less costly our regulations, the question arises with high-cost generation assets, to deny remedy. whether functional unbundling is an transmission or to offer transmission on a Clearly, Order No. 888 has resulted in appropriate long-term regulatory basis that is inferior to that which they wholesale power markets becoming solution. provide themselves. The inherent more competitive, more transmission We consider allegations of characteristics of monopolists make it services being made available to more discrimination, even if not reduced to inevitable that they will act in their own self- potential users than ever before, and formal findings, to be a serious concern interest to the detriment of others by refusing transmission and/or providing inferior generally lower transaction costs. for two reasons. First, we may be seeing transmission to competitors in the bulk However, market participants only the ‘‘tip of the iceberg.’’ We are power markets to favor their own generation, increasingly have alleged that numerous aware that instances of actual and it is our duty to eradicate unduly transmission service problems related to discriminatory conduct may be discriminatory practices.91 discriminatory conduct remain, and that undetectable in a non-transparent these problems are impeding The exercise of transmission market market. In addition, there are significant competitive wholesale power markets.94 power allows transmission providers disincentives to filing and pursuing Our information about alleged with power marketing interests to formal complaints that would result in continued discriminatory practices benefit in the short-run by making more definitive findings. Transmission comes from several sources. These power sales at higher prices, and benefit customers often tell the Commission’s include formal complaints filed with the in the long-run by deterring entry by enforcement staff that they are reluctant Commission, informal complaints made other market participants. As a result, to make even informal complaints prices to the Nation’s electricity because of concerns that the 92 Id. at 31,654–55. consumers will be higher than need be. Commission will not take strong action, 93 Id. at 31,653–54. and fear, perhaps most importantly, of 94 See, e.g., of Roger Fontes on behalf of the 90 The term power marketing interests is used as retribution by their transmission Northern California Power Agency, Regional ISO 95 shorthand herein to include the utility’s own Conference (Phoenix), Transcript at 136 (‘‘In supplier. We also have been told that wholesale merchant function as well as any general, orders 888 and 889 have not fully remedied affiliates with wholesale merchant functions. undue discrimination in providing transmission 95 See Comments of Dan Jones on behalf of the 91 Order No. 888, FERC Stats. and Regs. at 31,682. service in this country.’’) Public Utilities Commission of Texas, Regional ISO

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31403 the complaint process is costly and share operational real-time and system so as not to give its generation a time-consuming,96 and that the planning data with transmission competitive advantage. I think this is self- 102 Commission’s remedies for transmission providers because of the suspicion that evident. violations do not impose sufficient they could be providing an advantage to While it should not be assumed that financial harms on the transmission their affiliated marketing groups.99 such problems exist in every provider to act as a significant The functional unbundling policy circumstance, clearly many market participants do not believe the market deterrent.97 underlying Order No. 888 was an can yet be trusted with respect to their Perhaps the most problematic aspect attempt to regulate the behavior of commercial interests, at least in some of relying on after-the-fact enforcement transmission owners. There are growing areas. We now turn to some of the areas in the fast-paced business of power indications, however, that the that have produced the most complaints marketing, however, is that there may be conflicting incentives that vertically about continuing discrimination. no adequate remedy for lost short-term integrated utilities have regarding sale opportunities. For example, the transmission access may be too difficult a. Calculation and Posting of Available Electric Power Supply Association has to police. Many have asserted that it is Transmission Capability in a Manner told us: not realistic even to expect functional Favorable to the Transmission Provider Furthermore, even if the exercise of such unbundling to eliminate attempts by Perhaps the most significant discrimination could be adequately transmission owners to gain economic complaint with respect to alleged documented and packaged in the form of a advantage. Companies have an discriminatory conduct under complaint under Section 206 of the Federal obligation to maximize value for functional unbundling concerns the Power Act under a more streamlined shareholders, and it should be no complaint process contemplated by the important function of calculating and Commission, it would still be extremely surprise that they will be aggressive in posting the amount of transmission costly and inefficient to deal with such doing so. For example, in comments to capability that is available on a complaints on a case-by-case basis. More the Commission in the Order No. 888 transmission provider’s system. The than likely, the potential power transactions proceeding, the Federal Trade transmission provider is required to for which transmission principally was Commission advised the Commission calculate and post on its OASIS the TTC sought would disappear by the time a that a functional unbundling approach and ATC for each posted transmission Commission ruling was obtained.98 ‘‘* * * would leave in place the path.103 ATC is the capacity that is Accordingly, actual problems with incentive and opportunity for some stated to be available for transmission functional unbundling may be more utilities to exercise market power in the service requests. As we discussed above pervasive than formally adjudicated regulated system. Preventing them from in Section III.A.1, it is not possible to complaints would suggest, and the doing so by enforcing regulations to calculate accurately the transmission informal allegations we hear provide control their behavior may prove capability of one system without valuable insight. difficult.’’ A representative of Lafayette knowing the flows scheduled by all Second, we consider the allegations of Utilities told us at the New Orleans ISO other interconnected transmission discrimination to be serious because, if Conference: providers in the region. Given this nothing else, they represent a Notwithstanding functional separation and technical problem, it may be impossible perception by market participants that the requirement not to discriminate, to distinguish an inaccurate ATC the market is not working fairly because transmission personnel are well aware of the presented in good faith from an such participants know that integrated interests of their company’s generation inaccurate ATC presented for the utilities have the incentive and function, and can find a way to give purpose of favoring the transmission opportunity to discriminate. Mistrust in preferential treatment. * * * 100 provider’s marketing interests. the market can itself be a serious A representative of a Wisconsin Transmission providers with power impediment to competition. If market public utility told us: marketing interests have incentives to participants perceive that other understate ATC on those paths valuable participants have an unfair advantage Administration of the tariff entails a to its marketing competitors, or to divert myriad of decisions that require discretion, through the affiliation with the transmission capacity so that it is transmission provider, it can inhibit as well as ‘‘technical’’ judgments (like [available transmission capability] and available for use by its own marketing their willingness to participate in the [capacity benefit margin]) that have interests. If there is insufficient ATC, market, including, for example, building significant competitive ramifications. It is competitors may be forced to forego new generating units, thus thwarting the inevitable that these decisions and judgments power sale transactions or use a less development of robust competition. will be made with competitive concerns in desirable alternative path if one is Such mistrust can also harm reliability. mind. Functional separation does not solve available. As stated by NERC, there is a reluctance this problem.101 The Commission has found violations on the part of market participants to Similarly, at our regional ISO of ATC postings in three cases. In conference in Indianapolis, we were Washington Water Power Company,104 Conference (Kansas City), Transcript at 1985 (‘‘And told: the transmission owning utility showed we’ve also heard that these entities are hesitant to that it had no firm ATC, which would bring those complaints forward because they have In a capital intensive industry where a high have discouraged any potential to deal with both sides of that utility’’). percentage of the investment is in generation 96 We note that we have recently issued a Final assets, it is inconceivable that a utility, which marketers who needed firm Rule regarding complaint procedures designed to in some cases has very high generation cost, transmission service to make a sale. make them more efficient. See Complaint However, the utility then offered its Procedures, Final Rule, Docket No. RM98–13–000, would somehow manage its transmission 86 FERC ¶ 61,324 (issued March 31, 1999). power marketing affiliate, Avista 97 Comments of National Energy Marketers 99 NERC Reliability Assessment 1998–2007, at 39. Association, Docket No. RM98–5–000 (filed January 100 Comments of Frank Ledoux on behalf of 102 Comments of Kenneth Hegemann on behalf of 22, 1999). Lafayette Utilities System, Regional ISO Conference American Municipal Power, Ohio, Regional ISO (New Orleans), Transcript at 180. Conference (Indianapolis), Transcript at 174. 98 Motion to Intervene and Comments of Electric 103 See 18 CFR 37.6(b) (1998). Power Supply Association in Support of Petition for 101 Statement of Roy Thilly on behalf of Rulemaking, Docket No. RM98–5–000 (filed Sept. Wisconsin Public Power, Inc. at 2, Docket No. 104 83 FERC ¶ 61,097 (1998), further order, 83 21, 1998), at 3. PL98–5–000 (filed April 15, 1998). FERC ¶ 61,282 (1998).

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31404 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

Energy, an ‘‘interruptible firm’’ internal system capacity for native load. The denied transmission service and then transmission service that was not ISO or other transmission entity can also improperly provided it to its merchant available to competitors. As the eliminate the incentive to engage in strategic group.110 curtailments of generation that a Aside from these cases involving Commission explained in finding a transmission operator’s generation service violation of Order No. 888: competitors own and can remove any formal complaints, there have been a Avista received a preference from incentive to game OASIS operations. This number of other complaints with Washington Water Power that was not will promote generation entry and respect to ATC calculation. For available to any of its competitors. Simply competition, since a properly structured ISO example, our enforcement staff receives stated, Avista’s customer was deprived of the or other transmission entity would have no hotline complaints concerning ATC benefit of choosing among all potential economic stake in favoring certain market posting problems. The enforcement staff power suppliers. participants over others and potential has confirmed a number of such ATC The case of Wisconsin Public Power entrants would likely see the transmission errors. In most cases, these errors were Inc. SYSTEM v. Wisconsin Public market as fair. An ISO, therefore, could help corrected within several months of to solve the problems established in the Service Corporation, et al. (Wisconsin instant complaints.107 having them pointed out, and the 105 Public) demonstrates both the The case of Morgan Stanley Capital utilities often offered explanations difficulties and suspicions of Group v. Illinois Power Company 108 based on hardware or software discrimination resulting from when a also demonstrated problems associated problems. We make no judgment transmission customer requests with ATC and a transmission provider’s whether such identified errors were an transmission service from an integrated use of its system for its own purposes. intentional attempt to thwart utility. WPPI was seeking additional Morgan Stanley complained that Illinois competition; however, they had the network transmission service from both Power failed to accurately post ATC, potential to have that effect. In July 1997, the Commission held a Wisconsin Public Service Corporation failed to award transmission capacity in technical conference concerning how (WPSC) and Wisconsin Power & Light a non-discriminatory manner, and well the OASIS system was working. Company (WP&L). In both cases, the allocated transmission in favor of its Several commenters suggested that requests were denied because of claims own bulk power marketing arm. Illinois erroneous ATC calculation and posting that the transmission owners were using Power admitted the ATC posting error, was hurting competition. A all available capacity. In the case of and the Commission found other representative from Electric WPSC, the Commission initially found violations of its tariff in responding to Clearinghouse told us that there is a that the utility had not properly Morgan Stanley’s request for service. reserved capacity for its merchant pervasive problem of incorrect or stale Although the Commission initially also information on the OASIS sites, and that function and directed that it recompute found that Illinois Power did not its ATC without that reservation. After ‘‘competition is blocked when this designate its own network resources in occurs.’’ That same representative stated WPSC submitted additional the same manner as network customers documentation, the Commission that very little firm ATC is offered due are required to designate them, Illinois to the utility’s caution or strategy, and accepted some of WPSC’s merchant Power disputed this, and after showing priority, but still found that it had that some providers will not offer firm that its network resource was legitimate, ATC because they do not want to curtail violated its obligations under its tariff, the Commission dismissed its rehearing and that its actions raised serious their own transactions.111 At the same as moot. Nevertheless, this case conference, a representative from the concerns about the functional demonstrates that a combination of ATC separation of its staff. With respect to American Public Power Association told errors and unclear procedures feeds the us: WP&L, the Commission found that it mistrust in the marketplace with respect provided unduly preferential treatment ATC is often understated and to a transmission owner’s ability to use inconsistently posted on adjacent OASIS to its merchant function, had been its system to favor itself. nodes. Inter-regional coordination is lacking. changing its ATC without posting those We also have currently pending This fact limits the usefulness of the system changes on OASIS, and had been before us several formal complaints for commercial purposes.112 computing ATC where none exists.106 alleging that a transmission provider is In March 1998, a group referring to The Wisconsin Public cases improperly keeping its transmission themselves as power industry demonstrate, if nothing else, the capability for its merchant function. In stakeholders 113 filed a petition for difficulty of achieving, and enforcing, one case, a power marketer asserts that rulemaking on electric power industry functional separation of a utility’s a transmission provider has refused structure.114 Although we are not transmission and merchant functions. service over an interconnection on the addressing here the specific relief they These types of cases require substantial basis that the transmission provider are requesting in that Petition, the Commission investigative and needs all the ATC for native load. The adjudicative resources, not to mention marketer has alleged that the 110 Arizona Public Service Company v. Idaho the resources of the parties involved. Power Company, Docket No. EL99–44–000 (filed transmission provider’s claims of March 3, 1999). The Commission recognized in reliability concerns are a mask to block Wisconsin Public how RTOs could help competitors from importing power into 111 Open Access Same Time Information eliminate these problems. The Technical Conference, Docket No. RM95–9–003 the transmission provider’s system (July 18, 1997), transcript at 23. Commission stated: when the transmission provider has 112 Id. at 28. As we recently explained in Louisville Gas higher cost generation available.109 In & Electric Company, et al., 82 FERC ¶ 61,308 another recent formal complaint filing, 113 The group consists of a number of power at 62,222 & n. 39 (1998), a properly it is alleged that a transmission provider marketers and users, including, for example, structured ISO, or other transmission entity Coalition for a Competitive Electric Market, ELCON, can eliminate the potential for the strategic Electric Clearinghouse, Inc., and Enron Power 107 Id. at 61,859. Marketing, Inc. use of a transmission owner’s priority to use 108 83 FERC ¶ 61,204, order granting clarification 114 Petition for a Rulemaking on Electric Power and dismissing reh’g, 83 FERC ¶ 61,299 (1998). Industry Structure and Commercial Practices and 105 83 FERC ¶ 61,198 (1998), order on reh’g, 84 109 Aquila Power Corporation v. Entergy Services, Motion to Clarify or Reconsider Certain Open- FERC ¶ 61,120 (1998). Inc., Docket No. EL98–36–000, Amended and Access Commercial Practices, Docket No. RM98–5– 106 83 FERC at 61,860. Restated Complaint at 6 (filed June 23, 1998). 000.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31405

Petition does contain a number of fairly notwithstanding Order 888’s mandate of non- observed that the load serving entities specific allegations indicating problems discriminatory transmission access. that own generating capacity within the in the market. For example, the Petition The representative then went on to PJM control area appeared to benefit asserts: describe an instance where a marketer from this practice as suppliers in Concepts such as ATC and the OASIS have could not complete a 10 MW power sale addition to benefitting as load serving become vehicles for obstructing and because of transmission restrictions, but entities.123 The Commission set the curtailing, rather than accommodating, then the transmission provider offered issue for further briefing and it remains transactions. Incumbents are able to deny to supply the capacity itself.120 The pending. In another pending proceeding new entrants access to critical, accurate concerning WPSC’s CBM calculation, information across control areas. This can representative concluded that Orders take the form of out-of-date or incorrect Nos. 888 and 889 have not fully two of the parties assert that CBM postings of ATC or, in some instances, eliminated undue discrimination and ‘‘removes firm transmission capacity intentional withholding of actual ATC. this will not be achieved ‘‘as long as from open access offerings, thereby Regardless of the cause, more transmission transmission owners are allowed to raising an unnecessary and unjustifiable capability is physically available than is fence in transmission-dependent barrier to competition,’’ and ‘‘fosters being released for sale.115 utilities and others located on their discrimination by giving merchant The Petition alleges the existence of transmission system to enhance the functions gatekeeping control over ‘‘ATC exclusions, inaccuracies and value of their generation assets at CBM-related transmission access and by misuses that deny new entrants the increased cost to competitors.’’ giving individual interface transmission ability to evaluate market opportunities, One specific area where there have owners broad discretion over where and and therefore, prevent reasonable access been allegations that transmission how much CBM is withdrawn from to the grid.’’ 116 The Petition cited owners are using ATC to favor their own ATC.’’ 124 In the same proceeding, specific instances of inconsistent ATC merchant operations concerns the Electric Clearinghouse, Inc. asserts that calculations for the same calculation and use of Capacity Benefit ‘‘the CBM set-aside embodies undue interconnection by the systems on either Margin (CBM). Although there is no discrimination in access to the side; an OASIS showing ATC that was single accepted definition, CBM is monopoly owned transmission wires not in fact made available for generally used to mean an amount of because it ensures certain users a scheduling; and an OASIS showing no transmission transfer capability reserved priority over the reserved transmission ATC but the utility then using that path by load serving entities to ensure access interface capacity to the exclusion of for a sale.117 to generation from interconnected other firm transmission users.’’ 125 EPSA, the trade association systems to meet their generation As we stated above, we fully representing certain power suppliers, reliability requirements.121 Some recognize that these are assertions made filed comments in support of the utilities subtract CBM from their total in pending cases in which we have not Petition and echoed many of the same transmission capability to arrive at ATC. yet made findings. They are referenced experiences: There is no uniform method for here as illustrative of the suspicions in calculating CBM. The ability to the industry of continuing opportunities EPSA agrees that this discriminatory withhold CBM to ensure reliability not for discriminatory treatment that may conduct persists principally because of the disadvantage certain competitors where continuing incentives and opportunity for only confers a reliability advantage for transmission owning public utilities covertly the transmission provider, but may give generation owners continue to operate to discriminate against other transmission the transmission provider the transmission. customers, by, for example, minimizing opportunity to selectively withhold b. Standards of Conduct Violations reported available transmission capability ATC over paths and interconnections (ATC), delaying or inaccurately posting ATC useful to its generation competitors. To ensure the functional separation of on the OASIS, or otherwise manipulating The use of CBM is an issue that is a transmission provider’s transmission market operations.118 currently being considered in several and merchant functions, the EPSA further stated that, ‘‘The cases pending before the Commission adopted standards of manipulation of ATC—whether with the Commission.122 For example, with conduct that prohibit the transmission intent to deceive or as the result of poor respect to the formation of the PJM ISO, provider’s marketing interest employees OASIS management—is a serious the Commission noted that it was not from having any more access to entrance barrier for competitive power demonstrated that the PJM Pool’s transmission system information than is suppliers.’’ 119 historical practice of withholding firm available on OASIS, and requires the At our regional ISO conference in transmission interface capacity as a transmission provider’s transmission New Orleans, we were told by a substitute for installed generating employees to provide impartial service representative from the Public Service reserves is consistent with our open to all transmission customers.126 If a Commission of Yazoo City, Mississippi, access policies. The Commission transmission provider’s marketing of a specific instance of what it interests have favorable access to considered to be discriminatory 120 Comments of Rebert D. Priest on behalf of the transmission system information or treatment: Public Service Commission of Yazoo City, Regional receive more favorable treatment of their ISO Conference (New Orleans), Transcript at 201– transmission requests, this obviously Yazoo City, as a participant, has 03. After hearing this assertion, Entergy Services, experienced first hand an individual Inc. filed a letter in which it stated that it was creates a disadvantage for marketing [transmission] owner’s continued ability to unable to identify any Entergy-imposed restrictions competitors. use its ownership and control [of] that would have prevented the power purchase. See In spite of the standards of conduct, Letter in Docket No. PL98–5–000 (filed July 1, there continues to be a perception by transmission to disadvantage competitors, 1998). 121 NERC, Available Transfer Capability 123 115 Petition at 7–8. Definitions and Determinations (June 1996), at 14. PJM, 81 FERC at 62,277. 124 116 Id. at 15. 122 The Commission recently noticed a technical Protest of Madison Gas & Electric Company and Wisconsin Public Power Inc., Docket No. EL98– 117 Id. at Appendix D. conference, to be held May 20 and 21, 1999, on the issue of CBM. See Capacity Benefit Margin in 2–003 at 3 (filed August 21, 1998). 118 EPSA Comments, Docket No. RM98–5–000, at Computing Available Transmission Capacity, 125 Protest of Electric Clearinghouse, Inc., Docket 2 (filed September 21, 1998). Notice of Technical Conference, Docket No. EL99– No. EL98–2–003, at 3 (filed Ausust 21, 1998). 119 Id. at 8. 46–000. 126 See 18 CFR Part 37 (1998).

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31406 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules many market participants that the We are increasingly concerned about failing to follow curtailment priorities transmission provider’s marketing and the extensive regulatory oversight and established in Order No. 888.133 All of transmission interests are not fully administrative burdens that have these actions by transmission providers functionally separated. In cases in resulted from policing compliance with may provide subtle competitive which the Commission has issued standards of conduct. We have advantages in wholesale markets. For formal orders, we have found serious discussed above some of the cases in example, for those purchasers for whom concerns with functional separation and which the Commission had to address service reliability is particularly improper information sharing with potential violations of the standards of important, purchasing power from a respect to at least four public utilities.127 conduct. In addition, transmission transmission provider may be viewed as In addition, our enforcement staff providers were required to file their offering enhanced reliability. receives numerous telephone calls about standards of conduct for Commission Like the issue of calculating ATC, the standards of conduct issues; some of review. In response, the Commission fact that curtailment of service in times these are simply questions about what is initially issued 8 orders concerning 126 of congestion is in the control of the permissible conduct, but others are public utilities’ standards of conduct.130 transmission provider, who also has complaints of a violation. In a number Generally, these orders required the power transactions on the affected of cases, our staff has verified non- utilities to revise their standards of transmission lines, leads to suspicions compliance with the standards of conduct and post, on the OASIS, of discriminatory behavior that are conduct.128 organizational charts and job difficult to verify. For example, a The petitioners for rulemaking in descriptions for transmission/reliability representative of Blue Ridge Power Docket No. RM98–5–000 allege that and wholesale merchant function Agency told us at one of our ISO there are common instances of employees. The Commission conferences: ‘‘unauthorized exchanges of subsequently issued 13 more orders There simply is no shaking the notion that competitively valuable information on requiring the public utilities to further integrated generation and transmission- reservations and schedules between revise their standards of conduct and/or owning utilities have strategic and transmission system operators and their organizational charts and job competitive interests to consider when descriptions.131 The Commission has addressing transmission constraints. own or affiliated merchant operation Functional unbundling and enforcement of employees.’’ 129 They also cite OASIS also issued three orders on rehearing of the standards of conduct orders.132 [standard of] conduct standards require data showing an instance where a herculean policing efforts, and they are not transmission provider quickly As of April 1, 1999, 51 utilities’ practical. 134 confirmed requests for firm standards of conduct and organizational charts and job descriptions have been Likewise, we were told at another ISO transmission service by an affiliate, conference that operators with while service requests from accepted and 75 utilities’ standards of conduct and/or organizational charts reliability responsibility possess actual independent marketers took much controlling authority over transactions, longer to approve. and job descriptions have not been accepted and are pending review. This ‘‘thereby giving them a tremendous We believe that some of the identified advantage over competitors.’’ 135 standards of conduct violations are is an indication of the significant transitional issues resulting from a new regulatory effort required by both public d. OASIS Sites That Are Difficult To way of doing business, and we utilities and the Commission to make Use acknowledge that many utilities are the standards of conduct approach workable—a regulatory effort that could Aside from the problems alleged with making good-faith efforts to properly be greatly reduced through more respect to posting inaccurate ATC implement standards of conduct. distinct organizational separation. calculations on OASIS sites, there have However, we also believe that there is been complaints that some transmission great potential for standards of conduct c. Line Loading Relief and Congestion providers have implemented their violations that will never even be Management OASIS sites as a tool to impede reported or detected. The use of A number of complaints have been competition rather than as it was standards of conduct is not the optimal made alleging that transmission intended—as a tool to foster procedure for ensuring a fair providers are acting in a discriminatory competition. It has been alleged that marketplace, and may be unnecessary in manner in implementing line loading transmission providers have no a properly structured and operated relief, which is required when a incentive to make the sites easier to use, market. transmission line is in danger of being because it is primarily the transmission overloaded. Such complaints allege that providers’ marketing competitors who 127 See Wisconsin Public, 83 FERC at 61,855, the transmission providers are not would benefit from better OASIS sites. 61,860 (WPSC’s actions raised ‘‘serious concerns’’ 136 The petitioners in Docket No. RM98– as to functional separation; WP&L’s actions providing redispatch service, are demonstrated that it provided unduly preferential favoring their own transactions, and are 5–000 asserted: treatment to its merchant function); Washington 133 Water Power, 83 FERC at 61,463 (utility found to 130 The citations for these orders are: 81 FERC We set for evidentiary hearing a formal have violated standards in connection with its ¶ 61,332 (1997), 81 FERC ¶ 61,338 (1997), 81 FERC complaint by Wisconsin Electric Power Company marketing affiliate); Utah Associated Municipal ¶ 61,339 (1997), 82 FERC ¶ 61,028 (1998), 82 FERC making these types of allegations. Wisconsin Power Systems v. PacifiCorp, 87 FERC ¶ 61,044 ¶ 61,073 (1998), 82 FERC ¶ 61,132 (1998), 82 FERC Electric Power Company v. Northern States Power (1999) (finding that PacifiCorp had failed to ¶ 61,193 (1998) and 82 FERC ¶ 61,246 (1998). Company (Minnesota) and Northern States Power maintain functional separation between merchant 131 The citations for these orders are: 84 FERC Company (Wisconsin), 86 FERC ¶ 61,121 (1999). and transmission functions). ¶ 61,131 (1998), 84 FERC ¶ 61,255 (1998), 84 FERC The parties subsequently filed a settlement 128 See, e.g., Communications of Market ¶ 61,320 (1998), 84 FERC ¶ 61,327 (1998), 85 FERC agreement. Information Between Affiliates, Docket No. IN99–2– ¶ 61,068 (1998), 85 FERC ¶ 61,145 (1998), 85 FERC 134 Regional ISO Conference (Richmond), 000, 87 FERC ¶ 61,012 (1999) (Commission issued ¶ 61,227 (1998), 85 FERC ¶ 61,390 (1998), 86 FERC Transcript at 20. declaratory order based on hotline complaint ¶ 61,044 (1999), 86 FERC ¶ 61,079 (1999), 86 FERC 135 Comments of Marvin Carraway on behalf of clarifying that it is an undue preference in violation ¶ 61,146 (1999), 86 FERC ¶ 61,185 (1999) and 86 Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission, Regional of section 205 for a public utility to tell an affiliate FERC ¶ 61,246 ISO Conference (Kansas City), Transcript at 107. to look for a marketing offer prior to posting the 132 The citations for these orders are: 82 FERC offer publicly). ¶ 61,131 (1998), 83 FERC ¶ 61,357 (1998), and 85 136 See, e.g., Comments of representative from 129 Petition at 15. FERC ¶ 61,382 (1998). Enron Power Marketing speaking at Commission’s

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31407

Indeed, to gain a competitive advantage participation in an RTO, or are there RTOs throughout the U.S. can over those who are dependent on the other possible remedies? Could a effectively remove the remaining timeliness and accuracy of OASIS, vertically performance-based rate system be impediments to competition in the integrated transmission owners have an designed to realign economic interests power markets. As discussed elsewhere incentive to make OASIS as slow and to remove the motive for uninformative as possible.137 in this NOPR, a properly structured Similarly, EPSA has told us that ‘‘the discrimination? RTO will be an entity that is One thing that seems apparent is that present transmission regime gives independent from all generation and a system that attempts to control existing transmission-distribution power marketing interests, and has the behavior that is motivated by economic utilities an inherent advantage to exclusive responsibility for grid self-interest through the use of reserve capacity for their own native operations, short-term reliability, and standards of conduct will require load use, and provides them with no transmission service within a region. constant and extensive policing. This incentive to maintain a properly Such an entity would not only confer 138 kind of regulation goes beyond benefits related to removing functioning OASIS.’’ traditional price regulation and forces As we stated above with respect to impediments to competition, but would us to regulate very detailed aspects of ATC calculation, we are not in a also enhance reliability and allow for internal company policy and position to make a judgment that less intrusive government regulation of communication. For functional transmission providers are deliberately transmission providers. unbundling to be successful, we have to making their OASIS sites difficult to use We note that the Commission’s be concerned, in some sense, about recognition of the benefits of regional in order to disadvantage marketing ‘‘who spoke to whom’’ in the company competitors. In fact, we are aware that transmission organizations is not new. cafeteria. Functional unbundling does The Commission has encouraged the some OASIS sites are well run and not necessarily promote light-handed engender few complaints from users, industry to create such institutions for regulation. It also undoubtedly imposes more than six years. In 1993, the and that there may be legitimate a cost on those entities that have to technical and transitional difficulties Commission issued a policy statement comply with the standards of conduct encouraging the formation of RTGs, responsible for some of the problems who face additional training and rules complained of. However, this is another which were defined as voluntary that create rigidities in their internal organizations of transmission owners, example of the situation where market management activities. participants perceive discriminatory users, and other entities interested in It appears, based upon our experience coordinating transmission planning intent, whether or not one exists, thus far, that no matter how detailed the because of the apparent opportunity and (and expansion), operation and use on standards of conduct and how intensive 140 incentive to discriminate. a regional and inter-regional basis. our enforcement, competitors will The Commission summarized the e. Other Issues Related to Functional continue to be suspicious that the wall benefits of such entities as enabling the Unbundling and Dealing With between transmission operations and market for electric power to operate in Remaining Undue Discrimination power sales is being breached in subtle a more competitive, and thus more and hard to detect ways. The perception efficient manner; providing coordinated While the Commission here has not that many entities that operate the attempted to provide an exhaustive regional planning of the transmission transmission system cannot be trusted is system to assure that system capabilities compilation of the remaining not a good foundation on which to build opportunities for discriminatory are adequate to meet system demands; a competitive power market. It creates decreasing the delays that are inherent practices by transmission operators who needless uncertainty and risk for new are also in the power business,139 it in the regulatory process, resulting in a investments in generation. more market-responsive industry; and believes that the potential for such In section III.B below, we will address resolving technical transmission issues problems increases in a competitive how the use of independent RTOs can (e.g., loop flow).141 environment unless the market can be help eliminate the opportunity for One year later, the Commission issued made structurally efficient and unduly discriminatory practices by a transmission pricing policy statement transparent with respect to information, transmission providers, restore the trust which encouraged RTGs to address and equitable in its treatment of among competitors that all are playing transmission pricing and offered to competing participants. We invite by the same rules, and reduce the need provide more latitude to RTGs than to public comments on the extent to which for overly intrusive regulatory oversight. there remains undue discrimination in individual utilities for innovative transmission services, and if it remains, B. Benefits That Regional Transmission pricing proposals, recognizing that in what forms. Those comments should Organizations Can Offer issues such as loop flow required a address both the areas of alleged In the preceding sections, we have set regional approach.142 Then, two years discrimination we have discussed forth what we consider to be at least after that in Order No. 888, the above, as well as any other areas that some of the remaining transmission Commission encouraged the industry to commenters may have experienced. In related impediments to full competition consider ISOs, and gave specific addition, we are asking for comments in the electricity markets. These guidance on characteristics and about what remedies we should impose impediments include engineering and functions in the form of 11 principles. in an effort to eliminate any remaining economic inefficiencies in the operation discriminatory conduct. For example, and structure of the existing 140 Policy Statement Regarding Regional should we require mandatory Transmission Groups, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,976 transmission grid that inhibit the at 30,870 and n.4 (1993) (RTG Policy Statement). development of broad-based markets for 141 RTG Policy Statement, FERC Stats. & Regs. at July 1997 OASIS Technical Conference, transcript electric power, and remaining 30,871. at 43–44. 142 Inquiry Concerning the Commission’s Pricing 137 opportunities for discriminatory Petition at 37. practices by transmission owners with Policy for Transmission Services Provided by 138 EPSA Comments, Docket No. RM98–5–000. at Public Utilities Under the Federal Power Act, 59 FR 8 (filed September 21, 1998). power marketing interests. 55031 (November 3, 1994), FERC Stats. & Regs., 139 There have been other violations alleged. For We now believe that the Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,005, at 31,140, 31,145 example, many relate to pricing and discounting. establishment of properly structured (Transmission Pricing Policy Statement.)

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31408 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

The Commission has not been alone While these industry groups and state concentrated generation markets, in recognizing the benefits of RTOs. In regulators may not agree on the form of thereby fostering more competitive fact, there is surprising unanimity about such regional organizations and how markets and lower prices to consumers. the benefits of regional transmission aggressive the Commission should be in Second, regional scope would solutions to grid management. For encouraging their development, they do improve congestion management on the example, the Edison Electric Institute generally agree that such entities would grid. An RTO would improve the way adopted a resolution that ‘‘recognizes provide substantial benefits. congestion is managed over a large area, the potential benefits of voluntary grid We note, additionally, that this same thus expanding the number of potential regionalization in addressing pancaked conclusion has also been reached in transactions over existing facilities transmission rates, congestion other countries. In almost every country while reducing the number of management and reliability, that has chosen to introduce curtailments. transmission planning, and market competition in its power sector, a single The scheduling of power by multiple power * * *’’ and supported ‘‘flexible, regional or national grid management utilities over a regional grid can lead to voluntary, market-based approaches’’ organization has or will be created as unexpected overloads on constrained toward grid regionalization.143 The the necessary platform for achieving fair facilities. This can be a serious barrier American Public Power Association has and efficient bulk power competition.149 to competitive power trading because stated that ‘‘mandating RTOs will In the following discussion, we some power sale transactions may have prevent further inequities in the address the significant benefits of to be curtailed. With a regional scope, provision of wholesale transmission establishing RTOs. an RTO would be better able to manage congestion. An RTO would be in a service, provide guidance to the states, 1. An RTO Would Improve Efficiencies advance regional solutions to reliability better position to prevent congestion or in the Management of the Transmission control it through application of issues to head off future crisis situations Grid such as the 1998 Midwest Price Spikes, appropriate regionwide congestion and partially mitigate serious market As discussed in section III.A above, pricing to ration use of the grid if power concerns that have arisen due to numerous inefficiencies in the current necessary. An RTO would also more the high number of recent mergers in operation and structure of the readily identify schedules that could the electric utility industry.’’ 144 The transmission grid may be impeding full lead to congestion, and relieve National Energy Marketers Association competition. Establishing RTOs could congestion through regional redispatch urges the Commission to ‘‘take bold help remove most, if not all, of those authority. A pricing approach to steps necessary to create larger regional inefficiencies in a number of ways. capacity allocation would improve transmission organizations (RTOs) and First, an RTO would improve efficiency by ensuring that the most to force maximum participation into efficiency through regional transmission highly valued transactions remain on (sic) these organizations.’’ 145 Other pricing. The Commission has long the grid and possibly result in less industry groups representing very recognized that transmission pricing curtailment than under the present reform is most effectively accomplished approach. different interests have reached similar 150 conclusions.146 on a regional basis. An RTO would Third, an RTO would improve States are also recognizing the need have the geographic scope needed to efficiency by providing more accurate for regional approaches to grid eliminate pancaked transmission rates estimates of ATC than those currently operation. At least five states have within its region. This would broaden provided by individual systems. passed laws or issued regulations the generation market and could result Conditions on all parts of the regional requiring transmission owning utilities in more potential suppliers and less grid affect ATC on individual utility in their states to participate in regional systems. Factors such as load estimates, 147 transcript at 23–24; Commissioner Gerald Thorpe generation and transmission outages, transmission entities. Other state (Maryland), transcript at 39–40; President Herbert regulators have highly praised the new generation dispatch orders and Tate (New Jersey), transcript at 47–50; and transactions on individual systems can regional transmission entities that are Commissioner Nora Mead Brownell (Pennsylvania), affect the determination of ATC. An functioning in their regions.148 transcript at 54. 149 Government of Mexico, Secretaria de Energia, individual utility may not have Policy proposal for structural reform of the Mexican 143 Edison Electric Institute, Resolution Regarding complete or timely information electricity sector, 1999; World Bank, Reforms and Grid Regionalization, adopted by the Board of regarding such factors and may apply Private Participation in the Power Sector of Selected Directors, January 7, 1999. Latin American and Caribbean and Industrialized assumptions and criteria in its ATC 144 Motion of American Public Power Association Countries, 1994; National Regulatory Research estimates that are different from those of For Leave To Lodge, Docket No. RM99–2–000, filed Institute, Electric Power industry Restructuring in neighboring transmission operators, March 17, 1999, at 2. Australia: Lessons From Down Under, Occasional leading to wide variations in ATC 145 NEA, ‘‘National Guidelines For Restructuring # Paper 20, Ohio State University, January 1997; values for the same transmission path. The Electric Generation Transmission and World Bank (Industry and Energy Department), Distribution Industries,’’ January 1999, at 6. Central and Eastern Europe: Power Sector Reform The information needed may be 146 The Electric Power Supply Association in Selected Countries 1997; Ontario (Canada) considered confidential, and market recommends that ‘‘ISOs Must be Regional in Market Design Committee, The Fourth and Final participants would be more willing to Scope.’’ (EPSA Position Statement on Independent Report, January, 1999; Alberta (Canada) Department share it with an independent body. System Operators, January 1997, at 1.) The of Energy, Moving To Competition, A Guide to Electricity Consumers Resource Council (ELCON) Alberta’s New Electricity Structure, 1994; Jan Moen, An RTO would produce better ATC states that ‘‘a competitive electricity marketplace A Common Electricity Market in Norway and estimates because it would have access requires the formation of large, regional Sweden: Prerequisites, Development and Results So to complete regional usage information, independent system operators.’’ (ELCON, Far, Norwegian Water Resources and Energy would have current information because ‘‘Independent System Operators,’’ Profiles On Administration, May, 1996; National Grid Electricity Issues, No. 18, March 1997, at 2. Company, Grid System Management, Coventry, the RTO will be the security coordinator 147 Laws to encourage participation in regional England; and J. Culy, E. Read and B. Wright, ‘‘The as well as the OASIS site administrator, ISOs or transcos have been passed in Wisconsin, Evolution of New Zealand’s Electricity Supply and would calculate ATC values on a Illinois, Virginia, and Arkansas. Regulations to Structure,’’ in International Comparisons of consistent region-wide basis using a encourage this outcome have been issued by the Electricity Regulation, Gilbert and Kahn, editors, Nevada commission. Cambridge University Press, 1996. regional flow model. An RTO would 148 See, e.g., Comments of Commissioner Marlene 150 Transmission Pricing Policy Statement, FERC also resolve most, and perhaps all, of Johnson, RTO Conference (District of Columbia), Stats. & Regs. at 31,145. the complaints of inaccurate ATC

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31409 postings. Problems are likely to remain Seventh, transactions costs would grid and enforces reliability rules for the only to the extent that scheduling also be reduced with an RTO in place. entire region could prove helpful to reservations across several RTOs For example, the consolidation of current efforts and should be continue to be made on a contract path transmission control operations would considered. An RTO would enhance basis. cut general and administrative costs reliability by (1) operating the system Fourth, an RTO also would more over the long term. In addition, an RTO for a large region, (2) ensuring effectively manage parallel path flows. would administer a single regional coordination during system emergencies With an RTO in place, the geographic transmission tariff, thereby permitting and restorations, (3) conducting scope for scheduling and pricing ‘‘one stop shopping’’ for regional comprehensive and objective reliability transmission would be widened and transmission service and resulting in studies, (4) coordinating generation and parallel path flows would be simpler and more efficient procedures transmission outage schedules, and (5) internalized within the RTO. This for transmission users to transmit power sharing of ancillary services should result in more accurate ATC over greater distances. responsibilities. calculations, improve reliability, and, Eighth, through regional with appropriate transmission pricing, standardization of transmission services 3. An RTO Would Remove eliminate or reduce disputes among and the terms and conditions under Opportunities for Discriminatory transmission owners regarding which they are transacted, an RTO Transmission Practices uncompensated uses of facilities. would facilitate establishing In an RTO, the control of transmission Fifth, an RTO would promote more transmission rights and the operation is cleanly separated from efficient planning for transmission or ‘‘tradeability’’ of transmission rights. power market participants. An RTO generation investments needed to The early experience suggests that would have no financial interests in any increase transmission capacity. One independent regional transmission power market participant, and no power advantage of an RTO that is helpful in organizations are in the best position to market participant would be able to planning is that it will be able to see the establish well-defined rights to the use control an RTO. This separation will 154 ‘‘big picture.’’ Planning and expansion of the grid. Such rights are essential eliminate the economic incentive and of grid facilities will no longer be done to establishing congestion markets. ability for the transmission provider to on a piecemeal basis. An RTO would Clear rights are also needed for the act in a way that favors or disfavors any help identify the best place on the grid ability to trade transmission rights market participant in the provision of to locate new generation.151 An RTO between customers that place different transmission service.156 Accordingly, also will have more options available to values on capacity. Such trade helps ATC calculations can be made in an it because of its size and configuration. ensure an efficient allocation of current unquestionably objective manner, It has the potential to select and capacity and helps ensure that new OASIS sites can be equally relied upon implement the most efficient investment capacity is built only when and where by all transmission users, and line or operating option within the region for 155 necessary. loading relief should be free from relieving a bottleneck. This is in marked Ninth, an RTO would facilitate the preferences for certain market contrast to the current situation in many success of state retail access programs participants. regions where individual transmission by providing greater confidence in the owners are generally limited to markets and a larger regional market In addition, the separation of investment options in their particular with access to more potential suppliers. transmission operation from power service areas even though better (i.e., marketing activities also would reduce 2. An RTO Would Improve Grid less costly) options may be available opportunities for intentional or Reliability elsewhere in the region. inadvertent communication of Sixth, an RTO would increase With the improved transmission commercially valuable information from coordination between separate state access that has resulted from industry the transmission provider to any market regulatory agencies by providing a compliance with Order No. 888, the participant, and should eliminate any single point of focus for transmission volume of wholesale electricity advantage that market participants may expansion review, possibly even transactions has significantly increased now have with respect to arranging encouraging multi-state agreements to along with the number of market transmission service with an affiliated review and approve new transmission participants. This has led to industry transmission provider. facilities.152 As RTOs develop viable concerns that traditional reliability rules Finally, removing the opportunity for regional planning processes, there may may not guarantee that the bulk power discriminatory transmission practices be a growing willingness on the part of system remains secure. Many will help ensure the openness and individual states to accommodate transmission owners in a region make integrity of the commercial process. We regional regulatory review on either a independent decisions about use of a have been told repeatedly of the formal or informal basis.153 common regional transmission grid. A importance of transparency and fairness reliability problem on one utility’s in the relationship between 151 One of the benefits of the ERCOT (Texas) ISO transmission system may threaten the transmission users and transmission has been, due to the ISO’s comprehensive view of reliability of its neighbor’s system. A providers. This was a prominent topic at the grid, the ability to identify the most effective regional body that operates the regional spots on the grid to locate new generation facilities. our ISO conferences last year. Fairness, See Chairman Patrick Wood (Texas), transcript at impartiality and market confidence are 205–06. process must ’’ accommodate efforts by state also important to reliability. If the 152 The Commission recognizes that there may be regulatory commissions to create multi-state operator orders certain actions to be legal impediments to such a shift. For example, agreements to review and approve new most state siting laws typically require that the transmission facilities.’’ See section III.E. taken for system reliability purposes proposed facility must be assessed in terms of its 154 See Central Hudson Gas & Electric that might harm the interests of some benefits for the state rather than the region. See Corporation, et al., 86 FERC ¶ 61, 062 at 61, 228– users, those users must know that the Ileana Elsa Garcia, ‘‘State Electric Facility Siting 33 (1999); PJM, 81 FERC at 62,240. action being ordered has been made Practices,’’ background paper prepared for the 155 Capacity Reservation Open-Access Harvard Electric Policy Group, April 10, 1997. Transmission Tariffs, Notice of Proposed 153 To encourage this movement, we propose Rulemaking, 61 FR 21847 (May 10, 1996), FERC 156 Appropriate price regulation of RTOs would requiring that the RTO’s planning and expansion Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32, 519 (CRT NOPR). still be needed.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31410 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules fairly and with only technical factors in generation facilities. Especially by new generation into the market will mind. noteworthy is the recent experience that become more likely as new entrants will One important benefit of an RTO is indicates improvements in the perceive the market as more fair and that it could help eliminate the generation sector in regions with RTOs. attractive for investment. And with suspicions about, or remaining actual Regions which have ISOs in place are more players, the market becomes discriminatory practices by, grid undergoing dramatic shifts in the deeper and more fluid, allowing for operators. The DOE Reliability Task ownership of generating facilities. more sophisticated forms of transacting Force concluded that regional reliability Large-scale divestiture and high levels and smoother matching of buyers and entities such as RTOs must be ‘‘truly of new entry in California and the sellers. independent of commercial interests so Northeast are changing the ownership The full value of the benefits of RTOs that their reliability actions are—and are structure of these regions’ generators. to improve market performance cannot seen to be—unbiased and untainted Availability of customers, and the be known with precision before their ** *’’ [emphasis added] 157 The same presence of competing suppliers, are development, and we do not yet have a conclusion was reached by the blue- creating the incentives for better- long enough track record with existing ribbon Electric Reliability Panel performing plants. All plants are coming institutions with which to measure. The convened by NERC to recommend under pressure to improve their Commission will estimate the potential reforms in the current U.S. reliability availabilities and operating efficiencies. cost savings from RTOs as part of its system. The panel concluded that: ‘‘(t)o Individual firms have made strategic National Environmental Protection Act dispel suspicions that the system decisions to seek to become more analysis. At this time, we foresee several operator favors one participant over competitive, or to prepare themselves billion dollars annually in efficiency another * * *, the operator must be for future competition.159 gains to the economy.161 independent from market By improving competition, RTOs will The Commission seeks comment on participants.’’ 158 also reduce the potential for market the effect of RTOs on electricity market power abuse. As discussed earlier, performance, including any data or 4. An RTO Would Result in Improved eliminating pancaked transmission other information that could shed light Market Performance prices will expand the scope of markets on quantifying the extent of those By improving efficiencies in the and bring more players into the benefits. 160 management of the grid, improving grid markets. By eliminating the mistrust 5. An RTO Would Facilitate Lighter- reliability, and removing any remaining in the current grid management, entry Handed Governmental Regulation opportunities for discriminatory transmission practices, the widespread 159 Examples include: Virginia Power, which has There are several ways that the development of RTOs would also made more than $1 billion in capital improvements existence of a properly structured RTO and other investments (without raising rates) would reduce the need for Commission improve the performance of electricity between 1992 and 1998, including $921 million in markets in several ways and generating plant and approximately $125 million in oversight and scrutiny, which would consequently lower prices to the transmission line upgrades. See Virginia Power, benefit both the Commission and the Nation’s electricity consumers. Virginia Power Statement on SCC Report, May 24, industry. 1998. This document is available on Virginia The RTO benefits discussed so far in A number of regulatory benefits Power’s website at http://www.vapower.com/news/ depend critically on the RTO being truly this section would result in improving archive/releases980324.html; Entergy, which has the competitiveness of wholesale achieved high performance at its nuclear units in independent of power marketing electricity markets. To the extent that terms of capacity factors, outage times and refueling interests. For example, to the extent an periods, See Entergy Operation Services, Inc., RTOs foster fully competitive wholesale RTO is independent of power marketing Entergy Nuclear Units Have Outstanding Year as interests, there would be no need for markets, the incentives to operate Entergy Forges Ahead with National Nuclear generating plants efficiently are Company, January 26, 1999, press release. This this Commission to monitor and attempt bolstered. Suppliers will continuously document is available on Entergy’s website at http:/ to enforce compliance with the /www.entergy.com/news/1999/nr012699.htm.; New seek to avoid being made uncompetitive standards of conduct designed to York Power Authority, which has lowered unbundle a utility’s transmission and by rivals. We have now had close to two operating and maintenance budgets, refinanced decades of experience with generating debt, and invested $181 million in capital generation functions. An independent RTO with an plants being operated in at least improvements. See New York Power Authority, NYPA Exceeds Performance Goals in 1998, impartial dispute resolution mechanism partially competitive markets. Non- February 12, 1999, press release. This document is would resolve disputes without resort to traditional generators have had the available on NYPA’s website at http://www.nypa. the Commission complaint process. The opportunity to realize increased profits gov/press/0212a.htm.; Green Mountain Power, Commission has demonstrated its through reduced costs and improved which reduced operations and maintenance expenditures by 50% between 1998 and 1995. See willingness to defer to such operating performance. For years, the Green Mountain Power Corporation, Sales and mechanisms.162 It is generally more growing presence of independent power Expenditures, 1995 Annual Report. This document efficient for these organizations to generators has led to highly efficient is available on Green Mountain Power resolve many disputes internally rather new capacity coming on line. The Corporation’s website at http://www.gmpvt.com/ annrpt95/salesex2.htm; and the Tennessee Valley than bringing every dispute to the evidence is clear that market incentives Athority, which realized cost savings of 22% on Commission. We seek comment on what can lead to highly efficient plant fossil-fueled and hydroelectric plant outage projects types of disputes or other matters would operations. which were subject to a continuous improvement The incentives for more efficient plant process. See Hans E. Picard and C. Robert Seay, Jr., be appropriate for the Commission to operation can also affect existing Competitive Advantage Through Continous Outage defer to the decisions of the RTO? In Improvement, Electric Power Research Institute granting deference to decisions that Fossil Plant Maintenance Conference, July 29, 1996. 157 See Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, U.S. This document is avialable at website http:// result from an acceptable ADR process, Department of Energy, ‘‘Maintaining Reliability in www.iac.net/ pconsult/epri.html.. a Competitive U.S. Electricity Industry,’’ September 160 Evidence from the UK and strategic behavior 161 The benefits are likely to come substantially 29, 1998 at xv. studies, however, indicates that such market power from lower generation operation and maintenance 158 Electric Reliability Panel of the North can lead to ongoing cost impacts as well as outright costs that result from new plants, improved American Reliability Council, ‘‘Reliable Power: efficiency losses. See Richard Green and David performance of existing plants, and improved Renewing the North American Electric Reliability Newbery, Competition in the British Electricity congestion management. Oversight System,’’ December 1997, at 17. Spot Market, 100 J. POL. ECON., 929, 1992. 162 See PJM, 81 FERC at 62,269.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31411 would there be a need to distinguish not generically require public utilities to would be encouraged to design an RTO between RTOs that are ISOs and RTOs transfer control of their transmission that best meets its needs. This that are transcos? facilities to an RTO; however, we do collaborative process is discussed The Commission could also consider seek comment on the issue. We are below. adopting streamlined filing and proposing to provide the impetus Our proposed policy of regional approval procedures. The Commission needed to help form RTOs by engaging flexibility should also help some states’ could consider different filing the industry and the states in a national concerns with the cost of an RTO. As requirements for established RTOS. For dialogue regarding RTO characteristics, discussed above, we believe RTO example, should we lower the threshold setting minimum characteristics and development will result in substantial for the types of changes to operations or functions for RTOs, providing flexibility benefits for the Nation. However, some practices that would not require a filing for innovative transmission rate states are concerned that the costs of an with the Commission? Should such a proposals, including a willingness to RTO will exceed its benefits. The cost policy be applied equally for non-profit consider incentive pricing proposals, of meeting the minimum RTO and for-profit RTOs? and establishing regional processes with characteristics need not be large, but it Another regulatory benefit is that an Commission staff participation after a is not always easy to measure the long- RTO could result in more streamlined Final Rule is issued for fostering RTO term RTO benefits that would offset transmission rate proceedings. The formation. Thus, the proposed rule these costs. By permitting regional Commission has indicated its stops short of generically ordering flexibility, subject to our minimum willingness to grant more latitude to utilities into RTOs but instead, as characteristics and functions, the transmission pricing proposals from WUTC expresses it, we are at this time proposed rule allows each region to appropriately constituted regional adopting: ‘‘ * * * a policy of design an RTO that has costs groups, and RTOs would be such encouraging voluntary RTO commensurate with the regional groups.163 participation and filings * * * ’’ 165 The benefits expected. To the extent that RTOs increase Commission is, however, concerned that 3. Retail Markets market size and decrease market the current transmission grid concentration, the competitive management framework may be States that have not adopted a retail consequences of proposed mergers preventing electricity markets from access policy are concerned that an RTO would become less problematic and reaching their full competitive potential. in their state might interfere with their thereby help further streamline the We will evaluate the comments received prerogatives regarding adopting, or not Commission’s utility merger decision in response to our proposals to adopting, retail access. The comments making process. determine if additional action is needed. and responses of some state commissions reiterate the concern that 6. Conclusion 2. Regional Flexibility RTO formation will lead to retail access The Commission believes that the At all three consultations with the where it does not yet exist.167 The widespread formation of RTOs can state commissions and in written proposed rule does not require retail provide substantial benefits. The comments, we were urged by almost access. The Commission agrees with Commission invites comment on the every state commission not to impose a FPSC that, ‘‘FERC should not pursue benefits of RTOs and the magnitude of ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach to RTO any policy that would interfere with or these benefits. design.166 The vast majority of the contravene a state’s authority to adopt C. Concerns Expressed by the State respondents to the Commission’s or refrain from adopting direct retail Commissions follow-up questions were unwilling to access.’’ 168 Having an RTO in a state designate a particular type of RTO does nothing to interfere with the state’s Our Notice of Intent to Consult with organization as superior in all cases. authority to decide retail access policy. State Commissions in this proceeding The Commission agrees and does not Some states whose utilities are in RTOs initiated our commitment to take into propose to establish a mandatory can have retail access while others can account the advice and concerns of the national template for RTOs. Such a choose not to have retail access. This is states in formulating an RTO policy. policy would be ill advised at this time. demonstrated today by the presence of Through written and oral comments Neither this Commission, nor, we ISOs in the Middle Atlantic and New made during the consultations in suspect, anyone else in the industry England regions, but not all of the states February 1999, and in response to a knows now what is the best in those regions have yet adopted retail series of follow-up questions, state combination of ownership and control competition. Some states with retail commissioners raised a number of to achieve an optimal RTO. Given the access believe that an RTO is needed to concerns regarding RTO policy. The lack of experience to date, the support their customer choice plan Commission appreciates the state Commission believes that the best because the RTO allows customers, commissioners’ serious consideration policy is to encourage regional aggregators and marketers to reach and their comments have helped shape experimentation. Thus, as discussed supplies over a larger area. Those states our proposal. We take the opportunity below, the proposed rule would that do not have retail access can to summarize the principal concerns establish only minimum characteristics nevertheless benefit from an RTO as and how our proposal addresses those and functions needed for Commission their utilities enjoy the benefits of the concerns. approval as an appropriate RTO. We RTO to lower native load generation 1. Federal Mandate also propose to initiate collaborative rates by buying and selling power over regional processes in which each region Most states oppose a FERC mandate to a larger market area. Some states are also concerned that form RTOs.164 The proposed rule would Commission at (WUTC) at 4; Georgia Public Service having a Commission-regulated RTO Commission (GPSC) at 10; Mississippi Public 163 See Transmission Pricing Policy Statement, Service Commission (MPSC) at 3; and South provide transmission service for retail FERC Stats. & Regs. at 31,145, 31,148. Carolina Public Service Commission (SCPSC) at 1. 164 See, e.g, Comments in Docket No. RM99–2– 165 WUTC at 4–5. 167 See, e.g. response of Kentucky Public Service 000 of North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) 166 See, e.g., comments of Florida Public Service Commission (KPSC) at 1. at 1; Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (FPSC) at 3. 168 FPSC comments at 4.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31412 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules customers would lead to some loss of an RTO.171 In other words, a state that 7. Boundary Drawing control over retail market services, such is low-cost today may not be low-cost Many states expressed opposition to as the ability to assure reliability. A tomorrow without an RTO in its area. the Commission drawing regional or primary purpose of an RTO is to ensure We seek comment from state RTO boundaries in a rulemaking.175 The transmission reliability. Whether there commissions regarding how an RTO in proposed rule does not set boundaries. is any decrease in state control over any their state would affect power costs. Instead, we propose factors for assessing aspects of retail market services would whether a proposed RTO’s geographic depend on the design of the particular 5. Need for Independent Transmission configuration will ensure that the RTO. Under any RTO design, the states Operation required RTO functions, such as would retain full control over the assuring reliability, internalizing loop Many states believe that transmission generation adequacy of franchised flow, managing congestion, and power suppliers, transmission siting operators should be structurally eliminating pancaked rates, are and local distribution reliability. independent of other market satisfied. In other words, we are Further, the proposed rule would participants. Responses to follow-up proposing that the boundaries and other encourage state involvement both in questions indicated that independence factors affecting scope and regional RTO design and ongoing oversight, of the transmission operator is a basic configuration will depend on the providing states a vehicle to protect all assumption for an effective RTO.172 As functions that an RTO performs. We aspects of transmission reliability on the Pennsylvania Public Utility note, however, that some RTO functions behalf of retail customers. Commission (PaPUC) states, ‘‘It is are likely to be carried out more 4. Effect on States with Low Cost therefore the case that RTOs must have effectively in a large region. sufficient independence from direct Generation 8. Regional Approach to Reliability control by any single entity or interest States with relatively low cost power group to perform these functions well Many states believe that regional are concerned that an RTO would result and honestly.’’ 173 As discussed below, operation of transmission is needed to in local utilities selling their low cost our proposed rule would require strict assure the continued reliability of the power to other states. However, the vast transmission system.176 The proposed majority of the respondents to a follow- independence of transmission operation from market participants for approval of rule would require regional operation of up question on this issue stated that this transmission by an RTO with primary 169 an RTO application. is not a likely problem. Similarly, we responsibility for short-term reliability do not believe RTOs will cause such a 6. Transmission Cost Shifting as a condition for approval of an RTO result. The presence or absence of retail application. This is discussed below. access is the principal factor affecting There is a concern by some states potential out-of-state sales of low-cost with utilities with relatively low cost 9. Pricing Reform power, and this is in the hands of state transmission facilities that, by joining Many states want regional approaches policy makers. Arguably, retail access an RTO, their utilities’ transmission to transmission pricing reform. In could lead to low cost power being sold costs will be averaged with the higher particular, they would like to decrease out of state if incumbent utilities no cost facilities of utilities in other states the incidence of pancaked transmission longer have an obligation to serve retail in determining RTO transmission rates. Our proposal is aimed at customers. However, this could happen rates.174 As a result, these states are developing RTOs that would provide with or without an RTO. Where there is concerned that joining an RTO will the forum and have the geographic no retail access, state authorities can increase local transmission rates. This is scope for a regional approach to continue to ensure that a utility with a known as transmission cost shifting. It transmission pricing reform. The monopoly franchise sells its lowest cost has been an issue in every ISO the proposed rule would also permit power to local native load, even if the Commission has approved to date. That flexibility for experimenting with utility’s transmission is operated by an is why, in each of those ISO cases, we innovative forms of congestion RTO. Indeed, an RTO could actually have allowed a transition period in management, which would mean fewer lower retail rates by expanding the which access fees are based on some TLR curtailments and more assurance market region for the utility to sell the form of ‘‘license plate’’ pricing: access that native load is served. higher cost power not sold to native fees are paid by load serving entities load and sharing in the benefits of 10. Participation of Public Power based on the fixed transmission costs of regionwide resource planning and In some regions of the Nation, congestion management.170 And finally, the local utility. As discussed below, we substantial portions of the transmission utilities that now have low cost propose to continue and perhaps grid are owned by pubic agencies. The generation will help assure access to expand such flexibility in allowing the states in these regions have expressed a future low cost generation plants by license plate approach or other concern that our RTO initiative must participating in an RTO. New low-cost approaches to recover current sunk address how to assure that such public generation plants are more likely to be transmission costs during a transition agencies join the RTO. Some of the attracted to regions with a well- period. responses to follow-up questions functioning regional market governed by reiterated the need to include public 171 According to data in a recent survey, about power agencies in any RTO 169 See, e.g., responses of Virginia State 64% of announced merchant power plants will be formation.177 Corporation Commission (VSCC) at 1; WUTC located in California, Texas, New York, New England, and the middle Atlantic area, while such The proposed rule would not require comments at 2; Wisconsin Public Service RTO formation and so does not address Commission (WPSC) comments at 1; and Florida states account for only about 30% of total electricity Public Service Commission (FPSC) comments at 1. load in the U.S. See Announced Merchant Plants, But see, e.g., response of Alabama Public Service survey prepared by the Electric Power Supply 175 See, e.g., comments of NCUC at 1 and WUTC Commission (APSC) at 1, and response of District Association, Appril 13, 1999. at 3. of Columbia Public Service Commission (DCPSC) at 172 See e.g., responses of KPSC at 2 and Missouri 176 See, e.g., comments of NCUC at 3. 1. Public Service Commission (MoPSC) at 1. 177 See, e.g., responses of Iowa Utilities Board 170 See response of Indian Utility Regulatory 173 Supplemental comments at 7. (IUB) at 1 and New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (IURC) at 1. 174 See, e.g., comments of WUTC at 6. Commission (NMPRC) at 1.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31413 how to require public agency states’ ISOs were still undergoing an In addition, there are seven minimum transmission owners to join RTOs. As implementation and learning period functions that an RTO must perform. An suggested by KPSC,178 we will allow and, in some instances, are important to RTO must: flexibility in RTO formation in order to retail choice program implementation. (1) Administer its own tariff and meet, where possible, the requirements The Commission respects the employ a transmission pricing system of public agencies. Nevertheless, the investment of time and other resources that will promote efficient use and Commission’s objective is to encourage made in the existing ISOs. We expansion of transmission and the placement of all transmission understand the importance of avoiding generation facilities; facilities under the control of an RTO. change during the critical (2) Create market mechanisms to In section III–G of this notice, we have implementation periods. Due to these manage transmission congestion; requested comments on ways the considerations, and our proposed policy (3) Develop and implement Commission can facilitate public power of regional flexibility, the proposed rule procedures to address parallel path flow participation in RTOs. We are also does not require major changes to the issues; proposing regional processes to help existing transmission entities that the (4) Serve as a supplier of last resort for facilitate RTO formation under section Commission has found in conformance all ancillary services required in Order 202(a) of the Federal Power Act. with the ISO principles of Order No. No. 888 and subsequent orders; Because section 202(a) applies to public 888 at this time, absent compelling (5) Operate a single OASIS site for all power as well as public utilities, the circumstances. However, any entity transmission facilities under its control regional processes will include publicly must meet our minimum RTO with responsibility for independently owned transmission entities. characteristics and functions to receive calculating TTC and ATC; any of the benefits to be accorded RTOs. (6) Monitor markets to identify design 11. State Role in RTO Governance Our objective is to have all of the flaws and market power; and (7) Plan and coordinate necessary States want a role in the governance Nation’s transmission grid under the transmission additions and upgrades. of any RTOs for their states, and the control of RTOs that have the minimum The Commission seeks comment on Commission proposes to be as flexible characteristics and functions adopted in the following questions: (1) whether the as possible in accommodating their the Final Rule. That is why we propose Commission’s enumeration of minimum needs. The state commission responses to require the public utility members of criteria omits a necessary minimum to follow-up questions show that some existing transmission entities that have characteristic or function, or includes an states want to be closely involved in been found in conformance with the unnecessary characteristic or function; RTO operation 179 while others believe it Commission’s ISO principles to make a (2) whether there is a need to better to remain independent of the RTO filing, individually or jointly, with the distinguish between minimum in order to engage in better oversight.180 Commission no later than October 15, characteristics and minimum functions Practically all respondents see siting 2000, that explains the extent to which (i.e., adopt separate categories for the authority remaining with the states. the entity in which it or they participate minimum requirements); and (3) if so, As discussed below, the proposed meets the minimum RTO characteristics whether any of the minimum rule encourages RTO design to and functions. The Commission is also characteristics should be re- accommodate appropriate state concerned about impediments to characterized as minimum functions, oversight, especially with regard to transactions between existing ISOs (as and vice versa. Comments on these planning and siting new multi-state well as any future RTOs). We therefore questions should take into account the transmission facilities. We request encourage existing ISOs to consider Commission’s objective in this comments on the appropriate state role ways to reduce any impediments to rulemaking of encouraging the in RTO governance. For example, transactions among them. formation of RTOs that promote should state government officials The Commission invites further competitive markets and non- participate as voting members of an comments from the state commissions discriminatory access to, and reliable RTO? on all aspects of the proposed rule. operation of, the electric grid. 12. Existing Regional Transmission D. Minimum Characteristics and Under this proposal, all RTOs must Entities Functions for a Regional Transmission satisfy the four minimum characteristics Organization on their first day of operation as During our consultations, many of the approved RTOs. The Commission also state commissioners from the In this section, we propose minimum proposes that all RTOs be prepared to northeastern region and a representative characteristics and functions for a perform at least four of the seven from California, where transmission transmission entity to qualify as an minimum functions on their first day of facilities are already, or soon will be, RTO. These characteristics and operation as approved RTOs. under the control of Commission- functions are designed to ensure that Recognizing that more time may be approved ISOs, asked that the any RTO will be independent and able needed to perform certain functions, we Commission not require major changes to provide reliable, non-discriminatory are proposing that for the other three of to these ISOs during their and efficiently priced transmission the functions—establishing procedures implementation periods.181 The service to support competitive regional for addressing parallel path flows with commissioners observed that their bulk power markets. There are four minimum characteristics for an RTO: neighboring systems, managing congestion, and planning transmission 178 Response at 1. (1) Independence from market 179 See, e.g., responses of WUTC at 4 and Arizona participants; expansion—additional time ranging Corporation Commission (ACC) at 2. (2) Appropriate scope and regional from one to three years after initial 180 See, e.g., response of Wisconsin Public Service configuration; operation will be allowed. Commission (WPSC) at 3. (3) Possession of operational authority The Commission seeks comments on 181 See, e.g., Comments at the Washington, DC for all transmission facilities under the whether we should grant RTO status to conference of New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners, Inc. (NECPUC) at 4 and RTO’s control; and entities that are not able to perform remarks of California Senator Peace, RTO (4) Exclusive authority to maintain immediately these three functions. The Conference (Las Vegas), transcript at 3–4. short-term reliability. Commission also seeks comments on

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31414 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules whether we should grant RTO status to Minimum Characteristics interests. It does not preclude past entities that may not be able to perform financial ties with market participants. 1. Characteristic 1: Independence. The on the first day of operation certain Nor does it require a total or permanent RTO Must be Independent of Market prohibition on all future financial ties other (i.e., any of the remaining four) of Participants. (Proposed § 35.34(i)(1)) the minimum functions. Should we with market participants in the region. differentiate, for purposes of initial Market participants must be assured Such a prohibition would make it implementation, between any of the that the RTO will provide transmission difficult for the RTO to hire experienced seven minimum functions? If so, has the access to all market participants on a and knowledgeable employees. Commission appropriately identified fair and non-discriminatory basis. The Therefore, we will employ a rule of those minimum functions that are most Commission believes that it is a reason standard in deciding what likely to require additional time to prerequisite for achieving fair, open and financial ties with market participants perform? competitive power markets. An RTO would be acceptable after an individual needs to be independent in both reality leaves the RTO. As has been the case in We propose to give transmission 185 and perception. As we have said our review of conflict of interest entities flexibility in deciding how to before in the context of ISOs, we think standards for ISOs, the Commission meet these seven minimum functions. that ‘‘the principle of independence is would establish these standards on a For five of the functions (tariff the bedrock upon which the ISO must case-by-case basis.188 administration, congestion management, be built * * *’’186 It is the The Commission requests ancillary services, market monitoring Commission’s view that independence commenters to address some or all of and planning and expansion), we can be achieved if the RTO satisfies the following issues related to the propose to establish standards for how three conditions. First, the RTO, its non- proposed requirements. Do we need to the function is performed, but an RTO stakeholder governing board members define the financial independence will have the option of demonstrating and its employees must have no requirement in more specific terms or is that an alternative proposal is consistent financial interests in market it sufficient to enunciate the general with or superior to the standards in the participants.187 Second, the RTO’s principle and then apply it on a case-by- proposed rule.182 The Commission seeks decision making must not be controlled case basis? Should the definition of comment on whether this flexibility— by any market participants. Third, the stakeholders or market participants be i.e., the option of demonstrating that an RTO must have independent authority expanded to include entities that alternative proposal is consistent with to file changes to its transmission tariff. operate distribution-only facilities (i.e., or superior to the proposed rulemaking We now discuss these conditions. entities that perform the ‘‘wires’’ standards—should apply to any or all of function at lower voltages) and 183 a. The RTO, its employees and any non- the minimum characteristics. stakeholder directors must not have transmission entities in neighboring We also propose that the RTOs would financial interests in any electricity regions? Should this definition be have flexibility in designing their market participants. (Proposed broadened to include sellers and buyers organizational structures. We are § 35.34(i)(1)(i)) of ancillary services? Are there any receptive to all types of RTO proposals circumstances in which the definition as long as they satisfy the specified We propose that the RTO, the non- should be expanded to include entities minimum characteristics and functions. stakeholder members of its governing that do not participate in power markets For example, we will consider proposals board and all employees be prohibited in the region but that provide for non-profit or for-profit organizations. from having financial interests in any transmission services to the RTO or buy An RTO can be an operator of the grid market participants. The prohibition transmission service from the RTO? Do that it controls, an operator and owner clearly applies to current financial we need to add more specificity to the of the grid that it controls, or a requirement that RTOs have conflict of 185 combination of the two.184 The This is also the conclusion of almost every one interest standards? Are there lessons to of the state commission representatives who be learned from the experience of ISOs minimum characteristics and functions attended our recent consultatons with the state with conflict of interest standards that provide a wide range of implementation regulatory community. See, e.g., Comments of can now be applied more generally to flexibility and discretion. They Commissioners Marlene Johnson and Herbert Tate, Regional ISO Conference (Washington, D.C.), RTOs? represent a floor, not a ceiling. To transcript at 66–67, 95; Comments of Judy encourage further evolution, the Sheldrew, RTO Conference (Las Vegas), transcript b. An RTO must have a decisionmaking Commission is proposing an ‘‘open at 58. process that is independent of control 186 Atlantic City Electric Company, et al., 77 FERC architecture’’ requirement. Under this by any market participant or class of requirement, the RTO must permit ¶ 61,148 at 61,574 (1996). The same conclusion was reached by the DOE Reliability Task Force and the participants. (Proposed § 35.34(i)(1)(ii)) further improvements that will enhance NERC Reliability Panel. The DOE Task Force the efficient operation of regional bulk concluded that regional reliability entities must be This requirement would be satisfied, power markets. ‘‘truly independent of commercial interests so that for example, by an RTO with (a) a non- their reliability actions are—and are seen to be— unbiased and untainted * * *’’ Task Force Report stakeholder governing board and (b) a 182 We use the term ‘‘standard’’ to refer to the at xv. The Electric Reliability Panel concluded that prohibition on market participants required sub-elements under each characteristic ‘‘(t)o dispel suspicions that the system operator having more than a de minimis (one and function. favors one particular over another * * * the 183 percent) ownership interest in the Alternative proposals may include requests for operator must be independent from market 189 appropriate transition periods. We will consider participants.’’ North American Electric Reliability RTO. The Commission seeks such proposals on a case-by-case basis, based on an Council, Electric Reliability Panel, Reliability assessment of their effect on regional power Power: Renewing the North American Electric 188 See, e.g. Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at 62,152–53, markets. Reliability Oversight System, December 22, 1997, at order on reh’g 85 FERC at 62,036; NEPOOL, 79 184 One example of an arrangement that combines 17. FERC at 62,586–87. these two approaches would be a transmission 187 We use the terms ‘‘stakeholder’’ and ‘‘market 189 It is our understanding that a similar standard entity that owns and operates some transmission participant’’ interchangeably. They mean any entity was established by the British government when it facilities and operates other facilities under long- that buys or sells electric energy in the RTO’s region created the National Grid Company (NGC), the term leases or other agreements with existing or or in any neghboring region that might be affected largest, for profit transmission company in the new transmission owners. by the RTO’s actions, or any affiliate of such entity. world. The company’s basic corporate documents

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31415 comments on whether this kind of RTO board with both stakeholders and non- of favoritism). If our experience with should be deemed to satisfy stakeholders. For either stakeholder or functional unbundling as well as with automatically this element of the non-stakeholder boards, should we affiliated natural gas pipelines provides independence requirement. We also impose an upper limit on the size of the any lessons, we will probably find it request comments on whether there board? How should the Commission necessary to issue detailed rules that should be a single standard for consider proposals for state regulatory deal with internal corporate matters independent decision making for all or other governmental officials to select relating to organizational RTOs regardless of whether they are for- board members for either stakeholders responsibilities, corporate profit or non-profit entities. The or non-stakeholder boards? How should communications, etc.191 For this reason, Commission recognizes that there may the Commission view proposals for state the existence of affiliated transmission be other ways to satisfy the independent government officials to serve as voting entities also could make it difficult to decision making requirement. members of RTO boards? pursue light-handed regulation. Therefore, we propose to consider other With regard to market participants Commenters are asked to address governance and ownership proposals, having no more than a de minimis whether these are reasonable which will be judged on a case-by-case interest in the ownership of the RTO, assessments of the effects of allowing basis against the general requirement of we propose to consider a de minimis market participants to have more than a independent decisionmaking. interest as having no more than a one de minimis ownership interest in RTOs. With regard to the RTO governing percent interest in the ownership of an Is there relevant experience from other board, we propose to define a non- RTO. We seek comment on whether one regulated industries? If we were to allow stakeholder governing board as a percent is an appropriate de minimis market participants to have more than a governing board of individuals without ownership interest and, if not, what de minimis ownership interest for a any financial ties to market participants would constitute appropriate de transition period, how long should the or their affiliates. Individuals on such a minimis ownership for purposes of transition period be? Would any board are independent, rather than establishing independence. We also additional safeguards be required during representative, of market participants. request comment on whether there are such a transition period? In general, Board members usually have experience conditions under which market which type of institution would better in a variety of fields related to the RTO’s participants should be allowed to have serve the goal of independence: a operations. These could include, among more than a de minimis ownership transco with de minimis ownership and others, transmission operations and interest in an RTO. Should the a non-stakeholder board or an ISO with planning, law, electricity regulation, Commission have a different standard a non-stakeholder board? business management, market analysis, for passive interests? How should the c. The RTO Must Have Exclusive and and risk management. The non- Commission treat preferred equity Independent Authority To File Changes stakeholder board would be the ultimate shares? There are several reasons why we are to Its Transmission Tariff with the decision making authority, though it proposing that the independent decision Commission under Section 205 of the could choose to delegate decisions to its making standard can be satisfied by an Federal Power Act. (Proposed staff or committees of stakeholders.190 RTO with (a) a non-stakeholder § 35.34(i)(1)(iii) The board would be advised by the RTO governing board and (b) a prohibition on staff and perhaps by a committee of market participants having more than a We believe that independence stakeholders. In recent proceedings, we de minimis (one percent) ownership requires that the RTO provide service have accepted this two tier approach interest in the RTO. First, affiliated under its own open access transmission because it represents a middle ground in transmission companies (i.e., tariff and that it has the right to file that it attempts to balance independence transmission companies in which one or changes to its tariff with the with expertise. more market participants have more Commission on its own authority. In In the case of a non-stakeholder than a de minimis ownership interest) other words, the RTO should not be board, how can we ensure that the may not be trusted by market required to get the prior approval of concerns of market participants are participants even with elaborate transmission customers, transmission communicated effectively to the board? protections (e.g., voting trusts, owners or any other entities to make We request comments on what, if any, independent trustees and corporate Section 205 filings with the additional requirements should apply to boards not chosen by the owners). We Commission. The rationale is that if the a governing board that is not a believe that market participants are RTO is taking over the open access stakeholder board or to a governing likely to suspect that the safeguards will transmission service obligation from be gamed. This, in turn, could affect current transmission providers, the RTO prohibit market participants from serving on NGC’s board and from owning more than one percent of investment behavior. In particular, market participants may be reluctant to 191 Natural gas pipelines that transport gas for the shares in its voting equity. A similar prohibition others and are affiliated with gas marketers or appears to exist in the Wisconsin state law that make needed investments in generation brokers must conform to the standards of conduct mandates Wisconsin utilities to join either an ISO or marketing of electricity if they believe outlined in Section 161.3 of the Commission’s or an independent transmission company by a that the RTO is likely to give favored regulations. Further, such pipelines, pursuant to specific date. See 1997 Wisconsin Act 204, Section treatment to its affiliates. Section 250.16 of the Commission’s regulations 30. must maintain: (a) provisions in their effective 190 An ISO governing board’s delegation of Second, affiliated transmission tariffs that divulge operating employees and decisions to a stakeholder committee would be entities that are not independent of facilities shared by the pipeline and its affiliate(s) contingent on this committee not being dominated market participants would continue the and the procedures used to address complaints; (b) by one segment of the industry. We recently found regulatory need for detailed and hard to a data log showing, by customer (affiliate and non- that the existing tiered governance arrangements of affiliate), how capacity on the pipeline was the New York and New England ISOs failed to meet enforce codes of conduct. If we permit allocated; and (c) information concerning shippers this standard and we ordered both ISOs to reduce RTOs to be affiliated with one or more receiving discounted rates. Within the natural gas the voting power of dominant utilities in the lower market participants, we believe that the pipeline industry, these requirements are tier of stakeholders charged with advising the non- Commission may have to devote sometimes viewed as overly intrusive regulation. stakeholder governing boards. See Central Hudson, See ‘‘FERC Clarifies Affiliate Etiquette For Gas 87 FERC at l, slip. op. at 12–13; New England considerable regulatory resources to Pipelines,’’ The Energy Daily, November 17, 1998, Power Pool, 86 FERC ¶ 61,262 at 61,965. ‘‘chasing after conduct’’ (i.e., allegations at 1.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31416 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules must be able to independently and the transmission facilities within a a. Factors Affecting The Appropriate unilaterally propose changes in its region, will significantly affect how well Scope And Regional Configuration Of tariff.192 While this is not likely to be a they will be able to achieve the desired An Acceptable Region concern for transcos, our recent regulatory, reliability, operational, and The Commission has grouped the experience suggests that it is an competitive benefits. Accordingly, we factors that it believes are significant to important issue for ISOs that seek to set forth below what we consider to be developing appropriate regions into become RTOs. We have approved ISOs relevant factors that may affect the regional configuration factors and that appear not to meet this standard. appropriate scope and configuration for factors for evaluating boundaries. For example, the New England ISO a region that an RTO will serve.197 If the provides transmission service under the i. Regional Configuration Factors formation of RTOs is undertaken tariff of the NEPOOL RTG rather than its 193 without considering the goals that large The Commission believes that the own tariff. In our order approving the most important consideration in Midwest ISO, we stated that: ‘‘We regions can best achieve, it is unlikely that RTOs will be configured to provide evaluating the geographic configuration believe that any problems that may arise of an RTO is that such configuration can be addressed by the Midwest ISO’s maximum benefits. Transmission owners could seek to gain strategic permit the RTO to perform its functions authority to file changes unilaterally to effectively. We believe that many of the the congestion management advantage by the way an RTO is formed. characteristics and functions for an RTO procedures.’’ 194 However, our order also For example, an RTO could be placed to proposed in this section suggest that the accepted a requirement that the ISO get act as a toll collector on a critical regional configuration of a proposed the prior approval of existing corridor.198 Alternatively, an RTO could RTO should be large in scope.199 For transmission owners before filing propose configurations that interfere example: certain types of changes in its tariff with with the formation of a larger, more • Making accurate and reliable ATC us.195 Separately, we have a pending appropriately configured RTO. determinations: An RTO of sufficient request for clarification on this issue The Commission is aware that there is regional scope can make more accurate from the PJM ISO.196 Can an RTO be likely no one ‘‘right’’ configuration of determinations of ATC across a larger truly independent if it does not have the regions. One particular boundary may authority to file changes in its tariff portion of the grid using consistent satisfy one desirable RTO objective and assumptions and criteria. without the approval of other entities • such as transmission owners? Should conflict with another. The industry will Resolving loop flow issues: An RTO the ISO’s unilateral filing authority be continue to evolve, and the appropriate of sufficient regional scope would limited to transmission rate design and regional configurations will likely internalize loop flow and address loop change over time with technological and flow problems over a larger region. terms and conditions that directly affect • access but not to changes that would market developments. The Commission Managing transmission congestion: affect transmission owners’ ability to is also mindful of the interests of A single transmission operator over a collect their overall revenue individual states regarding RTO large area can more effectively prevent boundaries. Given all these and manage transmission congestion. requirements? In practice, is this a • viable distinction? If an RTO’s filed rate considerations, the Commission Offering transmission service at schedule also includes market design believes that the public interest will best non-pancaked rates: Competitive rules, should the RTO have Section 205 be served if we establish at the time of benefits result from eliminating filing authority to make changes in these the Final Rule a set of factors that pancaked transmission rates within the rules? encourage appropriate regional broadest possible energy trading area. • Operations: A single OASIS 2. Characteristic 2: Scope and Regional configuration, without actually prescribing boundaries. operator over an area of sufficient Configuration. The RTO must serve an regional scope will better allocate appropriate region. The region must be In the discussion that follows, the scarcity as regional transmission of sufficient scope and configuration to Commission sets forth, and solicits demand is assessed; promote simplicity permit the RTO to effectively perform comments on, the factors that it believes and ‘‘one-stop shopping’’ by reserving its required functions and to support are important for an appropriately and scheduling transmission use over a efficient and nondiscriminatory power configured region in which an RTO larger area; and lower costs by reducing markets. (Proposed § 35.34(i)(2)) would operate. the number of OASIS sites. We propose that all RTO proposals • Planning and coordinating filed with us identify a region of 197 We note that a number of parties have asked transmission expansion: Necessary appropriate scope and configuration. the Commission to take the initiative to make the transmission expansion would be more RTO formation process more orderly. For example, The scope and configuration of the 11 state commissions filed a petition with FERC in efficient when planned and coordinated regions in which RTOs are to operate, February 1998 (which was noticed in both the over a larger region. and the extent to which RTOs control Midwest ISO proceeding and in the generic ISO The Commission recognizes, however, inquiry) asking FERC to take action on the that there may be other factors that limit geographic configuration of ISOs, arguing that 192 The Commission has previously stated that the inappropriate borders for ISOs could result in how large a region may be, for example, ‘‘[a]uthority to act unilaterally . . . is a crucial reduced customer benefits, economic inefficiencies, the requirement that an RTO be the grid element of a truly independent ISO.’’ 79 FERC unnecessary complication of coordinated operator. There may be a limitation on ¶ 61,374 at 62,585 (1997). operations, and detrimental impacts on planning. how many facilities or transactions can 193 This has been protested by the New England However, in our three RTO conferences, Conference of Public Utility Commissioners. See representatives of several other state commissions be reliably overseen by a single ‘‘Motion For Leave To Submit Answer. . . .,’’ expressed concern about the Commission playing operator, imposed either by hardware Docket Nos. OA97–237 and ER97–1079, April 8, too strong a role in RTO formation, arguing, for 1997. example, that we should not define RTO geographic 199 This reiterates the conclusion we reached in 194 See Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at 62,163. boundaries but should leave this to the parties in the eleven ISO principles in Order No. 888, where 195 Id. at 62,151. each area of the country to determine. we stated that ‘‘[t]he portion of the transmission 196 ‘‘PJM Interconnection, LLC’s Request For 198 See Statement of Ohio Commission Chairman grid operated by a single ISO should be as large as Clarification, Or In The Alternative, Rehearing,’’ Craig Glazer, RTO Conference (St. Louis), transcript possible.’’ Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. at Docket No. OA97–261, December 27, 1997. at 85–87. 31,731.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31417 design or costs, or imposed by human proposes below a list of factors it would divide them. However, the affected limitations to process the required consider in evaluating the configuration parties would not be precluded from amount of information. for a proposed RTO. Various factors may proposing to divide control areas if they The Commission is not proposing that indicate different configurations, and found it otherwise advantageous. the RTO must be a control area operator, assessing the appropriateness of a Encompass existing regional although four of the five ISOs approved region’s configuration will require a transmission entities: Because existing so far by the Commission are each a balancing of factors. ISOs, and any other regional single control area.200 If those forming Given this qualification, the transmission entities we may hereafter an RTO decide that the RTO should be Commission proposes that the following approve, already integrate transmission a control area operator, this too may factors should be considered in systems, it may not be efficient to divide limit the RTO’s size. However, control evaluating an RTO’s boundaries: them into different regions. This is not area functions might be performed over Facilitate performing essential RTO to say, however, that RTO boundaries a large area by a master-satellite (or functions and achieving RTO goals, as must coincide with existing regional other hierarchical) structure. The discussed elsewhere in this proposed transmission entities. An appropriate Commission solicits comments on the rule: The regions should be configured region may well be larger, and there technical limitations or cost limitations so that an RTO operating therein can may be circumstances that support on how large an RTO can be if it is to ensure non-discrimination and enhance combining or reconfiguring existing have control area responsibilities. efficiency in the provision of entities. The difficulty and cost of transferring transmission and ancillary services, Encompass one contiguous operational control over many maintain and enhance reliability, geographic area: The competitive, transmission systems to one RTO may encourage competitive energy markets, efficiency, reliability, and other benefits also affect regional configuration. The promote overall operating efficiency, of RTOs can be best achieved if there is larger the number of transmission and facilitate efficient expansion of the one transmission operator in a region. systems, the more complex the task may transmission grid. For example, we To be most effective, that operator be and the longer it may take to understand that there have been should have control over all accomplish. The Commission solicits instances where transmission system transmission facilities within a large comments on how the number of reliability was jeopardized due to the geographic area, including the transmission systems to be combined lack of adequate real-time transmission facilities of non-public would affect the cost and time required communication between separate utility entities. This consideration could to form an RTO. transmission operators in times of preclude a noncontiguous region, or a A third factor that may limit size is system emergencies. To the extent region with ‘‘holes.’’ rate treatment. As regions get larger and possible, RTO boundaries should Encompass a highly interconnected involve more existing owners of encompass areas for which real-time portion of the grid: To promote transmission, reaching consensus on an communication is critical, and unified reliability and efficiency, portions of the appropriate transmission rate design for operation is preferred. transmission grid that are highly the region may prove challenging. Also, Recognize trading patterns: Given that integrated and interdependent should a uniform transmission rate treatment a goal of this initiative is to promote not be divided into separate RTOs. One which averages the costs of existing competition in electricity markets, RTO operating the integrated facilities transmission assets across the region regions should be configured so as to can better manage the grid. This is not recognize trading patterns, and be to say, however, that every weak could subject some RTO participants to capable of supporting trade over a large interconnection belongs on a regional higher transmission rates. Moreover, area, and not perpetuate unnecessary boundary. Where a weak interface is sharing the costs of future transmission barriers between energy buyers and frequently constrained and acts as a improvements may raise issues sellers. There may exist today some barrier to trade, it may be appropriate to regarding whether the transmission infrastructure or institutional barriers place that interface within an RTO improvements provide benefits to the inhibiting trade between regions that region. It may be more difficult to entire region and who should pay those could be mitigated economically. It expand a weak interface on the costs. These issues are discussed further would be desirable that RTO boundaries boundary between two regions; this may below with respect to cost shifting not perpetuate these barriers. act as a barrier to trade between the two concerns. Not facilitate the exercise of market Are there other factors that may limit regions. The Commission welcomes power. While the industry should work the geographic scope of an RTO? The comments on the relative merits of toward a goal of virtually seamless trade Commission solicits comments on this internalizing constraints within a region between RTOs, it may be that initially issue. versus having constraints act as natural a significant amount of trade may be boundaries between regions. ii. Factors for Evaluating Boundaries contained within RTOs. Thus, it is Take into account existing regional In addition to the factors affecting the important to avoid creating an RTO boundaries (e.g. North American size of a region, other factors may affect region that is dominated by a only a few Electric Reliability Council (NERC) the location of regional boundaries. The buyers or sellers of energy, or a region regions) to the extent consistent with the Commission believes that RTO where an RTO of inappropriate scope Commission’s goals for RTOs: An RTO’s boundaries should be drawn so as to and configuration can exercise configuration should, to the extent facilitate and optimize the competitive, transmission market power by acting as possible, not disrupt existing useful reliability, efficiency, and other benefits an unnecessary toll collector on a institutions. The Commission that RTOs are intended to achieve, as critical corridor. recognizes that utilities have been Encompass existing control areas: well as to avoid unnecessary disruption working together regionally in different Existing control areas have established to existing institutions. The Commission contexts for some time. There is value systems for load balancing within their in keeping together parties that have 200 The Midwest ISO is the only Commission- area. Most existing control areas are been working together. approved ISO that has not proposed a single control relatively small. For the sake of Take into account international area. efficiency, it may be advisable not to boundaries: The Commission recognizes

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31418 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules that natural transmission boundaries do performance also requires that most or we should give to the proposed scope not necessarily coincide with all of the transmission facilities in a and regional configuration of a proposed international boundaries. Indeed, a large region be included in the RTO. Any RTO. How readily, if at all, after part of Canada’s transmission system, RTO proposal filed with us should plan balancing all appropriate factors, should and a small part of Mexico’s, is to operate all transmission facilities the Commission be willing to substitute interconnected on a synchronous basis within its proposed region. We its vision of an appropriate RTO with that of the U.S. Accordingly, an recognize, however, that there may be configuration for that of its proponents? appropriate region need not stop at the cases where the proponents of an RTO To what extent should the Commission international boundary. However, this may not be able to obtain agreement by take into account the degree of support Commission does not have, and does all transmission owners within a region in assessing a proposed RTO not seek, jurisdiction over the facilities of appropriate scope and configuration configuration? Should approval or in a foreign country. We will ask our to transfer operating control of their disapproval by affected state international neighbors to participate in facilities to the RTO. This may occur, commissions of the scope or discussion of these issues. Perhaps what for example, because certain facilities configuration of a proposed RTO affect may be thought of as a ‘‘dotted line’’ may be owned by governmental entities the level of deference the Commission boundary at the international border that have restrictions on transfer of should afford such a proposal? could be used to indicate that a natural control that may require time to resolve. transmission region does not necessarily We do not believe that it would be 3. Characteristic 3: Operational stop at the border, while this desirable to deny RTO status or delay Authority. The RTO must have Commission’s jurisdiction does. RTO start-up where the transmission operational responsibility for all The Commission seeks comments on owners representing a significant transmission facilities under its 202 the appropriateness of these factors to portion of the facilities within a region control. (Proposed § 35.34(i)(3)) determine an appropriate configuration are ready to move forward, while a few a. The Regional Transmission Organization for the regions in which RTOs would others are not. On the other hand, we do May Choose to Directly Operate Facilities operate, and also asks if any additional not believe it would be desirable to (Direct control), delegate certain tasks to factors may be appropriate. approve an RTO proposal for a proposed other entities (Functional Control) or Use a region if the proponents represent only Combination of the Two Approaches. b. Potential Geographic Configurations (Proposed § 35.34(i)(3)(i)) a small portion of the facilities in that Any number of RTO configurations region. Operational control raises two basic could be appropriate regions. One We therefore propose to accept as questions: What functions should be approach to establishing RTO regions is RTOs only those proposals for which a performed by an RTO? How should an to use existing configurations. These region of appropriate scope and RTO perform the functions that it has include the three electric configuration is identified and the reserved for itself? With respect to the interconnections within the continental proponents represent a sufficient first question, there is a concern that United States, the ten NERC reliability portion of the transmission facilities some splits of functions between an councils, and the twenty-three NERC within the identified region. Where the RTO that is an ISO and existing control security coordinator areas. (See proponents do not represent all the area operators could compromise Appendix C to this NOPR for depictions facilities within a region, they should reliability and allow the control area of these configurations 201). These identify the reasons why all facilities are operators to continue to favor their own configurations are offered only for the not represented, any efforts that will be power marketing efforts.203 purposes of having three examples for made to eventually include all facilities, One solution would be for all RTOs to assessing how well selected regions can and any interim arrangements that operate a single control area. We have satisfy the minimum RTO could be made with the non-represented decided not to propose this as a characteristics and functions and for facility owners to maximize requirement or two reasons. First, the focusing commenters on the trade-offs coordination within the region. recent experience with the California involved in determining an RTO We solicit comments on how best to ISO suggests that the cost of investing in configuration. The Commission has not balance our goal of having RTOs in new control centers and concluded that the example sets of place that operate all transmission telecommunications systems and boundaries are acceptable facilities within an appropriately sized developing new operating systems can configurations. The Commission seeks and configured region against the reality be very high.204 Second, there is some comments on how well the regions that there may be difficulties in uncertainty as to whether it is served by existing institutions would obtaining 100 percent participation in technically feasible to establish a single satisfy the factors enunciated above, and all regions in the near term. Should we traditional control area over a large specifically how well they would be deny RTO status for any proposal that able to satisfy the minimum RTO does not include all transmission 202 Transmission facilities will be distinguished characteristics and functions outlined in facilities within an appropriate region? from local distribution facilities using the criteria this section, and the advantages and If we do not deny RTO status for less that were established in Order No. 888. Order No. 888, FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,036 at 31,770–71. disadvantages of these three examples. than 100 percent participation, is there 203 The Commission also welcomes Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at 62,156–60, 62,181. some guideline that we should use for 204 A recent report commissioned by the presentation and evaluation of other determining when the proponents California ISO found that the higher costs of the methods to define appropriate regions. represent an appropriate ‘‘critical mass’’ California ISO relative to other ISOs could be explained, in part, by the decisions ‘‘to build a c. Control of Facilities within a Region for the region? Should we require that the RTO at least negotiate certain privately dedicated communications network, to In addition to the scope and have a hot standby backup center half a state away, agreements with any non-participants to not rely on existing infrastructure more than configuration of the region, effective within its region to ensure maximum necessary, to attempt full functionality on day one, coordination? If so, what should be the to accomplish the job in about one year. . .’’ See 201 While the maps in Appendix C accurately ‘‘A Comparative Analysis Of Operating depict the existing configurations extending into terms of such agreements? Independent System Operators In The United Canada, this is not intended to suggest that our Finally, we seek comment on the States,’’ prepared by James H. Caldwell Jr. (TGAL, jurisdiction under this proposed rule reaches there. question of how much deference, if any, Inc.) For the California ISO, October 15, 1998, at 13.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31419 geographic area. In light of these no later than two years after it begins coordinators would be required to anticipate considerations, we do not propose to operations. problems that could jeopardize the reliability require that an RTO must operate a The Commission requests of the interconnected grid. In the course of commenters to address the following performing these reliability functions, the single control area. However, the RTO Security Coordinator would receive must have ultimate responsibility for questions. What has been the experience considerable information which is providing non-discriminatory of existing tight power pools with commercially sensitive. Therefore, it is transmission service for all market master-satellite and hierarchical forms important that the proposed Midwest ISO participants and for ensuring the short- of control? Was there a need to modify Security Coordinator be performed by an term reliability of the grid.205 We these operational arrangements when entity that is independent of market propose to give an RTO considerable the pool was replaced by an ISO? participants. flexibility in deciding on the particular Outside of tight power pools, has the The same logic applies to any RTO division of operational responsibilities functional unbundling requirement in proposal. Therefore, we will require that with existing control areas that will Order No. 888 led to any divisions of a qualifying RTO must be the security allow it to achieve this outcome. previously integrated internal coordinator for its region. 210 We will also grant an RTO operational systems? If so, have these 4. Characteristic 4: Short-term considerable flexibility in deciding how new divisions of operational Reliability. The RTO must have best to perform the functions that it has responsibilities created any reliability exclusive authority for maintaining the problems? reserved for itself. The RTO may choose short-term reliability of the grid that it to operate the grid through direct b. The RTO must be the security operates. (Proposed § 35.34(i)(4)) physical operation by RTO employees, coordinator for the transmission facilities contractual agreements with other that it controls. (Proposed § 35.34(i)(3)(ii)) a. The RTO must have exclusive authority for receiving, confirming and implementing entities (e.g., transmission owners and The Commission will also require that control area operators) or combinations all interchange schedules. (Proposed any qualifying RTO be the NERC § 35.34(i)(4)(i)) of the two. For example, an RTO could approved security coordinator for its Historically, interchange schedules lease some control equipment from the region. A security coordinator is a new owners of existing control centers or have referred to the scheduling actions type of grid entity that typically between adjacent control areas. These convert some employees at these control coordinates reliability between multiple centers into RTO employees. Or schedules could be triggered by the sale control areas across a region. It has been or exchange of electricity or the alternatively, the RTO could establish a promoted by NERC since 1995 to system of hierarchical control in which wheeling of electricity between the two improve coordination and control areas. The first type of action, it operates a master control center and communication across control areas. At existing control centers become the sale or exchange of electricity present, there are more than 20 security between control areas, usually has not satellites of the RTO control center for coordinators.208 certain specified functions. 206 Under been accompanied by a separate Up to now, the job of a security transmission transaction. Instead, the this arrangement, the personnel of the coordinator has been to anticipate existing control centers might become transmission service was implicit in the reliability problems and to take actions overall transaction and, therefore, its employees of the RTO or remain as to correct these problems if they arise. employees of the control center owner cost was not quoted separately. With the Among the key functions of a security growth of unbundled transmission but supervised by RTO personnel. We coordinator are to: (1) perform load-flow will leave it to the discretion of the RTO service, triggered in part by our Order and stability studies of the transmission No. 888 requirements, bundled to decide on the combination of direct system to identify and address security and functional control that works best interchange transactions will become problems; (2) exchange necessary rarer. This means that in the future, for its circumstances.207 Our only security information with control area requirement is that the system of interchange schedules will generally be operators, ISOs and regional reliability accompanied by, and coincide with, operational control chosen by the RTO councils; (3) monitor real-time operating must ensure reliable operation of the transmission schedules. characteristics (e.g., availability of We are proposing that an RTO ‘‘must grid and non-discriminatory access to operating reserves, interchange receive and evaluate all requests for the grid by all market participants. In schedules, system frequency, actual transmission service under its own addition, to ensure that the RTO does flows versus limits, generation capacity FERC approved tariff.’’ 211 If the RTO not become locked into an operational deficiencies) that could affect reliability; operates a control area, this implies that system that is unsatisfactory, the (4) take appropriate action including, if the RTO will also be receiving, Commission will require an RTO to necessary, the shedding of load in the confirming and implementing prepare a public report that assesses the event of a reliability problem.209 interchange schedules. Therefore, the efficacy of its operational arrangements In our Midwest ISO order, we three actions should go hand-in-hand required that the proposed ISO must be for an RTO that operates a control area. 205 In our order approving the Midwest ISO, we the security coordinator for its region. stated that our approval of the ISO was based on Our justification for this requirement 210 the applicants’ commitment that the ISO would be We note that this was also the conclusion of able to ‘‘take all actions necessary to provide was that: the blue-ribbon Electric Reliability Panel of NERC. nondiscriminatory transmission service, promote In its final report, the panel concluded that ‘‘it is This role [the role of a security essential that the security coordinators perform and maintain reliability.’’ Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at coordinator] is central to maintaining grid 62,159. their functions independent of any market reliability and non-discriminatory access. influences.’’ The panel recommended that security 206 See, e.g., Marija Ilic and Shell Liu, coordinators should be ‘‘structured as independent Hierarchical Power System Control: Its Value in a Under proposed NERC policies, security entities, or their role subsumed into independent Changing Industry, Springer-Verlag, 1996. It system operator-type organizations.’’ NERC, Electric appears that certain types of hierarchical 208See NERC, Operating Policy 9—Security Reliability Panel, ‘‘Reliable Power: Renewing the arrangements have operated successfully in the PJM Coordinator Procedures. The current version of this North American Electric Reliability Oversight and NEPOOL pools for many years. document is available on the NERC website at http:/ System,’’ December 1997, at 35. 207 This topic is also addressed in our discussion /www.nerc.com/∼oc/opermanl.html. See also, of the RTO’s role as a provider of ancillary services. NERC TLR Order, 85 FERC ¶ 61,353 at 62,360–62. 211 See the discussion of Function 1 (Tariff See the discussion of Function 4. 209 Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at 62, 155–56. Administration and Design), infra.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31420 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

However, this may not be the case for of transmission facilities to ensure that the too little authority to the RTO? If the RTOs that do not operate control areas. outages can be accommodated within RTO requires a transmission owner to As we stated in our Midwest ISO order, established reliability standards. (Proposed reschedule its planned maintenance, our basic concern is that non-RTO § 35.34(i)(4)(iii)) should the transmission owner be control area operators who are also Control over transmission compensated for any costs created by competitors in power markets may be maintenance is a necessary RTO the required rescheduling? Would it be ‘‘able to know their competitors’ function because planned and feasible to create a market mechanism to schedules or transactions* * *’’ 212 If unplanned outages of individual induce transmission owners to plan this is true, such knowledge would give transmission facilities affect the overall their maintenance so as to minimize the control area operators an unfair transfer capability of the grid. If a reliability effects? Should an RTO that competitive advantage. The Commission facility is removed from service for any is an ISO have any authority to require directed the ISO to monitor for this reason, the power flows on all regional rescheduling of maintenance if it potential problem and report to us facilities are affected. These shifting anticipates that the planned immediately if the problem arises. We power flows may cause other facilities maintenance schedule will adversely recognize, however, that it may be to become overloaded, and so adversely affect power markets? If the RTO is a difficult to detect this discrimination. In affect system reliability. The availability transco, can it manipulate its addition to our current code of conduct or unavailability of specific transmission maintenance schedules in standards, are there any actions that the transmission facilities can also have a manner that harms competition? Commission should require to reduce major effects on electricity market The proposed requirement does not the likelihood of this problem that do prices.216 give the RTO any authority over not require the consolidation of all Under this proposed requirement, the proposed generation maintenance existing control areas within the region? RTO would determine whether the schedules. However, in our order Is it feasible for a non-RTO control area proposed maintenance of transmission approving the Midwest ISO, we operator, operating within an RTO facilities could be accommodated observed that ‘‘the dividing line region, to perform its functions without within established state, regional and between transmission control and having access to commercially sensitive national reliability standards. The generation control is not always clear information involving its competitors? RTO’s regional perspective will allow it because both sets of functions are For example, could an RTO provide to coordinate individual maintenance ultimately required for reliable schedules with each other as well as control area operators with information operation of the overall system.’’ 218 with expected seasonal system demand about scheduled net interchanges Should the RTO have some authority variations. Since the RTO will have between control areas without over generation maintenance schedules? access to extensive information, it will disclosing the individual transactions If so, how much authority should it see the ‘‘big picture’’ and be able to making up the new interchanges? 213 have? make more accurate assessments of the b. The RTO must have the right to order We also anticipate that the RTO will reliability effect of proposed redispatch of any generator connected to need to establish performance standards maintenance schedules than individual, transmission facilities it operates if necessary for transmission facilities under its for the reliable operation of these facilities. sub-regional transmission owners. (Proposed § 35.34(i)(4)(ii)) If the RTO is a transmission company direct or contractual control. Such that owns and operates transmission standards could take the form of targets As we have stated before, the dividing for planned and unplanned outages. The line ‘‘between transmission control and facilities, these assessments would be an internal company matter. If the RTO is rationale for this requirement is that two generation control is not always clear transmission owners should not receive because both sets of functions are an ISO, it would need to review transmission requests made by various equal compensation if one owner ultimately required for reliable operates a reliable transmission facility operation of the overall system.’’ 214 The transmission owners (TOs) of its 217 while the other operates an unreliable entity that controls the transmission region. In this latter case, we would expect the RTO to: receive requests for facility. For RTOs that are transcos, we system must have some degree of would anticipate that such quality control over some generation.215 In authorization of preferred maintenance outage schedules; review and test these standards would be implicit or explicit general, we do not think that this in any performance based regulatory authority should extend to initial unit schedules against reliability criteria; approve specific requests for scheduled proposal. 219/ Is it possible for a non- commitment and dispatch decisions of profit ISO to establish similar incentive generators. However, the Commission outages; require changes to maintenance schedules when they fail to meet schemes for the transmission owners believes that it is necessary and whose facilities it operates? appropriate that the RTO have authority reliability standards; and update and publish maintenance schedules on a Facility ratings. It is widely to order redispatch of any generating recognized that reliable operation of the unit when necessary for the reliability of regular basis. The Commission requests transmission system in the short-term the grid. requires both continuous monitoring of c. When the RTO operates transmission commenters to address a number of facilities owned by other entities, the RTO questions related to this proposed equipment availability and loading, and must have authority to approve and requirement. Does it cede too much or actions to maintain loading levels disapprove all requests for scheduled outages within the established operating ranges 216 See ‘‘Staff Report to the FERC on the Causes 212 See Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at 62,154–55. of Wholesale Electric Pricing Abnormalities in the 218 Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at 62,180. 213 See Id. at 62,160. Midwest During June 1998,’’ September 22, 1998, 219 We note that the National Grid Company in at 4–3. England and Wales reports annually on quality of 214 Id. at 62,151. 217 Since some of these transmission owners may service in certain dimensions (systems availability, 215 This seems to be generally recognized in the also own generation, they may have an incentive to interconnector availability, system security and industry. For example, the participants in the schedule transmission maintenance at times that quality of supply) to the Director General of Midwest ISO proposed that the ISO ‘‘will possess would increase the prices received from their power Electricity Supply. See National Grid Company authority over generation to the extent that sales. A transmission company, not affiliated with ‘‘Report of the Director General of Electricity generation affects transmission.’’ See ER98–1438– any generators, would not have these same Supply, Financial Year 1997–98.’’ A copy of this 000, Applicants’ Response at 3. incentives. report will be placed in the public record.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31421 and equipment ratings. If a transmission they will not have an incentive to participants as RTOs.223 As a line or other facility becomes distort the operation of electricity consequence, an RTO could be required overloaded or experiences a forced markets by manipulating equipment to implement a reliability standard that outage, the short-term reliability of the ratings and reliability assumptions. And may favor the commercial interests of power system may be threatened. most significantly, since the RTO is certain types of market participants Therefore, we anticipate that the RTO ultimately responsible for system when an equally effective, but more will need to monitor equipment reliability, it will be careful not to harm commercially neutral, variant of the availability and loading so that it can system equipment. Therefore, to avoid standard might be feasible. Therefore, it determine which control actions or an impasse over equipment ratings that is important that the RTO notify us redispatch options are necessary. The are determined by one market immediately if implementation of options open to the RTO for ensuring participant and contested by a second, externally established reliability short-term reliability, such as direct we believe that the RTO’s values should standards will prevent it from meeting control of transmission facilities, prevail when there is disagreement, its obligation to provide reliable, non- initiating transmission loading relief until resolution is reached through an discriminatory transmission service. procedures or pursuing redispatch ADR process approved by the Minimum Functions options and bids, are discussed in other Commission.220 sections. 1. Function 1: Tariff Administration and The Commission asks commenters to To determine whether existing or Design. The RTO must administer its address the following issues. Given that scheduled power flows will threaten own transmission tariff and employ a an RTO has responsibility for system short-term system reliability, flow levels transmission pricing system that will must be compared to ratings established reliability, what should be the extent of promote efficient use and expansion of in power flow reliability studies. The its liability for its actions? Would this transmission and generation facilities. entity that establishes these ratings and differ depending on whether the RTO (Proposed § 35.30(j)(1)) owns the facilities? operating ranges will have a major The pro forma open access influence on the reliable operation of d. If the RTO operates under reliability transmission tariff that accompanied the power system. Its determinations standards established by another entity (e.g., Order No. 888’s functional unbundling will not only affect system reliability a regional reliability council), the RTO must is based on a traditional approach to but also ATC. The Commission believes report to the Commission if these standards transmission service: it relies on that RTOs are best situated to establish hinder it from providing reliable, non- embedded cost ratemaking, contract ratings and operating ranges for two discriminatory and efficiently priced path scheduling and physical rights to reasons. First, they will have the most transmission service. (Proposed service. We recognized that it did not complete information about expected § 35.30(i)(4)(iv)) break new ground on transmission and real-time operating conditions. pricing because it was based ‘‘on the Second, RTOs will be trusted since they RTOs may be new organizations. However, they will be sharing some of practices and procedures’’ that were will be independent in two ways: they traditionally used by public utilities that will not have any economic interests in their responsibilities with existing organizations. For example, the New owned transmission facilities. Instead, electricity market outcomes and they the focus of the pro forma tariff is on the will not be owned or controlled by any England ISO shares its responsibilities with the NEPOOL RTG.221 The New non-price terms and conditions of market participants. transmission service needed to get non- The Commission recognizes that an York ISO shares its reliability discriminatory transmission service. RTO that is an ISO may initially need responsibilities with the New York State Our intent was to ‘‘initiate open access’’ to rely upon existing values for Reliability Council. We anticipate that, for individual transmission providers. equipment ratings and operating ranges in the near future, RTOs will be We stated that our issuance of the pro so as not to disrupt reliable system implementing reliability standards that forma tariff was ‘‘* * * not intended to operation. The RTO will then have the are established by a separate regional signal a preference for contract path/ ongoing task of validating and updating reliability council.222 We believe this is embedded cost pricing for the these existing values, focusing initially necessary to maintain the reliable future.’’ 224 In the Capacity Reservation on those identified as critical to the operation of the grid, but it also raises Tariff (CRT) NOPR that was issued at development of a competitive electricity concerns because almost every the same time, we emphasized that: market. reliability standard will have a ‘‘* * * the Commission is not The Commission understands that commercial consequence, and regional committed to traditional tariff design.’’ transmission owners may be concerned or sub-regional reliability groups may 225 Since the issuance of Order No. 888, that changes in existing equipment not be as independent of market the Commission has encouraged ratings may lead to problems of transmission providers to come forward equipment safety and possible damage. 220 This is the same policy that we adopted in with other open access transmission These concerns could trigger disputes approving the Midwest ISO. See Midwest ISO, 84 tariffs that they believe have pricing over the values established by the RTO. FERC at 62,165–66. We propose that if there is a dispute 221 Commissioner Malachowski, representing the New England Conference of Public Utility 223 See Central Hudson, 83 FERC at 62,411 for a over values established for equipment Commissions (NECPUC), stated that the current discussion of our concerns about the relationship ratings, the RTO values will prevail sharing of power between the New England ISO and between the New York ISO and the New York State until the outcome of the dispute NEPOOL is unsatisfactory. He said that the New Reliability Council. In this instance, we were resolution process. It is the intent of the England commissions believe that more decision willing to accept the fact that the NYSRC will making authority must be transferred to the ISO. As establish rules that the ISO would implement Commission to promote RTOs that have a specific example, the mentioned the need for the because any new rule or revisions to existing rules the expertise and personnel capable of ISO to have more direct authority over market would be ‘‘subject to immediate suspension by the determining both equipment ratings and design. RTO Conference (Washington, D.C.), NYSRC if requested to do so by the New York ISO.’’ operating ranges necessary to maintain transcript at 123. Id. 222 In Order 888, we required that any ISO should 224 Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. at 31,666– system reliability. In addition, since ‘‘comply with their applicable standards set by 67. RTOs will be independent of all NERC and the regional reliability council.’’ (ISO 225 CRT NOPR, FERC Statutes and Regulations at stakeholders in the electricity market, Principle No. 4) 33,228 (1996).

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31422 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules provisions that are equal or superior to a. The Regional Transmission facilities because actual physical the mandated tariff that was part of the Organization must be the only provider construction of the interconnection Order No. 888 initiative. of transmission service over the facilities will usually be made by an To date, the most significant facilities under its control, and must be existing transmission owner who may the sole administrator of its own innovations in transmission access and also be a competitor of the new Commission-approved open access pricing have been brought to us by ISOs. generator. Therefore, the Commission transmission tariff. The Regional invites comments on how this standard This is not surprising. Given the Transmission Organization must have can be made effective for RTOs that are interconnectedness of the grid, it is the sole authority to receive, evaluate, ISOs. Are there lessons to be learned necessary to introduce regional pricing and approve or deny all requests for from the experience of qualifying innovations through some kind of transmission service. The Regional facilities (QFs) under PURPA in getting regional organization. This cannot be Transmission Organization must have interconnections to the grid that would done by individual transmission the authority to review and approve be applicable to ISOs? Should this providers acting alone. We anticipated requests for new interconnections.227 standard be expanded to give the RTO that regional organizations would be the (Proposed § 35.30(j)(1)(i)) the authority to review and approve all likely innovators in our Transmission The rationale for this standard is new interconnections (e.g., to connect Pricing Policy Statement. Among the straightforward. The RTO cannot ensure new generators, to improve reliability, innovations that have been proposed nondiscriminatory transmission service to increase trading opportunities with since the issuance of Order No. 888 are: to all market participants unless it is the neighboring regions) or all transmission locational pricing; fixed transmission sole provider of transmission service investments above some threshold rights (FTRs) and transmission over facilities that it owns or controls. dollar amount? congestion contracts (TCCs) that give If it is to be an effective ‘‘provider’’, it defined financial rights to grid users must be the only entity that receives, b. The RTO tariff must not result in (i.e., financial rather than physical evaluates and approves or denies transmission customers paying multiple rights to the grid); and explicit market- requests for transmission service. access charges to recover capital costs based pricing of congestion and However, it cannot make informed over facilities that it controls (i.e., no ancillary services.226 In almost every decisions unless it has accurate and pancaking of transmission access instance, we have approved these unbiased information about pending charges). (Proposed § 35.34(j)(1)(ii)) proposals because they offer the transmission requests and current promise of promoting overall operating system conditions. This, in turn, implies The elimination of transmission rate efficiency and encouraging fair, open that in addition to being the pancaking for large regions is a central transmission service provider, the RTO and competitive energy markets. goal of the Commission’s RTO policy. must be the operator of the OASIS site Therefore, the offering of non-pancaked Therefore, we take this opportunity to as well as the regional security transmission access charges is a reaffirm the importance of such reform coordinator (see the discussion of requirement for a conforming RTO. In by establishing it as an explicit function 5 and characteristic 3). the existing world of many individual obligation for qualifying RTOs. The An organization like an independent transmission service providers, wording of this requirement is general scheduling administrator that simply transmission customers have generally and this is intentional. The Commission monitors the scheduling decisions of been required to pay an access charge to believes that RTOs are in the best current transmission owners and offers each transmission provider along the position at this time to develop dispute resolution services in case of a contract path (and pay nothing to innovative transmission access and dispute would not qualify as an RTO. providers off the contract path). This is Similarly, a transmission organization pricing regimes that will promote a form of distance-based transmission that offers service under another entity’s competition and meet the needs of their pricing, but the charge is a function of region. The Commission invites tariff would not meet this standard. An RTO’s obligation to provide corporate boundaries crossed on the commenters to address whether more nondiscriminatory transmission service contract path rather than distance specific guidance is required. is not limited just to existing users. It is traveled on actual flow paths. Such In carrying out Function 1, the RTO important that the RTO ensures pancaked transmission charges have led must satisfy each standard discussed nondiscriminatory access to to multiple transmission charges across below, or demonstrate that an transmission service for new entrants several transmission systems and make it difficult to create region-wide power alternative proposal is consistent with such as new generators. This requires markets. Competition is clearly or superior to satisfying the standard. that the RTO, rather than existing transmission owners, have the authority enhanced when customers are able to to review and approve requests for access larger numbers of generators over interconnections. The Commission a wide geographic region when they pay believes that the RTO cannot be an a single transmission access charge. In effective provider of transmission Order No. 888, we required tight power service if it lacks the authority to ensure pools and holding companies to offer a that new customers are interconnected system-wide tariff with non-pancaked 228 to the grid. This standard should be rates. To date, non-pancaked relatively easy to implement for an RTO transmission access charges have been a that owns transmission facilities. feature of all five ISOs that we have However, it may be more difficult for an approved. In this NOPR, we are RTO that does not own transmission proposing to extend that requirement to 226 See, e.g., Pacific Gas & Electric, 81 FERC RTOs. ¶ 61,122 (1997), Central Hudson, 83 FERC ¶ 61,352 227 The Commission, of course, retains ultimate (1998), NEPOOL, 85 FERC ¶ 61,242 (1998); PJM; 81 authority to order transmission services and 228Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. at 31,727– FERC ¶ 61,257 (1997). interconnections pursuant to the FPA. 29, 31,731.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31423

Would the requirement for a tariff industry.230 For example, the use of relevant for congestion management. with non-pancaked rates make the administrative curtailment procedures First, the generators that are dispatched voluntary formation of RTOs more has important economic consequences in the presence of transmission difficult because it might result in the for market participants, yet such constraints should be those that can potential for sudden and unacceptable procedures are usually invoked without serve system loads at least cost, given transmission rate charges? Is the regard to the relative value of the constraints. Second, given that the severity of any such problem related to transactions that are curtailed. This can demand for transmission services the scope and regional configuration of lead to a considerable disruption of during periods of congestion exceeds the proposed RTO? Does the use of so- power markets and can be financially the system’s ability to supply them, the called license plate design allow the damaging for market participants. The limited transmission capacity should be RTO to meet this requirement without Commission has concluded that used by market participants that value cost shifting? Would the provision for a efficient congestion management that use most highly. reasonable transition period help? requires a greater reliance on market In designing market mechanisms for Waiving of access charges. While the mechanisms.231 Recent experience congestion management, the Commission wishes to encourage more suggests that only a large regional Commission recognizes that it is efficient intra-regional trade, it also organization like an RTO will be able to important to consider the time frame in would like to encourage inter-regional create a workable and effective which decisions must be made and trade. Boundaries are always a potential congestion management market.232 actions must be taken. It is the nature of impediment to trade, whether between As we noted in our order approving electric systems that operating states, RTOs or countries. Therefore, we the PJM ISO, markets that are based on conditions, including those that lead to encourage RTOs to negotiate the mutual locational marginal pricing and the presence or absence of congestion, waiving of transmission access charges financial rights for firm transmission are constantly changing. Thus, to to increase the size of effective trading service provide a sound framework for manage congestion efficiently while areas. In the Midwest ISO proceeding, efficient congestion management.233 ensuring safety and reliability, system we were told that this was difficult to However, just as we do not intend to operators must be able to take decisive implement.229 Therefore, commenters mandate a single corporate form for action quickly. are requested to recommend actions that RTOs, we will not require one specific One possible implication of this need the Commission could take to facilitate market approach to congestion for quick, decisive action is that markets reciprocal waiving of access charges. management. It is our intent to give that directly support congestion Even if there is mutual waiving of RTOs considerable flexibility in management may have to be subject to access charges, are there other pricing experimenting with different market some coordination by the RTO. For impediments to inter-regional trade approaches to managing congestion. example, a congestion market that is not (e.g., differences in scheduling and However, we believe that a workable coordinated by the RTO might require curtailment conventions between market approach to congestion transmission customers to negotiate regions) that are likely to impede trade? management should generally establish individually with generators to pre- clear and tradeable rights for arrange an alternative dispatch that 2. Function 2: Congestion Management. transmission usage, promote efficient would allow the transmission The RTO must ensure the development regional dispatch, support the customer’s transaction to proceed (or to and operation of market mechanisms to emergence of secondary markets for be efficiently altered) if and when manage transmission congestion. transmission rights, and provide market congestion arises. However, because (Proposed § 35.34(j)(2)). participants with the opportunity to congestion can occur suddenly and In carrying out Function 2, the RTO hedge locational differences in energy unexpectedly, time may not permit the must satisfy each standard discussed prices. operator to (1) identify impending below, or demonstrate that an A market approach to congestion transmission constraints, (2) inform alternative proposal is consistent with management should lead to more customers whose transactions are or superior to satisfying the standard. efficient transmission prices. As we affected, (3) allow customers to contact explained in our Transmission Pricing generators, and (4) receive instructions a. The market mechanisms must Policy Statement, an efficient pricing from customers as to what actions they accommodate broad participation by all policy must meet certain objectives.234 wish the operator to take with respect to market participants, and must provide Of the four objectives set forth in the their pending transactions. We have all transmission customers with Policy Statement, two are particularly expressed concerns that such a process efficient price signals regarding the may be unwieldy and even unworkable consequences of their transmission 230 See NERC, 85 FERC at 62,364. in the limited time in which operators 235 usage decisions. The RTO must either 231 Id. must act. Although the process could operate such markets itself or ensure 232 The recent experience of Commonwealth be simplified by completing some of Edison suggests that redispatch markets operated by that the task is performed by another these activities in advance, such individual utilities will not be able to elicit an simplifications may come at the cost of entity that is not affiliated with any adequate response by generators. After six months market participant. (Proposed of an experimental program, Commonwealth eliminating some potentially efficient § 35.34(j)(2)(i)) concluded that it is ‘‘difficult for one transmission options. owner to identify and implement redispatch’’ when The Commission invites comments on the physical limitations and cost effective options our requirement that RTOs must be As we stated in our recent order for relief are on other transmission systems. addressing NERC’s transmission loading According to Commonwealth, the only viable responsible for managing congestion relief (TLR) procedures, the traditional solution would be for the redispatch market to be with a market mechanism. Can approaches to congestion management operated by a regional transmission system may no longer be acceptable in a operator. See Commonwealth Edison, Interim 235 We expressed similar concerns in our order Report on Non-Firm Redispatch, Docket No. ER98– authorizing the formation of the Midwest ISO. See competitive, vertically de-integrated 2279, December 17, 1998, at 4 and 10. Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at 62,165–66. Nevertheless, 233 See, e.g., PJM, FERC 62,252–53. we opted to allow the Midwest ISO to go forward 229 See Response of Midwest ISO Participants, 234 Transmission Pricing Policy Statement, FERC with its proposal in order to gain actual operating May 1, 1998, at 11–13. Stats. & Regs. at 31,140–44. experience.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31424 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules decentralized markets for congestion power flows over the facilities of an more realistic scheduling and pricing management be made to work entity that is not compensated, or when procedures that subsume the effect of effectively and quickly? Can the RTO’s the costs of mitigating parallel flows are parallel path/loop flow within their role be limited to that of a facilitator that allocated to various transmission regions. simply brings together market owners.236 There are also reliability We propose that measures to address participants for the purpose of engaging issues involved when parallel path parallel path flow may not necessarily in bilateral transactions to relieve flows overload a transmission line, and be in place on the first day of RTO congestion? If not, will these markets decisions must be made as to what operation, and propose to allow up to require centralized operation by the actions to take, and who should bear three years after start-up for this RTO or some other independent entity? responsibility for taking necessary steps function to be implemented. We seek How can an RTO ensure that enough to unload that line.237 The comment on whether such an additional generators will participate in the interdependent nature of electricity flow implementation time period is congestion management market to make implies that one party’s ability to warranted, and whether three years is possible a least-cost dispatch? Are there transmit energy will depend upon the an appropriate additional time period. any special considerations in evaluating actions of others, and, for scheduling market power in a congestion market and pricing purposes, the capacity of 4. Function 4: Ancillary Services. An operated or facilitated by an RTO? the entire network and not just RTO must serve as the supplier of last We propose that the congestion individual systems is the most resort of all ancillary services required management function need not important factor.238 by Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. necessarily be in place on the first day The Commission has previously ¶31,038 (Final Rule on Open Access of RTO operation, and propose to allow expressed its view that the issues and Stranded Costs), and subsequent up to one year after start-up for this surrounding parallel path flow are best orders. (Proposed § 35.34(j)(4)) function to be implemented. We resolved by mutual arrangements In carrying out Function 4, the RTO recognize that the new approaches to between the utilities that have chosen to 239 must satisfy each standard discussed congestion management called for by interconnect. More recently, the below, or demonstrate that an newly competitive markets may take Commission directed all public utilities alternative proposal is consistent with additional time to work out. We seek in the Eastern Interconnection to file an or superior to satisfying the standard. comment on whether such an additional interim redispatch plan if they are not implementation time period is currently participating in a regional a. All market participants must have the warranted, and whether one year is an congestion management program option of self-supplying or acquiring 240 appropriate additional time period. through a power pool. ancillary services from third parties The Commission believes that the subject to any general restrictions 3. Function 3: Parallel Path Flow. The formation of RTOs, with their widened imposed by the Commissions’s ancillary RTO must develop and implement geographic scope of transmission services regulations in Order No. 888, procedures to address parallel path flow scheduling and expanded coverage of FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,038 (Final Rule issues within its region and with other uniform transmission pricing structures on Open Access and Stranded Costs), regions. The RTO must satisfy this provides an opportunity to ‘‘internalize’’ and subsequent orders. (Proposed requirement with respect to most, if not all, of the effect of parallel § 35.34(j)(4)(i)) coordination with other regions no later path/loop flow in their scheduling and than three years after it commences pricing processes within a region. In initial operation. (Proposed § 35.34(j)(3)) An RTO is a transmission provider particular, we believe that RTO access and therefore is subject to the general Many power sales and transmission to region-wide information on network requirements established by the service contracts are written under the conditions and power transactions, assumption that the power delivered Commission for the provision of coupled with efficient congestion ancillary services under Order Nos. 888 will flow on a particular contract path. management and well specified This relatively straightforward and easy and 889 and succeeding orders. physical and financial transmission Specifically, these require that the to administer ‘‘contract path’’ approach usage rights, could help RTOs, as assumes that it is possible to determine transmission provider must provide or regional grid managers, in taking cause to be provided six ancillary and fix the path through the preemptive action against curtailment services on an unbundled basis.241 Of transmission network along which incidents that would otherwise be the six ancillary services, a transmission power will flow from source to sink. induced by parallel path/loop flow customer is obligated to purchase two of However, this assumption often does loading of critical transmission the services from the transmission not accurately reflect what actually facilities. We anticipate that parallel provider (the RTO)—scheduling, system occurs because the scheduled power path/loop flow related disputes will control and dispatch service and transfer will flow across the diminish to the extent that RTOs are reactive supply and voltage control from interconnected electrical path between relatively large and able to implement source and destination according to generation. For the remaining four services, a transmission customer has laws of physics, which means that some 236 See Indiana Michigan Power Company and power may flow over the lines of Ohio Power Company, 64 FERC ¶ 61,184 (1993) the option of self-providing these adjoining transmission systems. This (Indiana Michigan) (complaint that 95% of a power services, either by acquiring them from sale flowed over transmission system that was not power flow effect is commonly referred compensated); Southern California Edison 241 The six ancillary services are: (1) Scheduling, to as ‘‘parallel path flow’’ or ‘‘loop Company, et al., 73 FERC ¶ 61,219 (1995) (Southern System Control and Dispatching Service; (2) California) (Commission approved plan for flow.’’ Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from mitigating loop flows within the WSSC). Parallel path flows have the potential Generation Sources Service; (3) Regulation and 237 to create, and have in the past created, See NERC, 85 FERC ¶ 61,353 (1998). Frequency Response Service; (4) Energy Imbalance 238 disputes among transmission system The Order No. 888 pro forma open access Service; (5) Operating Reserve-Spinning Reservice; tariff does not explicitly recognize the effect of and (6) Operating Reserve-Supplemental Reserve owners. There are efficiency and parallel path/loop flow. Service. Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. at economic equity issues involved when 239 See Indiana Michigan, 64 FERC at 62,554. 31,706–17; Order No. 888–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. a scheduled transaction in fact causes 240 NERC, 85 FERC at 62,363–64. at 30,227–34.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31425 a third party or providing them from the or that RTO computers send the right to enter into a long-term customer’s own resources. instructions directly to generating units contract with the RTO. Apart from Our rationale for imposing the or other facilities to take certain establishing the general requirement to ultimate supply obligation on the RTO physical actions. Automatic generation use competitive markets, the is that not all transmission customers control (AGC) might be one example of Commission believes that it is best to may be equally able to self-supply (some direct control. If the RTO has direct leave many of the detailed market own generation, others do not) and that control, it would have authority, by design questions to the individual RTOs in many circumstances it may be more contract or other means, to send direct with case-by-case review by us.245 As efficient (i.e., less costly) for the RTO to electronic signals to those generators we noted earlier, we intend to permit provide the service for all transmission who have offered, in return for a regional flexibility and encourage users on an aggregated basis. Our payment, to increase or decrease the experimentation. Such experimentation rationale for allowing self-supply is that output of their units in response to the would be discouraged if we issued it provides a possible competitive check RTO’s signals. Indirect control regulations that are too detailed. on the RTO to ensure that it acquires the (sometimes referred to as functional services at lowest cost. In addition, the control, directed control or contractual The Commission believes that, Commission believes, as a matter of control) requires that the RTO send whenever it is economically feasible, it policy, that legal monopolies should not instructions to the owner of the facility is important for the RTO to provide be granted (i.e., serving as the sole who then, in turn, performs the actual accurate price signals that reflect the provider of ancillary services) unless physical actions to implement these costs of supplying ancillary services to they are natural monopolies. instructions. Indirect control usually particular customers. Accurate price The ancillary services policies in requires that there be a contractual signals are especially important because Order Nos. 888 and 889 were developed agreement between the RTO and the some of the RTO’s customers may be for transmission providers that were owner of the facilities that has agreed to competing against each other in other generally vertically integrated utilities. provide ancillary services. power sales markets. It is important that There was an expectation that they The Commission requests the RTO’s actions not distort regional would be able to provide many of the commenters to address whether these power market competition by charging generation based ancillary services from are minimum requirements needed to potential competitors inaccurate prices their own generating resources. An RTO ensure that the RTO can satisfy its for ancillary services that they purchase by definition will not own any obligation to maintain targeted levels of from the RTO. generating resources. Does this reliability. Would it be feasible for the difference necessitate a different set of RTO to maintain reliability with less c. The RTO must ensure that its ancillary service requirements for authority? transmission customers have access to a RTOs? Are there other ancillary In our Midwest ISO order, we stated real-time balancing market. The RTO services, in addition to scheduling, that the ISO ‘‘* * * should use must either develop and operate such system control and dispatch, and competitive procurement for all services markets itself or ensure that this task is reactive supply and voltage control from needed to operate the system.’’ 242 This performed by another entity that is not generation sources, for which the self- general requirement would apply to affiliated with any market participant. supply option should be eliminated? ancillary services since they are clearly (Proposed § 35.34(j)(4)(iii)) Under what circumstances can the needed to operate a reliable bulk power RTO’s obligation as the ancillary system. One prerequisite for competitive Real-time balancing refers to the 243 services supplier of last resort be procurement is a competitive market. moment-to-moment matching of loads eliminated? The Commission would anticipate that and generation on a system-wide basis. many of the generation-based ancillary It is a function that control area b. The RTO must have the authority to services (e.g., balancing and reserves) operators must perform to maintain decide the minimum required amounts could be acquired in short-term markets frequency at 60 hz. Real-time balancing of each ancillary service and, if that would operate in parallel to basic 244 is usually achieved through the direct necessary, the locations at which these energy markets. This has been the control of select generators (and, in services must be provided. All ancillary approach taken by most of the ISOs that some cases, loads) who increase or we have approved and we see no reason service providers must be subject to decrease their output (or consumption why this would be different for transcos direct or indirect operational control by in the case of loads) in response to or other types of RTO entities. Other the RTO. The RTO must promote the instructions from the system operator. services such as black start capability development of competitive markets for Over the last two years, the Commission and voltage support are probably best ancillary services whenever feasible. has seen an increasing use by system (Proposed § 35.34(j)(4)(ii)) acquired in long-term markets where potential suppliers would compete for operators of market mechanisms that This policy would, in effect, grant rely on bids from generators to achieve RTOs the exclusive right, subject to 242 See Midwest ISO, 84 FERC ¶ 61,231 at 62,164 national and regional reliability norms, (1998). 245 These would include design issues such as: to determine the quantities and, in some 243 However, we recognize that the existence of a Are ancillary service bids received before, after or competitive supply market for ancillary services is at the same time as energy market bids? Do instances, the locations at which certain no guarantee that the RTO will automatically buy ancillary service markets clear simultaneously or ancillary services must be provided. It efficiently. Therefore, since the RTO may be the de sequentially? Must the RTO publicly announce the would also require that the RTO be able facto buyer of many of these services, the amount of each ancillary service that it needs prior Commission is receptive to performance-based to bidding? What do generators bid (capacity, to exercise complete operational regulatory proposals that would give RTOs explicit energy or both)? If there are multiple bid control, either directly or indirectly, incentives to be efficient buyers of ancillary components, are they evaluated together or over any supplier of ancillary services. services. See section III.F. separately? Should the RTO acquire ancillary Direct control (sometimes referred to 244 See Eric Hirst and Brendan Kirby, Unbundling services from outside its region? These are some of as hands-on control or actual physical Generation and Transmission Services for the design issues that have arisen in the operation Competitive Electricity Markets, a report prepared of ancillary markets by the California ISO. We operation) would require, for example, for the National Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI expect that there will be other design issues as other that RTO employees ‘‘push the button’’ 98–05), January 1998. ancillary market proposals are presented to us.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31426 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules overall, real-time balancing.246 Since The Commission believes that it is depends, in turn, on the calculation of system-wide balancing is a critical important to give RTOs considerable TTC.252 These calculations are different element of reliable short-term grid discretion in how such a market would from business practices in that the focus operation, we will require that it be a be operated. An RTO may choose to is on content rather than procedures and responsibility of the RTO. The operate the market itself or assign the practices. There is widespread Commission would expect that an RTO task to another entity (e.g., a for-profit dissatisfaction with the reliability of will perform the overall system exchange) that would operate the posted ATC numbers. The Commission balancing function directly if it operates market under the RTO’s supervision. In has received formal and informal a control area or indirectly if it addition, the Commission would expect complaints from transmission customers supervises the operation of sub-regional that the design of such a market will stating that they cannot rely on posted control areas. necessarily vary between RTOs that ATC numbers. Criticisms of posted ATC A separate, but related, issue is operate control areas and those that do numbers have also been the subject of balancing by individual grid users. The not. However, in those instances where a widely publicized report issued by a fact that the overall system must be in RTO does not operate a control area, the major industry group.253 It is been balance to maintain frequency does not RTO must be especially vigilant that alleged that transmission providers who necessarily require that there be a transmission customers who continue to also compete in power markets against moment-to-moment balance between operate control areas cannot use that their competitors have both the the individual loads and resources of functional responsibility to the incentive and ability to post unreliable bilateral traders and load-serving disadvantage of non-control area ATC numbers.254 entities and the schedules and actual customers.250 We recognize that an individual production of individual generators. The Commission invites comments on transmission provider may post ATC Imbalances are inevitable since the use of market mechanisms to numbers on OASIS in good faith only to generators do not exactly meet their support overall system balancing and find that the projected capability does schedules and loads always vary from imbalances of individual transmission not exist because of scheduling moment-to-moment. users. Is it feasible to rely on markets to decisions taken by other transmission As we noted in the Midwest ISO support a function that is so time- providers elsewhere on the grid. In such order, unequal access to balancing sensitive? Can such markets be made to circumstances, transmission providers options for individual customers can function efficiently if the RTO is not a are not acting unscrupulously. Instead, lead to unequal access in the quality of control area operator? For the the problem is simply a mismatch transmission service available to imbalances of individual transmission between information flows and different customers. This could be a customers, should a distinction be made electrical flows. Regional transmission significant problem for RTOs that serve between loads and generators? Should organizations that perform ATC some customers who operate control customers have the option of paying for calculations based on complete and areas and other customers who do not. all imbalances in such a market or only timely information would tend to Under current NERC regulations, imbalances within a specified band? eliminate this problem. This seems to be control area operators have access to 5. Function 5: OASIS and TTC and supported by fact that the Commission inadvertent energy accounts so they can ATC. The RTO must be the single has received very few complaints about pay back imbalances in kind and OASIS site administrator for all ATC calculations made by ISOs. thereby avoid any penalties.247 In transmission facilities under its control The essential feature of our proposed contrast, non-control area transmission and independently calculate TTC and requirement is that the RTO become the customers do not have access to such ATC. (Proposed § 35.34(j)(5)) administrator of a single OASIS site for accounts. Instead, under the pro forma all transmission facilities over which it The operation of an OASIS site has tariff, load serving entities are subject to is the transmission provider. This is many dimensions. For example, it a deadband and then penalties if the consistent with earlier orders.255 magnitude of their imbalances fall includes specific practices and terminology. In response to a consensus Moreover, every ISO that we have outside the deadband. Our concern, as approved so far has become the OASIS we stated in our Midwest ISO order, is request from the industry, we recently issued a NOPR that proposes to site administrator for the customers that that ‘‘nondiscriminatory access would it serves. However, we recognize that suffer’’ under such a system.248 standardize various practices and terms. The focus of that NOPR is on this generally stated requirement Therefore, the Commission proposes to inevitably raises questions as to the require that RTOs operate a real-time standardization of protocols for posting, naming and responding to posted level of RTO involvement in ATC balancing market that would be calculations. An RTO could be involved information.251 Apart from these available to all transmission customers, in ATC calculations at three general practices, the central and probably most or ensure that this task is performed by levels. At Level 1, the RTO’s role would controversial aspect of OASIS operation another entity not affiliated with market be limited to receiving and posting ATC 249 is the calculation and posting of ATC participants. numbers received from transmission numbers. The calculation of ATC owners. At Level 2, the RTO would 246 See Pacific Gas & Electric, 81 FERC ¶ 61,122 (1997), Central Hudson, 83 FERC ¶ 61,352 (1998), allow all transmission customers to settle their receive raw data from transmission NEPOOL, 85 FERC ¶ 61,242 (1998); PJM, 81 FERC imbalances at real time energy market prices. We ¶ 61,257 (1997). note that participants in the Midwest ISO have 252 See section III.A.1 for definitions of these 247 NERC Operating Manual, at P1–9. issued a request for proposals that could lead to the terms. 248 Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at 62,155. establishment of such a market in their region. See 253 Commercial Practices Working Group and the 249 We have already approved such markets for Solicitation of Interest, Creation of an Independent OASIS How Working Group, ‘‘Industry Report to four ISOs. See e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Power Exchange for the U.S. Midwest, Joint the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the Order Accepting In Part and Rejecting In Part Committee for the Development of a Midwest Future of OASIS, October 31, 1997. Proposed Revisions To Rate Schedules, September Independent Power Exchange (Feb. 5, 1999). 254 This is discussed more fully in Section III.A. 16, 1998 and New England Power Pool, ‘‘Order 250 See Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at 62,159–160. 255 In the Primergy merger order, we required that Conditionally Accepting Market Rules and 251 Open Access Same-Time Information System, the proposed ISO should be ‘‘responsible for Conditionally Approving Market Based Rates, 85 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FERC Statutes and calculating ATC.’’ See Primergy, 79 FERC ¶ 61,158, FERC ¶ 61,379 (1998). These markets generally Regulations ¶ 32,531 (1998). May 14, 1997.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31427 owners and centrally calculate ATC encourage fair, open, and competitive participants. For these reasons, the values. At Level 3, the RTO would energy markets; and promote overall Commission believes that we and our centrally calculate ATC values on data operating efficiency. 257 As we stated in colleagues in state commissions can partially or totally developed by the the New England ISO order, ‘‘markets have great confidence in the RTO RTO. The proposed requirement that the are likely to evolve in ways that may not market assessments.261 Our early RTO be the OASIS site administrator is be totally anticipated. To ensure that the experience with market assessments based on the expectation that the RTO markets operate competitively and performed by the New England and will operate at Level 3. efficiently, it is important that any California ISOs has been encouraging. The RTO must eventually operate at problems involving market power or The assessments have been Level 3 to ensure that ATC values are market design are quickly identified so comprehensive and objective even to based on accurate information that is that appropriate solutions can be the point of criticizing past actions by based on consistent assumptions and to crafted.’’ 258 To date, we have been the ISOs themselves.262 minimize the opportunities for willing to use ISOs, or their Despite the advantages of better conscious manipulation. In general, the independent monitoring organizations, information and incentives, the RTO must perform all the calculations as a ‘‘first line of defense’’ in detecting Commission believes that it is neither and studies necessary to develop the both market power abuses and market fair nor feasible to impose a monitoring underlying data. When data are design flaws. obligation on RTOs for markets that they supplied by others, the RTO must create The proposed requirements are do not operate. Our preliminary a system for regularly validating the arguably based on the presumption that assessment is that it would be difficult data for accuracy and assumptions. If an RTO will be a non-profit, system for an RTO to monitor a market in there is a dispute over ATC values, the operator that does not own any which it does not have information on RTO’s values should be used pending facilities. The requirements may not be prices, bidding patterns and marginal the outcome of the dispute resolution appropriate for a for-profit transco that costs. However, our experience with process.256 The RTO must also establish owns the facilities that it operates.259 ISOs has shown that markets for power, the operating standards (subject to Therefore, a threshold question is: what ancillary services and transmission regional and national reliability should be the market monitoring role, if service are inextricably intertwined requirements) underlying the ATC any, of an independent, for-profit regardless of how they are organized or calculations. transco? Is it reasonable to expect that who operates them.263 Therefore, we are such an RTO could be objective in its proposing a middle ground for 6. Function 6: Market Monitoring. The assessments? If the RTO is an ISO, do monitoring regional markets not RTO must monitor markets for its monitoring activities need to be operated by the RTO. The RTO’s transmission services, ancillary services further insulated to ensure monitoring of markets operated by and bulk power to identify design flaws independence and objectivity? For others will be limited to assessing how and market power and propose example, should monitoring be behavior in these markets affects RTO appropriate remedial actions. (Proposed performed by one or more individuals markets and operations and conversely § 35.34(j)(6)) or organizations that are funded by the how RTO markets and operations affect In carrying out Function No. 6, the RTO but that have the right to issue these other markets. RTO must satisfy each standard reports without the RTO’s approval? The Commission also recognizes that discussed below, or demonstrate that an The Commission believes that RTOs any markets, whether operated by the alternative proposal is consistent with that are ISOs have a significant RTO or others, will inevitably be or superior to satisfying the standard. comparative advantage over other affected by basic structural entities in monitoring markets.260 First, characteristics such as the existing a. The RTO must monitor markets for RTOs have access to considerable pattern of ownership and control of transmission service and the behavior of information about market conduct and generation and transmission facilities. transmission owners, if any, to determine if their actions hinder the RTO in providing performance. For example, we would Such characteristics are often beyond reliable, efficient and nondiscriminatory expect that an RTO, in the normal the control of the RTO. Since our transmission service. (Proposed course of business, will develop or overarching goal in promoting RTOs is § 35.34(j)(6)(i)) receive information on quantities of to promote fair, open and competitive b. The RTO must monitor markets for bulk power and transmission services electricity markets, we and our state ancillary services and bulk power. This bought and sold by different market commission colleagues need to obligation is limited to markets that the RTO participants, expected and real time understand how these structural operates. (Proposed § 35.34(j)(6)(ii)) transmission system conditions, features affect the potential for c. The RTO must periodically assess how planned maintenance of both generation competition. Therefore, we propose to behavior in markets operated by others (e.g., and transmission facilities and bilateral power sales markets and power require RTOs to provide periodic markets operated by unaffiliated power anticipated and real time patterns of assessments as to the effect of existing exchanges) affects RTO operations and load and generation. Second, RTOs will structural conditions on the conversely how RTO operations affect the be completely independent of all market competitiveness of their region’s performance of power markets operated by others. (Proposed § 35.34(j)(6)(iii)) 257 Pacific Gas & Electric, 81 FERC at 61,552; PJM, 261 The early experience with market assessments 81 FERC at 62,282; NEPOOL, 85 FERC at 62,479– in California and New England seems to support The RTO’s role as market monitor. To 480; Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at 62,180–181. this conclusion. See AES Redondo Beach, et al., 85 date, the Commission has found 258 New England ISO, 85 FERC ¶ 62,379 at FERC ¶ 61,123 at 61,462 (1998). monitoring to be essential in helping to 62,479–480 (1998). 262 See Peter Cramton and Robert Wilson, A ensure non-discrimination and 259 We note that at least one entity that is Review of ISO New England’s Proposed Market efficiency in the provision of contemplating the creation of a for-profit Rules, Docket No. ER97–1079, September 9, 1998, transmission company has proposed that this and the California ISO Market Surveillance transmission and ancillary services; company would perform a market monitoring Committee’s Preliminary Report On the Operation function. See Statement of Mr. Frank Gallaher on of the Ancillary Services Markets., Docket No. 256 This is the same requirement that the behalf of Entergy Corporation, Regional ISO ER98–2843, August 19, 1998 Markets. Commission imposed on the Midwest ISO. See Conference (New Orleans), transcript at 18. 263 See AES Redondo Beach, et al., 85 FERC Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at 62,154. 260 See Midwest ISO, 84 FERC at 62,181. ¶ 61,123 at 61,453 and 61,459–460 (1998).

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31428 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules electricity markets. Of all the industry arise because of unexpected interactions flaws to the Commission and affected organizations that may exist in a region, between different related markets and regulatory authorities. The reports must we think that an RTO is best suited to unanticipated incentives for buyers and contain specific recommendations about how make this assessment because of its first sellers. Electricity market restructuring observed market power abuses and market in other countries has also experienced flaws can be corrected. (Proposed hand knowledge of day-to-day grid and § 35.34(j)(6)(iv)). generation operations and its the need to make many revisions to independence. market designs and rules.266 These In order for regulatory agencies, The Commission requests comments experiences indicate that monitoring is interested parties and the general public on several threshold issues related to essential to ensure that the markets and to benefit from monitoring activities, these proposed market monitoring structures evolve to ensure just and regular reporting of findings is critical. requirements. Some argue that RTOs reasonable rates to consumers. The Other than this general requirement, we should not be charged with any Commission recognizes that market do not propose at this time to establish monitoring responsibilities particularly monitoring can be expensive. We would detailed standards on the format, length with respect to market power abuses.264 welcome estimates of the amount of and content of monitoring reports. We They argue that the antitrust laws and money spent by ISOs to monitor think that these decisions are best left to the Commission offer sufficient markets and their assessments as to the RTO. protection against competitive abuses. whether they will need to spend more Should this reporting requirement be Others have argued that RTOS are or less money in the future. limited to producing reports only when somewhat akin to organized stock Scope of monitoring activities: market a specific problem is encountered? Or exchanges and that the Commission power abuses. As we have noted before, should RTOs be required to make should follow the SEC precedent of it is often difficult to predict whether periodic reports that assess the state of requiring extensive and sophisticated certain entities will have market power competition and transmission access market monitoring by all of the in the future. This is especially true in even in the absence of specific organized exchanges. Are there features new markets which operate with new problems? We note that the California of electricity and transmission markets participants and new transmission flow and New England ISOs have committed that argue for imposing similar market patterns. In situations like this, the past to producing annual public reports. monitoring responsibilities on RTOs? is often not a very good predictor of the Arguably such reports give market If the Commission decides to require future. As a consequence, the participants and others a regular RTOs to provide some form of market Commission has found that in certain opportunity to say whether they agree or monitoring, there are several other situations the better approach is to disagree with the RTO assessment. Also, questions that arise. Should the institute an effective monitoring plan it is conceivable that such reports would Commission rely on RTOs as the ‘‘first rather than to debate numerous be helpful to any market monitoring line of defense’’ for detecting both assumptions and projections that activities that this Commission and state design flaws and market power abuses? inevitably underlie competing market commissions may wish to pursue in the If this were our approach, what would power analyses.267 For abuses that arise future. from market power, should the RTO’s be an appropriate role for the 7. Function 7: Planning and Expansion. Commission in market monitoring? If role be limited to detecting and describing the abuses? In the case of The RTO must be responsible for the RTO is operating one or more planning necessary transmission markets (e.g., ancillary services), is it localized market power (e.g., generating units that must run for reliability additions and upgrades that will enable reasonable to expect that it can perform it to provide efficient, reliable and non- an objective self-assessment? Is there a reasons), should the RTO have the authority to take corrective actions? If discriminatory transmission service and difference in the market monitoring that coordinate such efforts with the the Commission can expect from RTOs? the market power has structural causes, what role should the RTO have in appropriate state authorities. (Proposed For example, if the RTO proposes to § 35.34(j)(7)) take a market position in secondary developing structural solutions? Should transmission rights, is it plausible to RTOs that are ISOs be required to make In carrying out Function 7, the RTO expect that the RTO can perform an regular assessments as to whether they must satisfy each standard discussed objective assessment of this market? have sufficient operational authority? below, or demonstrate that an Since the success of retail competition Sanctions and penalties. The alternative proposal is consistent with Commission seeks comment on whether will often depend critically on the or superior to satisfying the standard. RTOs should be allowed to impose actions of RTOs, what should be the role a. The RTO planning and expansion penalties and sanctions. Should the of state commissions in market process must encourage market-driven penalties be limited to violations of RTO monitoring? operating and investment actions for Scope of monitoring activities: design rules and procedures? Should the RTO preventing and relieving congestion. flaws. In observing the experience of be allowed to impose penalties for the (Proposed § 35.34(j)(7)(i)) ISOs over the last year, we have learned exercise of market power? How much RTOs should be designed to promote that new market designs almost discretion should the RTO have in efficient usage and efficient expansion setting penalties? For example, should inevitably include design flaws that of their regional grids. The former the RTO’s penalty authority be limited become apparent only after the markets requires efficient price signals, such as to collecting liquidated damages? begin operation.265 Often these problems congestion pricing; the latter requires d. The RTO must provide reports on control over planning and expansion. 264 See, e.g., David B. Raskin, ISOs; The New market power abuses and market design Our specific proposal is that the RTO Antitrust Regulators? The Electricity Journal (April should have ultimate responsibility for 1998). 266 See, e.g., James Barker, Jr., Bernard 265 both transmission planning and For example, the ancillary services markets in Tenenbaum, and Fiona Wolfe, ‘‘Governance and 268 the summer of 1998 in California behaved at odds Regulation of Power Pools and System Operators: expansion within its region. This with what one would expect in an efficient market. An International Comparison,’’ Energy Law Journal, The California ISO market surveillance committee Volume 18, 1997, at 308–309. 268 Investments in new transmission facilities produced an extensive evaluation of this problem 267 Pacific Gas & Electric, 77 FERC ¶ 61,265 might be needed for a variety of reasons such as which led to discussions of possible solutions. (1996). NEPOOL, 85 FERC ¶ 61,379 (1998). interconnecting new generation or load, protecting

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31429 requirement is motivated by the fact that expansions that will hurt their However, over time, we would expect investments in new transmission commercial interests). that the RTG’s planning process would facilities must be coordinated to ensure become an RTO function and the need b. The RTO’s planning and expansion a least cost outcome that maintains or for such coordination would be reduced process must accommodate efforts by improves existing reliability levels. In or eliminated. state regulatory commissions to create the absence of a single entity with multi-state agreements to review and overall responsibility, there would be c. If the Regional Transmission approve new transmission facilities. The danger that transmission investments Organization is unable to satisfy this RTO’s planning and expansion process would work at cross-purposes and requirement when it commences must be coordinated with programs of possibly even hurt reliability. We operation, it must file a plan with the existing Regional Transmission Groups recognize that the RTO’s Commission with specified milestones (RTGs) where necessary. (Proposed implementation of this general that will ensure that it meets this § 35.34(j)(7)(ii)) requirement will require addressing requirement no later than three years many specific design issues.269 Once after initial operation. (Proposed At present, certification and siting of § 35.34(j)(7)(iii)) again, we propose to give RTOs new transmission facilities is almost considerable flexibility in designing a always performed by a state agency, We recognize that establishing an planning and expansion process that typically the public utilities efficient procedure for transmission works best for its region. We recognize commission, in the state in which the planning and expansion may require that the specific features of this process 271 facility will be located. While there coordination and agreements among must take account of and accommodate have been discussions about the need multiple parties and regulatory existing institutions and physical for regional certification and siting since jurisdictions, and that this may take characteristics of the region. most new transmission lines are integral some time to accomplish. Accordingly, Within these constraints, the elements of a regional grid system, such Commission has a clear preference for we do not propose that an RTO be proposals have met with little capable of performing this function on market-driven operating and investment 272 success. With the growth of RTOs, its first day of operation. We do expect, actions for preventing and relieving this could conceivably change. The congestion.270 However, we understand however, that RTO proposals contain at emergence of a single regional least a plan explaining how the RTO that the feasibility of obtaining market transmission organization on the driven solutions requires satisfying intends to work toward implementing industry side may encourage the this function. Such a plan should set other prerequisites. For example, development of regional organizations transmission prices must accurately forth milestones that will result in this or agreements that deal with function being performed within three reflect existing patterns of congestion. transmission siting and certification on Accurate congestion prices are the link years after initial operation. We seek the regulatory side. The Commission comment on whether three years is an between current usage and future believes that this would be a positive expansion. Therefore, we place appropriate amount of time for development if it is a voluntary decision implementation of this function. considerable emphasis on the need for of the affected states and replaces RTOs to establish a system of congestion existing state-by-state determinations E. Open Architecture management that establishes clear rights that often lack a regional perspective. To The Commission believes that RTOs for existing and new transmission facilitate any voluntary actions taken by facilities and price signals that reflect hold great promise in accomplishing our our state colleagues, we will require that goal of promoting competition in congestion. (See section III.F) the RTO planning and coordination Independent governance is also a regional wholesale electricity markets. system must be able to accommodate That is why we want to accelerate their necessary condition for efficient the possible future emergence of a expansion. While accurate price signals development. We understand that there regional regulatory system. are many difficult organizational, can signal the need for expansion, such The Commission recognizes that technical, and policy issues that must be expansion may never be achieved if the regional transmission planning in some addressed in realizing proposals, and RTO operates under a faulty governance areas is being performed to varying that markets are evolving quickly and system (e.g., a governance system that degrees by RTGs.273 It would be possibly in ways that cannot be foreseen allows market participants to block inefficient for RTOs initially to replicate at the time of RTO organization. the efforts of RTGs. Therefore, we Further, the nature of the institutions or enhancing system reliability, improving system require that RTOs discuss their planning operating efficiency and flexibility, reducing or supporting the markets may change over and expansion with existing RTGs. eliminating congestion and minimizing the need for time as well. ‘‘must-run’’ contracts with one or more generators. For these reasons, the Commission 269 Our experience with regional transmission 271 See Ileana Elsa Garcia, State Electric Facility groups suggests that the following issues, among Siting Practices, prepared for the Harvard Electric will require that RTO design have the others, will need to be addressed: Who establishes Policy Group (HEPG), April 10, 1997. Available ability to evolve over time. The the planning criteria? Who sets the design criteria? through the HEPG website at http:// Commission is committed to a policy of Should they be uniform across the system or vary ksgwww.harvard.edu/hepg. ‘‘open architecture.’’ Simply put, open with location? Who can initiate studies for 272 See NARUC, ‘‘Options for Jurisdiction over transmission investments? Who evaluates and Transmission Facility Siting,’’ a resource document architecture requires that there be no publishes different options? Who recommends for the NARUC Committee on Electricity, 1991 and provision in any RTO proposal that which projects should be built and how the costs Charles D. Gray, NARUC Assistant General Counsel, precludes the RTO and its members and benefits of the project should be allocated? Memorandum, January 1995. Available through the from improving their organizations to 270 HEPG/website at http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/hepg. This is a topic that has been discussed widely meet market needs. The Commission within the industry. See, e.g., the papers of Steven 273 The Commission has approved RTGs for the L. Walton, Indego Transmission Expansion New England Power Pool, et al., 83 FERC ¶ 61,045 will provide the regulatory flexibility to Strategy, Steven Stoft, Five Things You Should (1998), Mid-Continent Area Power Pool, 76 FERC allow such evolution. Know About Grid Investment and Ray Coxe, New ¶ 61,261 (1996), Northwest Regional Transmission Under open architecture, an RTO Paradigms for Siting Transmission in Competitive Association, 71 FERC ¶ 61,397 (1995), Western should be able to evolve in several Electric Markets. These papers are available through Regional Transmission Association, 71 FERC the Harvard Electric Policy Group website http:// ¶ 651,158 (1995), and Southwest Regional ways, as long as it continues to satisfy ksgwww.harvard.edu/hepg. Transmission Association, 69 FERC ¶ 61,100 (1994). the minimum RTO characteristics and

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31430 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules functions. For example, open Transmission Pricing Policy Statement solve. We believe that efficient architecture would allow basic changes the Commission allowed ‘‘substantial congestion management requires a in the organizational form of the RTO. flexibility’’ to be given to RTGs in greater reliance on market An RTO that initially does not own any justifying non-conforming proposals. mechanisms 276 and this can be transmission facilities might acquire The Commission allowed this because effectively accomplished with price ownership of some or all of those RTGs represent the combined interests signals. We propose to allow RTOs facilities. The RTO’s enabling of transmission owners, users and state considerable flexibility in agreements should at best anticipate and authorities and because pricing experimenting with different market facilitate such a change, but at proposals for treating loop flow approaches to managing congestion minimum should not prevent it or make problems work better if all utilities in through pricing. 277 Proposals should, it more difficult than necessary. the region use the same method. however, ensure that the generators that Market trading patterns, technological In this section, we discuss a number are dispatched in the presence of change, and changes in corporate of areas in which we expect RTOs to transmission constraints must be those strategies will make changes in RTO provide innovative pricing and in which that can serve system loads at least cost, membership inevitable and desirable. the Commission may be expected to and limited transmission capacity Accommodating change will require allow flexibility. We seek comments on should be used by market participants flexibility and adaptability in the RTO the issues discussed and other RTO that value that use most highly.278 organization and open architecture will pricing issues. The Commission intends to be flexible in reviewing pricing permit this. 1. Single Transmission Access Rate for innovations, and we ask for comments Market support and operations is Capital Cost Recovery another RTO dimension that could as to what specific requirements, if any, benefit from open architecture. For One issue in ISO proposals that have may best suit our RTO goals. come before the Commission is the example, an RTO may not initially 3. Performance Based Rate Regulation operate a PX to support a regional spot recovery of transmission capital costs market, but if RTO members later find through a single access rate. Under such Once RTOs are formed, the that a PX would help the region, the a rate, the capital costs of all RTO Commission is interested in finding RTO could propose to add the PX members would be averaged, resulting ways to ensure their satisfactory function as well as a PX market in a rate that is higher than the performance. One way to induce good monitoring function. It is important that individual system rate for relatively grid operation by an RTO is through the basic RTO agreement not close off low-cost transmission systems and performance-based regulation, or PBR. such development. Our proposed open lower than the rate for high-cost PBR may consist of price/revenue caps, transmission systems. This can cause price incentives, or performance architecture policy will ensure that such 279 future development is not foreclosed. two kinds of ‘‘cost-shifting’’ concerns: standards. Performance-based The Commission is interested in high-cost transmission providers are regulation identifies factors of good receiving comments regarding an open concerned about cost recovery, and performance such as efficient architecture policy to ensure that initial customers of the low-cost providers are congestion management, lowering RTOs can develop. What flexibility concerned about increased rates. operator costs, and meeting reliability needs to be built into RTO contracts? Transmission cost shifting has been targets. Great care must be taken in What regulatory flexibility is needed an issue in every ISO the Commission selecting the performance factors. RTOs from the Commission as part of an open has approved to date, and we have should have a reasonable chance of architecture policy? In which areas of allowed a flexible approach to resolving meeting or exceeding the performance RTO organization or operations is it the issue. In each of those cases, we targets, but the targets must not be too especially important for the have allowed a transition period of easy to meet. We would reward only Commission to expect improvement? between five and ten years during performance that is truly superior to which access fees are based on some that which individual transmission F. Ratemaking for Transmission form of ‘‘license plate’’ pricing: access owners could achieve outside an RTO. Facilities Under RTO Control fees are paid by load serving entities The Commission seeks comments on The Commission expects RTOs to based on the fixed transmission costs of applying PBR to RTOs. Should PBR be reform transmission pricing, and in the local utility.275 voluntary or applied to all RTOs? What return we propose to allow RTOs greater We propose to continue our flexibility degree of regulatory scrutiny would a flexibility in designing pricing in allowing the recovery of current sunk PBR regime require? In addition, the proposals. In 1994, the Commission transmission costs as transition Commission seeks comment on the issued its Transmission Pricing Policy mechanisms to single rates if proposed specifics of how PBR would be applied Statement encouraging transmission by RTOs, including the license plate pricing reform and setting out standards approach as well as others. We request 276 See NERC, 85 FERC at 62,364. comment regarding whether the license 277 This is consistent with our Transmission to be used to evaluate innovative Pricing Policy Statement’s allowance of substantial transmission pricing proposals.274 In the plate approach to fixed cost recovery is flexibility to pricing proposals from RTGs because an appropriate long-term measure. RTGs are comprised of broad membership to 274 facilitate transmission access, develop a The Policy Statement sets out five principles 2. Congestion Pricing that transmission pricing proposals should conform comprehensive regional plan for transmission to: meet the traditional revenue requirement; reflect As discussed in prior sections, expansion, share transmission information and comparability (open access tariff); promote managing regional congestion is one of provide for dispute resolution. 64 FERC 61,138 economic efficiency; promote fairness; and be (1993). RTOs possess these same characteristics. practical. The Policy Statement requires non- the problems that an RTO can help 278 Transmission Pricing Policy Statement, FERC conforming proposals to satisfy additional factors: Stats. & Regs. at 31,140–44. promote competitive markets and produce greater 275 See, e.g., Order Directing Amendments to 279 See Incentive Ratemaking for Interstate overall consumer benefits. Overall consumer Proposals to Restructure the Pennsylvania-New Natural Gas Pipelines, Oil Pipelines, and Electric benefits are measured principally by greater access Jersey-Maryland Interconnection and Providing Utilities, Policy Statement on Incentive Regulation, and customer choice, projected price decreases to Guidance, 77 FERC ¶ 61,148 at 61,577 (addressing 61 FERC ¶ 61,168 at 61,590–92 (1992), and L. power customers, and service flexibility and concerns about cost-shifting between high- and low- Brown, Michael Einhorn, and Ingo Vogelsang, products to meet customer needs. cost transmission providers). Incentive Regulation: A Research Report (1989).

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31431 effectively to an RTO. For productivity treatment encourage better incentives are most likely to be incentives, what productivity objectives performance? successful in so doing? Are there should be adopted and how should The Commission could also consider specific forms of incentive pricing that productivity be measured? How would flexibility in cost recovery for RTO are inappropriate and problematic? Are a revenue cap or a price cap be set? participation. The capital cost of safeguards needed if the Commission What intermediate adjustments to the transmission plant is normally decides to allow incentive treatments? cap should be allowed? How often recovered over a relatively long time In justifying a proposed rate treatment, should base costs be examined? period. RTO participants could be should an RTO be required to allowed accelerated recovery for the demonstrate that its benefits are likely 4. Consideration of Incentive Pricing costs of transmission expansion. to outweigh the pecuniary ‘‘costs’’ of the Proposals Similarly, the recovery of capital start- proposal? Would certain incentive RTOs would bring extensive benefits up costs of RTO participation could be pricing encourage RTOs to favor capital- to North American electricity markets accelerated as well. Is it appropriate to based resource decisions (at the expense and would further the objectives of allow such accelerated recovery as an of more efficient alternatives) or to favor sections 202(a), 205 and 206 of the FPA. incentive to transfer transmission transmission solutions over alternative We would be willing to consider, on a facilities to an RTO or should capital ways of relieving particular case by case basis, allowing the recovery periods continue to be based transmission constraints? We also seek transmission owners that bring about on the useful life of transmission comment on whether and how public those benefits to share in them through facilities? Is industry restructuring and power transmission owners that incentive pricing for public utility the potential introduction of distributed participate in RTOs could benefit from transmission owners that turn over generation technology likely to affect flexible ratemaking and incentive control of their transmission facilities to the risk associated with transmission pricing treatments. an RTO.280 RTOs would be expected to investment recovery periods? Finally, our willingness to consider propose and justify specific proposals The Commission may also be willing incentive pricing proposals is on a case-by-case basis. to consider non-traditional methods for conditioned on an RTO meeting all of One potential treatment that could be valuing transmission assets that are the proposed minimum characteristics considered is allowing transmission under the control of a RTO. The and functions. Allowing any incentive owners that participate in RTOs to Commission’s traditional ratemaking pricing to RTO participants is based on receive a higher return on equity (ROE) policy values assets at original cost, less a sharing of the extensive benefits that on transmission plant than under depreciation. One alternative may be for an RTO brings to electricity markets. current policy because a transmission rate base to reflect a higher valuation Only an RTO that meets the minimum owner participating in an RTO puts its through some measure of replacement characteristics and functions can grid to a higher valued use than one cost. Where an RTO or other produce such extensive benefits, and it operating individually. This relates the independent owner purchases would be inappropriate for the incentive to the benefit produced by the transmission assets and pay a price that Commission to consider incentive RTO. The simplest way to create a reflects such an enhanced valuation of pricing to members of an RTO that falls higher ROE is to share the benefits of an assets, the Commission may want to short. We would, however, be open to RTO between transmission owners and consider allowing the RTO to include in considering other innovative customers. Alternatively, a higher ROE its rates an acquisition premium that transmission rate treatments, such as could be implemented by either reflects the enhanced value. providing service at non-pancaked rates allowing an ROE at the high end of the The Commission might also consider and regional congestion management zone of reasonable returns for RTO flexibility in allowing levelized or non- proposals, for an organization that does participants and an ROE in the current levelized rate methods. Both methods not meet all of the minimum RTO range for non-participants. Is it can produce reasonable results in characteristics and functions. appropriate to allow a higher ROE as a particular circumstances, especially G. Public Power Participation in RTOs means of sharing the benefits created by when one method is used consistently RTOs or should higher ROEs be limited throughout the life of a utility’s The Commission’s objective of only to increases in risk? Is the risk of facilities. The Commission has, encouraging all transmission owning transmission capital recovery increased however, been reluctant to allow entities in the Nation to place their transmission facilities under the control or decreased by transferring switching from a non-levelized to a of an RTO includes transmission owned transmission facilities to an RTO from a levelized rate design during the life of or controlled by public power entities vertically integrated firm? a facility. The Commission’s current With improved grid operation and [e.g., municipals, cooperatives, Federal policy is that a utility must prove that investment in new facilities to relieve Power Marketing Agencies (PMAs), switching methods is reasonable in light constraints, RTOs may lower grid Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and of its past recovery of capital.281 The operating costs. Another incentive that other state and local entities]. We are Commission could consider granting could be considered would be to keep aware that some public power entities some latitude for RTO pricing proposals transmission rates at current levels and have filed open access tariffs with the for levelized rate cost recovery. Commission and others are participating allow participating RTO transmission The Commission seeks comments on in ISOs and other regional institutions. owners to keep the benefits from cost whether to entertain case-by-case We also are aware, however, that many savings over time or to lower proposals of rate incentive treatments public power entities may face several transmission rates partly while owners for RTO participants. Will transmission difficult issues regarding RTO keep part of the benefits. Would such owners respond to incentives, and will participation. The Commission is incentives be sufficient to achieve our 280 As discussed above in section III–B, there are concerned about any obstacle to public objective of RTO formation? Which also a number of non-pricing regulatory benefits power participation in the formation that could be offered to RTO members, such as deference in dispute resolution, reduced or 281 See Consumers Energy Company, 85 FERC and successful operation of any form of eliminated codes of conduct, and streamlined filing ¶ 61,100, at 61,366–367, 1998); Kentucky Utilities RTO. Accordingly, we request and approval procedures. Company, 85 FERC ¶ 61,274, at 62,103–105 (1998). comments that identify issues that

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31432 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules public power entities and others face Bonneville Power Administration and arrangement significant enough to act as regarding RTO participation and that other entities in the Pacific Northwest a disincentive to RTO membership? suggest ways the Commission might may face unique circumstances that may 2. Treatment of Existing Regional facilitate their resolution. We expect affect RTO formation in that area. These Transmission Entities public power entities to fully participate include the design of the power and in the proposed collaborative process transmission system for the production We propose to adopt in the Final Rule for forming RTOs after our Final Rule is of hydroelectric energy involving the certain characteristics and functions to issued, as discussed in section III–I 1961 Columbia River Treaty, the be required of RTOs. It could turn out below. Bonneville Project Act, the Federal that the ISOs and any other regional One issue is the Internal Revenue Columbia River Transmission System transmission entities that conform to the Service (IRS) Code ‘‘private use’’ Act, the Pacific Northwest Electric Commission’s ISO principles that we restrictions on the transmission Power Planning and Conservation Act of have approved to date do not meet all facilities of public power entities 1980, and the Northwest Preference Act. of these characteristics and functions. It financed by tax-exempt bonds. IRS There may also be obstacles to TVA is our expectation that, to the extent this temporary regulations may allow participation in an RTO. How can the is the case, the existing regional facilities financed by outstanding tax- Commission help overcome any such transmission entities will over time exempt bonds to be used to wheel limiting factors to full RTO formation? evolve to be consistent with the power in accordance with Order No. characteristics and functions adopted in 888, but they may not allow the H. Other Issues the Final Rule. The Commission issuance of additional tax-exempt bonds recognizes that a number of operational, The Commission seeks comment on a financial and political issues will need for expanded transmission or permit number of other issues regarding RTO transfer of operational control of to be addressed in the course of such an participation. These issues are evolution and that it cannot be existing transmission facilities financed presented in this section. by tax-exempt bonds to a for-profit accomplished overnight. We also transco.282 In addition, there is 1. Pre-existing Transmission Contracts respect the investment of time and other uncertainty regarding what may happen resources made in the existing after the temporary regulations expire What is the appropriate treatment of transmission entities, and understand on January 22, 2001. existing transmission agreements when the importance of avoiding change We solicit comments on the extent to an RTO is formed? In Order Nos. 888 during the critical implementation which IRS Code restrictions may limit and 888–A, we specifically chose not to period these institutions are now the transfer of operational control or abrogate existing requirements and undergoing. Given these considerations, other forms of control, or ownership, of transmission contracts when the utility and our policy of regional flexibility, the 283 public power transmission facilities to a filed an open access tariff. However, proposed rule does not require major for-profit transco. What impact would an RTO represents an entirely different changes to the existing transmission IRS Code restrictions have on public context. We must balance the need for entities. However, our objective is to power participation in other forms of an a uniform approach for transmission encourage all of the Nation’s RTO? While IRS Code restrictions might pricing and the elimination of pancaked transmission grid to be under the prevent issue of additional tax-exempt rates—one of the principal benefits of an control of RTOs that have the minimum bonds for transmission expansions RTO—with the need to recognize the characteristics and functions adopted in made in accordance with RTO equities inherent in existing the Final Rule. We therefore propose to participation, are non-tax exempt forms transmission contracts. The potential require each public utility that is a of financing a viable option for public financial impact of giving up an member of an existing regional power participation in selected advantageous transmission arrangement transmission entity that has been transmission additions? may act as a disincentive to joining an approved by the Commission as in In addition to private use restrictions, RTO. conformance with the eleven ISO are there other restrictions on public In the ISO filings that we have acted principles set forth in Order No. 888 to power institutions that may limit their on to date, we have evaluated various make a filing no later than January 15, participation in RTOs? For example, to ‘‘transition plans’’ regarding existing 2001 that explains the extent to which what extent would state or local charter contracts on a case-by-case basis.284 At the transmission entity in which it limitations, prohibitions on this juncture, we do not intend to participates meets the minimum participating in stock-owning entities, resolve this issue generically but instead characteristics and functions for an or the current policies of various local propose to confine our policy to RTO, or proposes to modify the existing regulatory entities affect or impede full addressing this issue on an RTO-by-RTO institution to become an RTO. public power participation in RTOs? basis. We solicit comments on this Alternatively, the public utility may file Are there some forms of associate approach. How critical is this concern to an explanation of efforts, obstacles and membership or participation in RTOs, transmission owners’ and others’ plans with respect to conforming to or other special accommodations, that decisions on whether to support RTO these characteristics and functions. 285 the Commission should consider to formation? Is the financial impact of The Commission is also concerned make it more feasible for public power giving up an advantageous transmission about impediments to transactions entities to overcome obstacles to between existing transmission entities, participation in RTOs? 283 See Order No. 888 at 31,664–65; Order No. 88– as well as any future RTOs. We The Commission seeks comment on A at 30,181, 30,199; clarified, 76 FERC at 61,027; therefore encourage existing legal restrictions or other considerations Order No. 888–B, 81 FERC at 62,072, 62, 090, transmission entities to consider ways regarding the PMAs that prevent their 62,100. to reduce any impediments to 284 See PJM, 81 FERC at 62,280–81; Midwest ISO, participation in RTOs. For example, 84 FERC at 62,169–70 and order on reh’g, 85 FERC transactions among them and direct at 62,418–20 (1998); Pacific Gas & Electric, 777 282 See Uncrossing the Wires, Transmission in a FERC at 61,821, 81 FERC at 61,470–71; NEPOOL, 285 Of course, there is nothing to prevent an Restructured Market, a report by The Large Public 83 FERC at 61,241–42; Central Hudson Gas & existing transmission entity from making an RTO Power Council, December 1998, at 10. Electric Co. et al., 86 FERC at 61,218–19. filing prior to this date if it so chooses.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31433 them to provide the Commission with a denying non-participants the benefits of Regions may want to consider progress report by January 15, 2001. non-pancaked transmission rates? The establishing a PX that is operated by an The Commission seeks comment on Commission seeks comment on the RTO. However, some oppose RTO- this issue. treatment by an RTO of non- operated PXs, contending that the two participating transmission owners in the principal functions of PXs, market 3. Participation by Canadian and RTO region. making and price discovery, are not Mexican Entities natural monopoly functions.290 They Canadian and Mexican involvement 5. RTO Filing Requirements also contend that power exchanges force in RTO formation would be beneficial to Any transfer of control of market participants to buy and sell both, as well as to the United States. In jurisdictional transmission facilities electricity using standardized contracts certain areas, ‘‘natural’’ electricity owned, operated, or controlled by that may not meet their particular trading regions already cross national public utilities required by RTO needs. They argue that the full benefits borders. Expansion of electricity trade formation must be approved by the of electricity competition can be in the North American bulk power Commission pursuant to its Section 203 achieved only if there is competition for market requires that regional authority under the FPA. The RTO the market as well as in the market. institutions include all market transmission rates, terms, and Finally, they assert that if power participants so that they may enjoy conditions of service must also be exchanges are introduced, an RTO direct access to market information and approved pursuant to Section 205 of the should be specifically prohibited from the benefits of non-pancaked FPA. We request comments on whether operating the exchange because this transmission rates. In addition, any the Commission should provide for would compromise the RTO’s reliability standards implemented by expedited or streamlined processing independence in fulfilling its principal RTOs must be acceptable to the affected procedures for Section 203 transfers of responsibilities as a transmission nations and consider all resources to jurisdictional facilities to RTOs that service provider and system operator.291 avoid wasteful duplication of grid meet the characteristics and functions of In contrast, those who recommend facilities.286 the Final Rule, and for the related that an RTO should operate a PX We encourage electric utilities in Section 205 transmission rates, terms, contend that the two functions of short- Canada and Mexico, and their and conditions. We also welcome term forward or spot market operations regulatory authorities, to participate in specific suggestions regarding how we and system operations are difficult to the discussions of the rulemaking. can further expedite or streamline our separate.292 It is their view that there Perhaps what may be thought of as a procedures. will be significant inefficiencies unless ‘‘dotted line’’ RTO boundary could be the two functions are performed used at international borders to indicate 6. Power Exchanges (PXs) simultaneously by a single entity.293 In an unwillingness to artificially limit an Another important issue is the addition, they contend that there is no RTO’s scope while recognizing relationship between RTOs and power inherent conflict between the RTO as a jurisdictional limits. The Commission exchanges. Of the five ISOs approved to transmission service provider and a spot emphasizes that Canadian and Mexican date, only the Midwest ISO chose not to market operator as long as the RTO has authorities would be responsible for include a power exchange in the design no commercial interest in whether approving prices and other terms and submitted to us.287 However, after the prices are high or low in the markets conditions of transmission service Commission approved this proposal, that it operates. provided over any RTO transmission several ISO participants joined with We leave it to each region to decide facilities located in their countries. We other Midwestern power entities in whether there is a need for a PX and invite the comments of Canadian and issuing a public request for proposals whether the RTO should operate the PX. Mexican authorities on these and other that would create an independent power The Commission will accept an RTO issues. exchange that would operate in conjunction with the ISO.288 This recent reserve funds to cover defaults, they create a type 4. Providing Service to Transmission- Midwest initiative appears to have been of insurance by spreading counterparty risks among all participants and thereby reducing the likelihood owning Utilities that do not Participate motivated, at least in part, by the large in an RTO of cascading transaction defaults such as those that price spikes that were experienced last occurred in the Midwest. In addition, it is generally The transmission owners that turn summer. Our staff’s report concluded accepted that an organized and transparent spot control of transmission facilities over to that one of probable causes of the price market is a prerequisite for a viable futures market which would allow market participants to hedge an RTO will help bring significant spikes was the lack of price the risk of future price fluctuations. Finally, we operational and commercial benefits to transparency and that ‘‘centralized note that during our recent consultations with state a region. To what extent should trading institutions such as power commissions, several state commissioners informed transmission owners who do not exchanges could have provided better us that organized and open spot markets were critical to the success of their efforts to introduce participate in their region’s RTO share price signals in the market and helped retail competition in their respective states. 289 in those benefits? Would it be to reduce price volatility.’’ 290 See, e.g., comments of Enron in PL98–5, appropriate to allow RTO members to Washington, D.C., transcript at 211. provide transmission service at 287 In California, PXs are operated by separate 291 See, e.g., comments of Automated Power individual system rates to non- organizations that coordinate with the ISO. Exchange, Inc., in PL98–5 at 3. participating transmission owners 288 See Joint Committee for the Development of a 292 See Professor William W. Hogan, ‘‘Enabling Midwest Independent Power Exchange, The Power Of Markets,’’ presentation at the EEI located in the RTO region, thereby ‘‘Solicitation of Interest-Creation of an Independent Chief Executive Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona, Power Exchange for the U.S. Midwest,’’ February 5, January 7, 1999, at 8. A copy of this presentation 286 Historically, Canada and Mexico have 1999. is available on Professor Hogan’s website participated in North American utility 289 Staff Report to the Federal Energy Regulatory (www.ksg.harvard.edu/people.whogan). organizations such as NERC and Western Systems Commission on the Causes of Wholesale Electric 293 See Dr. Larry Ruff, ‘‘Competition in Electricity: Coordinating Council (WSCC). Maintaining Pricing Abnormalities in the Midwest During June Where Do We Go From Here?’’, lecture at the Reliability in a Competitive U.S. Electricity 1998, September 1998, at 4–4. Centralized power Institute of Economic Affairs, London Business Industry, Final Report of the Task Force on Electric exchanges appear to have other benefits. Since most School, October 13, 1998. Available through the System Reliability, Secretary of Energy Advisory power exchanges establish credit and security website of the Harvard Electric Policy Group (http:/ Board, DOE, September 29, 1998 at 9, 58. standards as a condition for participation and /ksgwww.harvard.edu/hepg/FPpapers.html).

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31434 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules proposal that includes a PX in its design information about the status of RTOs or proposed § 35.34(c)).294 To the extent as long as its operation of the PX does RTO proposals in the region, to identify possible, RTO proposals should include not compromise its independence as a any impediments to RTO formation in the transmission facilities of public transmission service provider. We the area, to explore what process could power and other non-public utility request comments on the following most expeditiously advance agreements entities. questions. Given that a power exchange on RTO formation, and to determine The number and type of filings is useful, should it be part of an RTO or what role, if any, Commission staff necessary to effectuate an RTO proposal otherwise associated with an RTO? If an should play in advancing discussions in necessarily will vary depending upon area has more than one PX, should the the region. These regional workshops the type of RTO being proposed and the PXs have equal standing before the would be convened by Commission staff circumstances of each individual public RTO? Is an organized PX necessary for in cooperation with the affected state utility participant. At a minimum, an successful retail competition? If an RTO officials. The Commission would RTO proposal must include a basic operates congestion markets and specifically invite each entity in the agreement filed under section 205 of the balancing markets, are there efficiencies Nation that owns or operates FPA setting out the rules, practices and to be gained by allowing or encouraging transmission facilities, and procedures under which an RTO will be the RTO to operate day ahead or hour representatives from Canada and governed and operated, and requests by ahead energy markets? Is it feasible for Mexico as appropriate, to the public the public utility members of the RTO an RTO to operate a spot energy market workshops. The Commission proposes for approval under section 203 of the without compromising its ability to to make staff resources, including FPA to transfer control of their provide non-discriminatory settlement judges, available through our jurisdictional transmission facilities. transmission service to all market Dispute Resolution Service to assist in However, depending upon the participants? If a PX is operated by a designing and possibly facilitating circumstances, there may need to be non-RTO entity, is there a need to regional collaborations following the additional section 205 or 206 require certain specified forms of workshops. Commission technical staff amendments to existing public utility coordination between the two will be made available for participation contracts or rate schedules in order to organizations? in the regional collaborations. effectuate an RTO proposal. For those public utilities that file an I. Implementation of the Rule Would regional workshops advance RTO proposal on or before October 15, The Commission seeks to support RTO formation? Under whose auspices 2000, we will permit them to file a timely RTO formation in every region of should regional workshops be held? petition for declaratory order asking the country. To that end, the Would it be beneficial to have the whether a proposed transmission entity Commission envisions regional Commission’s Dispute Resolution would qualify as an RTO, with a collaborations soon after issuance of the Service staff facilitate discussions description of the organizational and Final Rule, building on progress made regarding RTO formation? Should the operational structure and the intended to that date. Further, pursuant to our Commission staff convene the regional participants of the institution, an expectation that utilities and other workshops or should Commission staff explanation of how the institution participants in the electric industry be made available to attend meetings would satisfy each of the RTO minimum form RTOs, the Commission proposes to convened by others? If the Commission characteristics and functions, and a require that certain filings be made by staff convenes workshops, in how many commitment to submit necessary October 15, 2000 concerning RTO cities should meetings be convened and section 203, 205 and 206 filing promptly formation. The collaborative process how should the cities be chosen? Would after receiving the Commission’s and filing requirements are discussed in the three U.S. interconnections be determination on the declaratory order more detail below. appropriate starting points? Would petition (see proposed § 35.34(d)(3)). 1. Collaborative Process participation of Commission staff aid or This declaratory order petition option stifle negotiations on RTO thus is to be used only in conjunction During our consultations with the development? with the filing of a proposal for an RTO state commissions, many said that that is to begin operation no later than 2. Filing Requirement Commission leadership is needed to December 15, 2001. facilitate RTO formation and that only If a public utility is not able to file an we could facilitate broad regional The Commission is hopeful that the direction provided by this rulemaking, RTO proposal on or before October 15, participation. To facilitate RTO 2000, it must alternatively file by that formation in all regions of the Nation, the regional collaborations described above, and the possibility of incentive date a description of any efforts made by the Commission proposes a the public utility to participate in an collaborative process under section rate treatments will lead to the prompt development of RTO proposals. Thus, RTO, the reasons it has not participated 202(a) to take place in the spring of in an RTO, including identifying 2000, after adoption of a Final Rule. The we propose that all public utilities that own, operate or control interstate specific obstacles to RTO participation, Commission expects public utilities and and any plans and timetables the public non-public utilities, in coordination transmission facilities (except those already participating in a regional with appropriate state officials, and 294 A proposal to form a transmission institution affected interest groups in a region to transmission entity in conformance with that does not meet all of the minimum RTO fully participate in working to develop our eleven ISO principles) must file characteristics and functions will not be approved an RTO. with the Commission by October 15, as an RTO. This does not necessarily mean that the 2000, either (1) a proposal to participate proposal will not otherwise be approved as To assist in structuring the regional consistent with the FPA. However, the proposal collaborations and to further inform the in an RTO that will be operational no will not qualify as an RTO. For transmission Commission on activities in each region, later than December 15, 2001, or (2) an organizations that do not meet all of the minimum we propose that regional workshops be alternative filing describing efforts to RTO characteristics and functions, however, we participate in an RTO, obstacles to RTO would still be open to considering, and indeed held throughout the Nation after the encourage, regional filings for providing service at Final Rule is issued. The goal of these participation, and any plans and non-pancaked rates and regional congestion workshops would be to share timetables for future efforts (see management proposals.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31435 utility has for further work toward RTO RTO participants in that region, whether disposes of 4,000,000 MWh per year or participation (see proposed § 35.34(f)). If transmission services provided by a less. 13 C.F.R. § 121.201. Furthermore, a public utility makes such an transmitting utility need to be under the rule will not have the requisite alternative filing, the Commission at RTO control to satisfy the impact upon transmission owners. that time will determine what steps, if discrimination standards of sections 211 In Mid-Tex Elec. Coop. v. FERC, 773 any, need to be taken. and 212 of the FPA, and whether a F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the court The above requirements, however, do public utility’s lack of participation found that Congress, in passing the not apply to a public utility that is a would otherwise be in violation of the RFA, intended agencies to limit their member of an existing transmission FPA. Does the possibility of any of these consideration ‘‘to small entities that entity that the Commission has found to remedial actions for RTO non- would be directly regulated’’ by be in conformance with the Order No. participation undermine or otherwise proposed rules. Id. at 342. The court 888 ISO principles. Rather, each such inhibit voluntary participation in RTOs? further concluded that ‘‘the relevant public utility must make a filing no later How should the Commission consider ‘economic impact’ was the impact of than January 15, 2001 that (1) explains the efficiency, reliability, and compliance with the proposed rule on the extent to which the transmission discrimination implications of RTO regulated small entities.’’ Id. at 342. entity in which it participates meets the non-participation? How should the The proposed rule will not regulate minimum characteristics and functions Commission consider non-participation for an RTO, (2) proposes to modify the by utilities that constitute ‘‘holes’’ in an any small entities, nor will it impose existing institution to become an RTO, RTO region? upon them any significant costs of or (3) explains efforts, obstacles and The Commission anticipates that compliance. Small entities will be free plans with respect to conforming to public utilities will file proposals for to determine for themselves whether to these characteristics and functions (see ISOs, transcos, or other types of regional participate in an RTO and whether any proposed § 35.34(g)).295 transmission institutions prior to the costs associated with joining an RTO The Commission does not propose to effective date of the Final Rule. We will be adequately offset by attendant mandate RTO participation by rule, and clarify that the Commission will benefits. The only requirement the rule instead proposes to induce voluntary continue to apply to these proposals the would impose upon a small entity participation through a combination of ISO principles contained in Order No. would be the need to file a statement guidance on the minimum 888 and the case precedent established explaining its efforts to join an RTO, any characteristics and functions of an RTO, for ISOs. However, a public utility that barriers it encountered, and any future possible rate incentives, a collaborative files such a proposal prior to the plans to seek to join an RTO. The process for structuring regional effective date of the Final Rule would Commission believes that the costs dialogues, and filing requirements. The still be subject to the October 15, 2000 associated with preparing and filing Commission seeks comment on whether or January 15, 2001 filing requirement, such a statement will be minimal. the filing requirements discussed above as appropriate, in the Final Rule. Consequently, the Commission certifies are inconsistent with or otherwise that this proposed rule will not have a IV. Environmental Statement would inhibit voluntary participation in significant economic impact upon a RTOs. The Commission also seeks In furtherance of the National substantial number of small entities. Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the comment on whether it needs to VI. Public Reporting Burden and staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory generically mandate RTO participation Information Collection Statement by all public utilities to remedy undue Commission will prepare an discrimination under sections 205 and environmental assessment (EA) that will The following collections of 206 of the FPA. We also seek comment consider the environmental impacts of information contained in this proposed on whether a performance based system the proposed rule. A notice of intent to rule are being submitted to the Office of could be designed to realign economic prepare the EA, request comments on Management and Budget (OMB) for interests to remove the motive for the scope of the EA, and notice of a review under Section 3507(d) of the discrimination. public scoping meeting is published Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. FERC In considering what actions might be elsewhere in this issue of the Federal identifies the information provided appropriate if a utility fails to Register. under Part 35 as FERC–516 and under voluntarily join an RTO, the V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Part 33 as FERC–519. Commission seeks comment on whether Comments are solicited on the market-based rates for generation The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612, requires Commission’s need for this information, services could continue to be justified whether the information will have for a public utility that does not rulemakings to contain either a description and analysis of the effect practical utility, the accuracy of the participate in an RTO, whether a merger that the proposed rule will have on provided burden estimates, ways to involving a public utility that is not a small entities or a certification that the enhance the quality, utility, and clarity member of an RTO would be consistent rule will not have a significant of the information to be collected, and with the public interest, whether non- economic impact on a substantial any suggested methods for minimizing participants that own transmission number of small entities. If this respondents’ burden, including the use facilities should be allowed to use the proposed rule goes into effect, it will of automated information techniques. non-pancaked transmission rates of the establish minimum characteristics and The burden estimates for complying with this proposed rule are as follows: 295 Of course, there is nothing to prevent an functions for RTOs, none of which is existing entity from making an RTO filing prior to likely to meet the SBA’s definition of a Public Reporting Burden: Estimated this date if it so chooses. small electric utility, i.e., one that Annual Burden:

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31436 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

Number of re- Number of re- Hours per re- Total annual Data collection spondents sponses sponse hours

FERC±516 ...... 12 1 300 3,600 FERC±519 ...... 1 50 1 80 4,000

Totals ...... 7,600 1 Includes respondents who make application to form an RTO and the responses of utilities who choose not to participate.

Total Annual Hours for Collection proposing an RTO or make a filing The Commission will also permit (reporting+record keeping, (if explaining why they are not interested persons to submit reply appropriate))=7,600. participating in an RTO proposal. comments in response to the initial Information Collection Costs: The Internal Review: The Commission has comments filed in this proceeding. Commission seeks comments on the assured itself, by means of internal Reply comments should not exceed 50 costs to comply with these review, that there is specific, objective double-spaced pages and should requirements. It has projected the support for the burden estimates include an executive summary. The average annualized cost for all associated with the information original and 14 copies of the reply respondents to be: requirements. The Commission’s Offices comments must be received by the Annualized Capital/Startup Costs— of Electric Power Regulation and Commission before 5:00 p.m. on Annualized Costs (Operations & Economic Policy will use the data September 15, 1999. Maintenance) ¥$401,518 (7,600 hours ÷ included in filings under Section 203 Comments should be submitted to the 2080 hours per year × $109,889 and 205 of the Federal Power Act to Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy =$401,518). The cost per respondent is evaluate efforts for the interconnection Regulatory Commission, 888 First equal to $8,030 (participants and non- and coordination of the U.S. electric Street, N.E., Washington D.C. 20426 and participants). transmission system and to ensure the should refer to Docket No. RM99–2–000. The OMB regulations require OMB to orderly formation of RTOs as well as for In addition to filing paper copies, the approve certain information collection general industry oversight. These Commission encourages the filing of requirements imposed by agency rule. information requirements conform to comments either on computer diskette (Footnote 5 CFR 1320.11) the Commission’s plan for efficient or via Internet E-Mail. Comments may Accordingly, pursuant to OMB information collection, communication, be filed in the following formats: regulations, the Commission is and management within the electric WordPerfect 8.0 or lower version, MS providing notice of its proposed power industry. Word Office 97 or lower version, or information collections to OMB. Interested persons may obtain ASCII format. Title: FERC–516, Electric Rate information on the reporting For diskette filing, include the Schedule Filings; FERC–519 requirements by contacting the following information on the diskette Application for Sale, Lease, or Other following: Federal Energy Regulatory label: Docket No. RM99–2–000; the Disposition, Merger or Consolidation of Commission, 888 First Street, NE, name of the filing entity; the software Facilities or for the Purchase or Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: and version used to create the file; and Acquisition of Securities of a Public Michael Miller, Capital Planning and the name and telephone number of a Utility. Policy Group, Phone: (202) 208–1415, contact person. Action: Proposed Data Collections. fax: (202) 208–2425, E-mail: OMB Control No.: 1902–0096 and [email protected]]. For Internet E-Mail submittal, 1902–0082. For submitting comments concerning comments should be submitted to The applicant shall not be penalized the collection of information(s) and the ‘‘[email protected]’’ in the for failure to respond to this collection associated burden estimate(s), please following format. On the subject line, of information unless the collection of send your comments to the contact specify Docket No. RM99–2–000. In the information displays a valid OMB listed above and to the Office of body of the E-Mail message, include the control number. Management and Budget, Office of name of the filing entity; the software Respondents: Business or other for Information and Regulatory Affairs, and version used to create the file, and profit, including small businesses. Washington, DC 20503, [Attention: Desk the name and telephone number of the Frequency of Responses: One time. Officer for the Federal Energy contact person. Attach the comments to Necessity of Information: The Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) the E-Mail in one of the formats proposed rule revises the requirements 395–3087, fax: (202) 395–7285]. specified above. The Commission will contained in 18 CFR part 35. The send an automatic acknowledgment to Commission is seeking to establish VII. Public Comment Procedures the sender’s E-Mail address upon RTOs nationwide by December 2001. In The Commission invites interested receipt. Questions on electronic filing particular, the Commission will persons to submit written comments on should be directed to Brooks Carter at establish in this proposed rule the matters and issues proposed in this 202–501–8145, E-Mail address characteristics and functions which notice to be adopted, including any [email protected]. applicants must meet to become related matters or alternative proposals Commenters should take note that, Commission approved RTOs. The that commenters may wish to discuss. until the Commission amends its rules Commission will engage in a Initial comments should not exceed 100 and regulations, the paper copy of the collaborative process with state officials double-spaced pages and should filing remains the official copy of the and others to facilitate RTO include an executive summary. The document submitted. Therefore, any development. The proposed rule will original and 14 copies of such discrepancies between the paper filing require that each public utility that comments must be received by the and the electronic filing or the diskette owns, operates or controls transmission Commission before 5:00 p.m. on August will be resolved by reference to the facilities participate in one-time filings 16, 1999. paper filing.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31437

All written comments will be placed conditions set forth in paragraph (k) of and/or 206 of the Federal Power Act, as in the Commission’s public files and this section. appropriate, promptly after the will be available for inspection in the (2) Market participant means any Commission issues an order in response Commission’s Public Reference room at entity that buys or sells electric energy to the petition. 888 First Street, N.E., Washington D.C. in the Regional Transmission Note to paragraph (d): Under this 20426, during regular business hours. Organization’s region or in any paragraph (d), the Commission would Additionally, comments may be viewed, neighboring region that might be consider a request for incentive rate printed or downloaded remotely via the affected by the Regional Transmission treatment or another form of innovative Internet through FERC’s Homepage Organization’s actions, or any affiliate of transmission pricing, such as performance using the RIMS or CIPS link. RIMS such an entity. based rates. Such a filing must include a contains all comments but only those (c) General rule. Except for those detailed explanation of how the proposed rate treatment would help achieve each of the comments submitted in electronic public utilities subject to the requirements of paragraph (g) of this minimum characteristics and functions and format are available on CIPS. User would result in benefits to consumers. assistance is available at 202–208–2222, section, every public utility that owns, or by E-Mail to [email protected]. operates or controls facilities used for (e) Transfer of operational control. the transmission of electric energy in Any public utility’s proposal to List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35 interstate commerce as of [effective date participate in a Regional Transmission Electric power rates, Electric utilities, of the final regulation] must file with Organization filed pursuant to Reporting and recordkeeping the Commission, no later than October paragraph (c)(1) of this section must requirements. 15, 2000, one of the following: propose that operational control of that By direction of the Commission. (1) A proposal to participate in a public utility’s transmission facilities David P. Boergers, Regional Transmission Organization will be transferred to the Regional Transmission Organization on a Secretary. consisting of one of the types of schedule that will allow the Regional In consideration of the foregoing, the submittals set forth in paragraph (d) of Transmission Organization to Commission proposes to amend Part 35, this section; or commence operating the facilities no Chapter I, Title 18 of the Code of (2) A submittal consistent with later than December 15, 2001. Federal Regulations, as set forth below. paragraph (f) of this section. (d) Proposal to participate in a Note to paragraph (e): The PART 35ÐFILING OF RATE Regional Transmission Organization. requirement in this paragraph (e) may SCHEDULES For purposes of this section, a proposal be satisfied by proposing to transfer to to participate in a Regional the Regional Transmission Organization 1. The authority citation for part 35 Transmission Organization means: ownership of the facilities in addition to continues to read as follows: (1) Necessary filings, made operational control. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601– individually or jointly with other 2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352. entities, pursuant to sections 203, 205 (f) Alternative filing. The submittal referred to in paragraph (c)(2) of this 2. Part 35 is amended by adding a and/or 206 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824b, 824d, and 824c), as section must contain a description of new Subpart F consisting of § 35.34 to any efforts made by that public utility read as follows: appropriate, to create a new Regional Transmission Organization; to participate in a Regional Subpart FÐProcedures and (2) Necessary filings, made Transmission Organization; the reasons Requirements Regarding Regional individually or jointly with other it has not, to date, participated in a Transmission Organizations entities, pursuant to sections 203, 205 Regional Transmission Organization, and/or 206 of the Federal Power Act, as including identification of any existing § 35.34 Regional Transmission appropriate, to join a Regional obstacles to participation in a Regional Organizations. Transmission Organization approved by Transmission Organization; and any (a) Purpose. This section establishes the Commission on or before the date of plans the public utility has for further required characteristics and functions the filing; or work toward participation in a Regional for Regional Transmission (3) A petition for declaratory order, Transmission Organization. Organizations for the purpose of filed individually or jointly with other (g) Public utilities participating in promoting efficiency and reliability in entities, asking whether a proposed approved transmission entities. Every the operation and planning of the transmission entity would qualify as a public utility that owns, operates or electric transmission grid and ensuring Regional Transmission Organization controls facilities used for the nondiscrimination in the provision of and containing at least the following: transmission of electric energy in electric transmission services. This (i) A detailed description of the interstate commerce as of [effective date section further directs each public proposed transmission entity, including of the final regulation], and that has utility that owns, operates, or controls a description of the organizational and filed with the Commission to transfer facilities used for the transmission of operational structure and the intended operational control of its facilities to a electric energy in interstate commerce to participants; transmission entity that has been make certain filings with respect to (ii) A discussion of how the approved or conditionally approved by forming and participating in a Regional transmission entity would satisfy each the Commission as being in Transmission Organization. of the characteristics and functions of a conformance with the eleven ISO (b) Definitions. Regional Transmission Organization principles set forth in Order No. 888, (1) Regional Transmission specified in paragraphs (i), (j) and (k) of FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶31,036 (Final Rule Organization means an entity that this section; on Open Access and Stranded Costs) on satisfies the minimum characteristics set (iii) A detailed description of the or before [effective date of the final forth in paragraph (i) of this section, section 205 rates that will be filed for regulation], must, individually or jointly performs the functions set forth in the transmission entity; and with other entities, file with the paragraph (j) of this section, and (iv) A commitment to make necessary Commission, no later than January 15, accommodates the open architecture filings pursuant to sections 203, 205 2001:

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31438 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

(1) A statement that it is participating non-stakeholder directors must not have critical ones that should be performed by the in a transmission entity that has been so financial interests in any market entity with operational authority for approved; participants. transmission facilities within the region. (2) A detailed explanation of the (ii) A Regional Transmission (4) Short-term Reliability. The extent to which the transmission entity Organization must have a decision Regional Transmission Organization in which it participates has the making process that is independent of must have exclusive authority for characteristics and performs the control by any market participant or maintaining the short-term reliability of functions of a Regional Transmission class of participants. the grid that it operates. Organization specified in paragraphs (i) (iii) The Regional Transmission (i) The Regional Transmission and (j) of this section and Organization must have exclusive and Organization must have exclusive accommodates the open architecture independent authority to file changes to authority for receiving, confirming and conditions in paragraph (k) of this its transmission tariff with the implementing all interchange schedules. section; and Commission under Section 205 of the (ii) The Regional Transmission (3) To the extent the transmission Federal Power Act. Organization must have the right to entity in which the public utility (2) Scope and regional configuration. order redispatch of any generator participates does not meet all the The Regional Transmission connected to transmission facilities it requirements of a Regional Organization must serve an appropriate operates if necessary for the reliable Transmission Organization specified in region. The region must be of sufficient operation of these facilities. paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this section, scope and configuration to permit the (iii) When the Regional Transmission the public utility must file either a Regional Transmission Organization to Organization operates transmission proposal to participate in a Regional effectively perform its required facilities owned by other entities, the Transmission Organization that meets functions and to support efficient and Regional Transmission Organization such requirements in accordance with non-discriminatory power markets. must have authority to approve or paragraph (d) of this section, a proposal (3) Operational authority. The disapprove all requests for scheduled to modify the existing transmission Regional Transmission Organization outages of transmission facilities to entity so that it conforms to the must have operational responsibility for ensure that the outages can be accommodated within established requirements of a Regional all transmission facilities under its reliability standards. Transmission Organization, or a filing control. containing the information specified in (iv) If the Regional Transmission (i) The Regional Transmission Organization operates under reliability paragraph (f) of this section addressing Organization may choose to directly any efforts, obstacles, and plans with standards established by another entity operate facilities (direct control), (e.g., a regional reliability council), the respect to conformance with those delegate certain tasks to other entities requirements. Regional Transmission Organization (functional control) or use a (h) Entities that become public must report to the Commission if these combination of the two approaches. If utilities with transmission facilities. An standards hinder it from providing entity that is not a public utility that certain operational functions are reliable, non-discriminatory and owns, operates or controls facilities delegated to, or shared with, entities efficiently priced transmission service. used for the transmission of electric other than the Regional Transmission (j) Required functions of a Regional energy in interstate commerce as of Organization, the Regional Transmission Organization. The [effective date of the final regulation], Transmission Organization must ensure Regional Transmission Organization but later becomes such a public utility, that this sharing of operational must perform the following functions. must file a proposal to participate in a responsibility will not adversely affect Unless otherwise noted, the Regional Regional Transmission Organization in reliability or provide some market Transmission Organization must satisfy accordance with paragraph (d) of this participants with an unfair competitive these obligations when it commences section, or an alternative filing in advantage. Within two years after initial operations. accordance with paragraph (f) of this operation as a Regional Transmission (1) Tariff administration and design. section, by October 15, 2000 or 60 days Organization, the Regional The Regional Transmission prior to the date on which the public Transmission Organization must Organization must administer its own utility engages in any transmission of prepare a public report that assesses transmission tariff and employ a electric energy in interstate commerce, whether any division of operational transmission pricing system that will whichever comes later. If a proposal to responsibilities hinders the Regional promote efficient use and expansion of participate in accordance with Transmission Organization in providing transmission and generation facilities. paragraph (d) of this section is filed, it reliable, non-discriminatory and The Regional Transmission must propose that operational control of efficiently priced transmission service. Organization must carry out this the applicant’s transmission system will (ii) The Regional Transmission function by satisfying the standards be transferred to the Regional Organization must be the security listed in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (ii) of Transmission Organization within 6 coordinator for the facilities that it this section, or by demonstrating that an months of filing the proposal. controls. alternative proposal is consistent with (i) Required characteristics for a Note to paragraph (i)(3)(ii): The provision or superior to satisfying such standards. Regional Transmission Organization. A in this paragraph (i)(3)(ii) requires that the (i) The Regional Transmission Regional Transmission Organization Regional Transmission Organization Organization must be the only provider must satisfy the following undertake the functions in its region of transmission service over the characteristics when it commences currently assigned to security coordinators by facilities under its control, and must be NERC in ‘‘NERC Operating Policy 9— the sole administrator of its own operation: Security Coordinator Procedures.’’ It is (1) Independence. The Regional recognized that NERC ‘‘security Commission-approved open access Transmission Organization must be coordinators’’ are relatively new and that transmission tariff. The Regional independent of market participants. they may not necessarily be permanent Transmission Organization must have (i) The Regional Transmission institutions. However, the functions NERC the sole authority to receive, evaluate, Organization, its employees, and any currently assigns to security coordinators are and approve or deny all requests for

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31439 transmission service. The Regional Stats. & Regs. ¶31,036 (Final Rule on operations and conversely how Regional Transmission Organization must have Open Access and Stranded Costs), and Transmission Organization operations the authority to review and approve subsequent orders. affect the performance of power markets requests for new interconnections. (ii) The Regional Transmission operated by others. (ii) The Regional Transmission Organization must have the authority to (iv) The Regional Transmission Organization tariff must not result in decide the minimum required amounts Organization must provide reports on transmission customers paying multiple of each ancillary service and, if market power abuses and market design access charges to recover capital costs necessary, the locations at which these flaws to the Commission and affected for transmission service over facilities services must be provided. All ancillary regulatory authorities. The reports must that the Regional Transmission service providers must be subject to contain specific recommendations about Organization controls (i.e, no pancaking direct or indirect operational control by how observed market power abuses and of transmission access charges). the Regional Transmission market flaws can be corrected. (2) Congestion management. The Organization. The Regional (7) Planning and expansion. The Regional Transmission Organization Transmission Organization must Regional Transmission Organization must ensure the development and promote the development of must be responsible for planning operation of market mechanisms to competitive markets for ancillary necessary transmission additions and manage transmission congestion. The services whenever feasible. upgrades that will enable it to provide Regional Transmission Organization (iii) The Regional Transmission efficient, reliable and non- must carry out this function by Organization must ensure that its discriminatory transmission service and satisfying the standards listed in transmission customers have access to a coordinate such efforts with the paragraph (j)(2)(i) of this section, or by real-time balancing market. The appropriate state authorities. The demonstrating that an alternative Regional Transmission Organization Regional Transmission Organization proposal is consistent with or superior must either develop and operate such must carry out this function by to satisfying such standards. markets itself or ensure that this task is satisfying the standards listed in (i) The market mechanisms must performed by another entity that is not paragraphs (j)(7)(i) and (ii) of this accommodate broad participation by all affiliated with any market participant. section, or by demonstrating that an market participants, and must provide (5) OASIS and Total Transmission alternative proposal is consistent with all transmission customers with Capability (TTC) and Available or superior to satisfying such standards. efficient price signals that show the Transmission Capability (ATC). The (i) The Regional Transmission consequences of their transmission Regional Transmission Organization Organization planning and expansion usage decisions. The Regional must be the single OASIS site process must encourage market-driven Transmission Organization must either administrator for all transmission operating and investment actions for operate such markets itself or ensure facilities under its control and preventing and relieving congestion. that the task is performed by another independently calculate TTC and ATC. (ii) The Regional Transmission entity that is not affiliated with any (6) Market monitoring. The Regional Organization’s planning and expansion market participant. Transmission Organization must process must accommodate efforts by (ii) The Regional Transmission monitor markets for transmission state regulatory commissions to create Organization must satisfy this services, ancillary services and bulk multi-state agreements to review and requirement no later than one year after power to identify design flaws and approve new transmission facilities. The it commences initial operation. market power and propose appropriate Regional Transmission Organization’s (3) Parallel path flow. The Regional remedial actions. The Regional planning and expansion process must Transmission Organization must Transmission Organization must carry be coordinated with programs of develop and implement procedures to out this function by satisfying the existing RTGs where necessary. address parallel path flow issues within standards listed in paragraphs (j)(6)(i)- (iii) If the Regional Transmission its region and with other regions. The (iv) of this section, or by demonstrating Organization is unable to satisfy this Regional Transmission Organization that an alternative proposal is consistent requirement when it commences must satisfy this requirement with with or superior to satisfying such operation, it must file a plan with the respect to coordination with other standards. Commission with specified milestones regions no later than three years after it (i) The Regional Transmission that will ensure that it meets this commences initial operation. Organization must monitor markets for requirement no later than three years (4) Ancillary services. The Regional transmission service and the behavior of after initial operation. Transmission Organization must serve transmission owners, if any, to (k) Open architecture. (1) Any as a supplier of last resort of all determine if their actions hinder the proposal to participate in a Regional ancillary services required by Order No. Regional Transmission Organization in Transmission Organization must not 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶31,036 (Final providing reliable, efficient and contain any provision that would limit Rule on Open Access and Stranded nondiscriminatory transmission service. the capability of the Regional Costs), and subsequent orders. The (ii) The Regional Transmission Transmission Organization to evolve in Regional Transmission Organization Organization must monitor markets for ways that would improve its efficiency, must carry out this function by ancillary services and bulk power. This consistent with the requirements in satisfying the standards listed in obligation is limited to markets that the paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section. paragraphs (j)(4)(i)-(iii) of this section, Regional Transmission Organization (2) Nothing in this regulation or by demonstrating that an alternative operates. precludes an approved Regional proposal is consistent with or superior (iii) The Regional Transmission Transmission Organization from seeking to satisfying such standards. Organization must periodically assess to evolve with respect to its (i) All market participants must have how behavior in markets operated by organizational design, market design, the option of self-supplying or acquiring others (e.g., bilateral power sales geographic scope, ownership ancillary services from third parties markets and power markets operated by arrangements, methods of operational subject to any restrictions imposed by unaffiliated power exchanges) affects control and other appropriate ways if the Commission in Order No. 888, FERC Regional Transmission Organization the changes are consistent with the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31440 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules requirements of this section. Any future organizations that best fit the local needs of improved real-time communication among filing seeking approval of such changes a particular region and avoid stifling all transmission entities). Accordingly, must demonstrate that the proposed innovation by continuing the case-by-case suggested ISO functions included: control changes will meet the requirements of approval of voluntary ISO submittals. Some area responsibilities; numerous security suggested that the Commission merely define coordinator and reliability duties; impartial paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section and its basic objective as the availability of operation of a regional OASIS to improve this paragraph (k). efficient and reliable transmission service on ATC postings; administration of an ISO-wide Note: The following appendixes will not a non-discriminatory basis, and to encourage tariff; generation redispatch duties to relieve appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. hold-outs to join. congestion; and ancillary services markets Those conference participants favoring coordination responsibilities. Appendix A—Staff Summary of FERC- stronger action contended that functional Some participants argued, however, that Industry ISO Conferences unbundling has not worked well enough and certain functions should not be foisted upon [Docket No. PL98–5–000] that it is unrealistic to expect it to do so. ISOs. Some contended that it would be During 1998, the Commission conducted a Many claimed that some vertically integrated detrimental to the markets and the series of eight public conferences with the utilities are employing preferential reliability administration of ISOs if ISOs become electric power industry for the purpose of practices or manipulating postings of ATC involved with functions that are not natural examining its ISO policies. The Commission and capacity benefit margin values to favor monopolies such as power exchange wanted to learn whether any changes to its their own wholesale merchant functions. activities because this would compromise the policies that affect the development of ISOs They further claimed that there is a ISO’s independence in fulfilling its primary and other forms of regional grid management reluctance to lodge complaints out of concern transmission responsibilities. Many structures are appropriate to further promote that the Commission may not take strong cautioned that an ISO should not be involved competition and reliability in bulk power action or there might be reprisals by the in market monitoring beyond data gathering markets. The Commission also wanted to utilities. Others contended that some utilities tasks, due to the attendant administrative learn whether it should also be more are impeding ISO formation by refusing to burden and cost, and because enforcement prescriptive in this area. The Commission participate, and that, as long as ISO should be the sole prerogative of regulatory also focused on the future of ISOs in boundaries are drawn by the voluntary authorities. administering the electric transmission grid decisions of the transmission owners to pick on a regional basis. 1 and choose the ISO which most advances ISO Size their individual corporate and competitive Most participants agreed that, as a general ISO Trust, Flexibility and Mandate objectives, the result is likely to be ISOs proposition, bigger ISOs can be more Participants largely agreed on the need for whose shape and composition impede its effective than smaller ISOs, given the growth improved regional organizations to operate ability to create a true competitive market. in unbundled power sales and the lessening the grid and implement reliability rules. Strong action advocates also seemed to be of traditional cooperation among utilities that They emphasized the need for transmission looking for clear guidance on transmission have now become competitors. For example, operations to be structurally independent, pricing, operation of energy markets, and the with regard to the connection between size trustworthy, and fair in order for competitive phase-in of certain ISO responsibilities. and effective reliability management, it was generation markets to flourish. There seemed Many of those concerned about a pointed out that an excessive number of to be a consensus that any Commission ISO patchwork of ISO grid coverage suggested control areas in the Midwest has inhibited policy should be flexible to meet the needs that now is the time for the Commission to communication and coordination, and and characteristics of each region and its mandate ISOs (possibly tempered with contributed to several of the Midwest’s recent state commissions, and that the Commission incentives), or at least mandate participation reliability ‘‘near misses.’’ should avoid any one-size-fits-all approach to in negotiations on ISO formation. Several Basically, participants saw the ‘‘proper’’ ISO structure and functions that might stifle suggested that the Commission work with the size as depending upon a number of factors: innovation. Participants differed, however, states to develop specific directives and (1) The purposes and functions of the ISO on whether the Commission should require guidelines as a way to assure that enough (such as enhancing reliability or or merely encourage ISOs. momentum on ISO formation is achieved. accommodating regional power markets); (2) Reasons offered as to why the voluntary One guideline that was suggested would the operating characteristics and make-up of approach to ISO formation has not worked incorporate a standardized ISO tariff and a the local regional transmission system; (3) uniformly across the Nation included: (1) standardized set of rules governing being large enough to capture scale some states that have not yet decided on reciprocity among ISOs. It would be coupled economies yet not too big to operate without retail access believe that an ISO inevitably with a flexible ISO design that could difficulty and handle large volumes of next- will lead to retail access; (2) some low-cost accommodate varying regional needs. Others hour transactions; (4) recognizing historic states are concerned that ISOs and retail variously recommended (1) specification of coordination arrangements, trading patterns, access will increase their electric rates minimum ISO functions as a basic model and and load patterns; and (5) remaining because utilities will be able to use ISOs to letting the regions justify any departure responsive to local transmission concerns sell their low-cost power elsewhere; (3) some therefrom; (2) ordering the formation of ISOs and conventions on such matters as how see ISOs as overly expensive, burdensome, and allowing enough time for each region to wide an area over which costs associated and bureaucratic; and (4) some see develop a proposal that best suits its local with transmission construction and transmission access as having improved needs; and (3) exercising all Commission generation redispatch should be spread. enough through the on-going implementation authority to monitor and manage of Order Nos. 888 and 889. comprehensive ISO formation. Alternatives to ISOs Recommendations on what the A number of participants counseled that Commission should do next ranged from wait ISO Purposes and Functions the Commission should seriously consider and see, to act decisively now. Some in the The many notions about what the proper alternatives to ISOs such as investor-owned first camp claimed that the Commission lacks functions of an ISO should be seemed to transcos, and independent grid the authority to mandate participation in reflect what each participant saw as the administrators or schedulers (IGA or ISA). ISOs. Some counseled that the Commission critical regional objectives (e.g., promotion of IGA/ISA supporters were concerned about should continue to just nurture the formation retail access; more efficient grid operation, what could be quickly implemented that of ISOs and allow development of planning and expansion; enhanced system would avoid the high costs that seem to be reliability; elimination of loop flow issues; associated with comprehensive ISO 1 See Inquiry Concerning the Commission’s solution of ‘‘seams’’ problems between initiatives, yet would provide immediate Policy on Independent System Operators, Notice of control areas; elimination of rate pancaking; control over the more egregious actions of Conference (dated March 13, 1998), and Notice of Panels for Conference (dated April 7, 1998). See improved congestion management; enhanced some transmission providers. IGA/ISA also, Inquiry Concerning the Commission’s Policy reserve sharing; establishment of one-stop structures were described to include any of on Independent System Operators, Notice of shopping through creation of a regional the following: (1) One-stop shopping through Regional Conferences (dated April 27, 1998). OASIS; enhanced market monitoring, and an OASIS that uniformly calculates ATC

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31441 values; (2) independent coordination of loads is included in the cost basis for the Industrial Consumers (by Electricity reservations and power flow scheduling; and affected zone. Consumers Resource Council) (3) fast-track dispute resolution. It was ISO New England claimed that such structures would avoid Non-jurisdictional Transmission Members Systems of the New York Power cost-shifting controversies and congestion Participation Pool (by Putnam, Hayes & Bartlette, Inc.) management complications because the IGA/ Most participants expressed the view that Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (by Morgan, ISA members would continue to operate their government-owned and other regional non- Lewis & Bockius) own transmission and set their own jurisdictional transmission owners need to Montana Power Company individual rates. While there was some fully participate in an ISO in order for it to National Association of Regulatory Utility support for IGA/ISA structures as an interim be completely successful. It was suggested Commissioners (by Iowa Utilities Board) step toward full ISO formation, many that this is especially true for the West, National Rural Electric Cooperative participants expressed concern about the where large amounts of non-jurisdictional Association Commission approving ‘‘watered-down’’ transmission is controlled by Bonneville NGC Corporation versions of an ISO that fail to address Power Administration, Western Area Power Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission pressing needs for grid expansion and pricing Administration, Southwestern Power PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. reform. Administration, large municipals, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Transco supporters argued that a transco cooperatives, public power districts, British Public Service Commission of the State of can offer everything that a full ISO can Columbia Hydro, and the Alberta grid. Some New York provide, plus the additional efficiency that is participants wanted the Commission to Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission inherent in combining operation and provide guidance on how to bring public Secretary of Energy’s Task Force on Electric ownership of transmission assets driven by power and other non-jurisdictional System Reliability the same corporate and market incentives. transmission owners into an ISO. In this Sithe Energies, Inc. (By Economics Resource Transcos were also said to provide more regard, some suggested that the Department Group) opportunity for shareholders to benefit from of Energy needs to issue guidance to the Transmission Access Study Group (by the strong performance of any facilities federal power marketing agencies on their Wisconsin Public Power, Inc.) placed under an ISO. As such, transcos were active support of any ISO initiatives. Public Transmission Alliance (by Merrill Lynch) touted as the natural end-state of power participants, who strongly supported Transmission Dependent Utility Systems (by transmission restructuring. ISO supporters ISOs, expressed concern that any ISO Arkansas Electric Corporation countered that the ISO structure need not participation on their part could adversely U.S. Department of Justice foreclose passing incentive-rate revenues on affect the financing of their facilities due to U.S. Generating Company and PJM to transmission owners. They also claimed Internal Revenue Code ‘‘private-use’’ Supporting Companies (by Steptoe & that, unlike a transco, an ISO is not restrictions. Johnson LLP) dependent upon the successful transfer of all Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. of the transmission assets within a region Existing Transmission Contracts Wisconsin Electric Power Company and, if an ISO is sized wrong, it can be more Some participants emphasized the need for Phoenix readily corrected than a transco for the same ISOs to honor (grandfather) existing reason. transmission contract arrangements to Almost 90 people attended the May 28, Finally, some participants suggested that maintain any benefits that were bargained. 1998, Phoenix conference. Panelists ISOs and transcos are actually Others emphasized the need for ISOs to represented: complementary forms. Others claimed that abrogate any existing transmission contracts Arizona Corporation Commission who owns the transmission is irrelevant as to eliminate any preferential transmission Arizona Public Service Company long as the regional grid operator is treatment. Those favoring grandfathering, Automated Power Exchange, Inc. independent; it is big enough to internalize however, acknowledged that it could become California ISO loop flows; it directs region-wide a very complicated administrative matter in Desert STAR transmission planning; and it allows for the event that there is insufficient K.R. Saline & Associates competitive bidding on the installation of transmission capacity to serve everyone. Colorado Springs Utilities new facilities to expand the grid. Cyprus Climax Metals, BHP Copper, Phelps Panelists Dodge, ASARCO and Motorola (by Energy ISO Pricing and Cost-shifting Concerns The Commission held conferences in Strategies, Inc.) Some participants supported differing Washington, D.C. and in seven cities in Goldman Sachs & Co. forms of ISO rate structures: flow-based rates, different regions of the country. Northern California Power Agency. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement distance-based pricing, average-cost based Washington, D.C. rates, and locational marginal cost-based and Power District pricing. Many cautioned that a Commission In the lead-off two-day conference held on Southwest Power Trading Council (by Enron mandate on the use of any particular tariff April 15–16, 1998, in Washington, D.C., Corp.) structure would be a major obstacle to the approximately 400 individuals attended each Tri-State Generation and Transmission voluntary formation of ISOs; therefore, they day. Panelists represented: Cooperative, Inc. recommended that the Commission provide American Electric Power Company Kansas City great deference to the needs of each region American Public Power Association as to what locally is seen to be fair and California Independent System Operator About 90 people attended the May 29, reasonable pricing. California Independent System Operator, 1998, Kansas City conference. Panelists In particular, many participants raised Market Surveillance Committee (by represented: concerns about cost-shifting within an ISO Stanford University) City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri that might result from membership with California Public Utilities Commission Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission significantly disparate embedded Cameron McKenna LLP Cooperative Power Association transmission costs and imposition of an ISO- Cinergy Energy Services, Inc. Iowa Utilities Board wide access tariff that reflects some Commonwealth Edison Company Kansas Corporation Commission composite of such costs. These participants Coalition For A Competitive Electric Market Mid-America Regulatory Conference (by counseled that the Commission should allow (by Enron Corporation) Kansas Corporation Commission) ‘‘license plate’’ access rates that reflect only Economic Analysis Group Midwest Coalition for Effective Competition the cost of the transmission zone within the Edison Electric Institute (by MCES and Environmental Law and ISO in which the load to be served is located. Edison Electric Institute (by NERA) Policy Center) One participant suggested, however, that Electric Power Supply Association. Midwest ISO Participants (by Wisconsin even license plate rates can raise cost-shifting Entergy Services, Inc. Electric Power Company and Ameren concerns, if the cost of an upgrade that is Harvard University (John F. Kennedy School Services) used primarily for the benefit of external of Government) Minnesota Department of Public Service

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31442 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

Missouri Office of Public Counsel Public Service Company of Colorado Electricity Consumers Resource Council, et Missouri Public Service Commission Puget Sound Energy, Inc. al. Nebraska Public Power District Transmission Agency of Northern California Energy Strategies, Inc. Northern States Power Company Turlock Irrigation District Fiona Woolf Public Utility Commission of Texas University of California Georgia System Operations Corporation, et al. Shook, Hardy, Bacon, LLP Washington Utilities and Transportation Goldman, Sachs & Company Southwest Power Pool Commission Gregory J. Werden Western Power Trading Forum Gridco Commenters New Orleans Western Regional Transmission Association Houston Industries, Inc. The June 1, 1998, New Orleans conference IES Utilities Inc., et al. panelists represented: Richmond Illinois Commerce Commission Arkansas Electric Cooperative About 55 people attended the June 8, 1998, Independent Grid Scheduler Organizing Entergy Corporation Richmond conference. Panelists represented: Group Gulf Coast Power Marketers Coalition Blue Ridge Power Agency Independent Power Producers of New York, Houston Industries Power Corporation, Inc. LG&E Energy (on behalf of Midwest ISO Inc. Lafayette Utilities System Participants) Indiana Energy Michigan Louisiana Energy Users Group Mid-Atlantic Power Association Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counsel Public Service Commission of Yazoo City, North Carolina Electric Membership Kentucky Utilities Company Mississippi Corporation Kentucky Public Service Commission Southern Company Services, Inc. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative Large Public Power Council Southwest Power Pool TransEnergie U.S., Ltd. Marija D. Ilic Southwestern Public Service Company Virginia State Corporation Commission Mid-Atlantic Public Service Commissions Virginia Committee for Fair Utility Rates and Midwest Independent Transmission System Indianapolis Old Dominion Committee for Fair Utility Operator, Inc. About two hundred people attended the Rates Midwest Municipal Intervenors, et al. June 4, 1998, Indianapolis conference. Virginia Electric & Power Company Minnesota Power Company Among the panelists represented: Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Orlando Mississippi Office of Public Counsel AMEREN The June 8, 1998, Orlando conference was Montana Public Service Commission American Municipal Power of Ohio Multiple Public Interest Organizations Cinergy Services Inc. attended by about 100 people. Panelists represented: New York Mercantile Exchange Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers Consumers Energy Company Dynergy Northern Indiana Public Service Company Detroit Edison Company Enron Power Marketing (by Basford & Northwest Power Plant Planning Council Energy Michigan Associates) Oak Ridge National Laboratory FirstEnergy Corporation Florida Municipal Power Agency Office of Ohio Consumers’ Counsel Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers Florida Power & Light Company Oklahoma Corporation Commission Indiana Municipal Power Agency Florida Power Corporation Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Florida Public Service Commission Orange & Rockland Utilities Kentucky Public Service Commission Florida Reliability Coordinating Council, Inc. Oregon Public Utilities Commission Madison Gas and Electric Company Morgan Stanley & Company Otter Tail Power Company Mid-America Regulatory Commissioners (by Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia Pacific Gas & Electric Company Michigan Public Service Commission) National Grid Company of England and PECO Energy Company Midwest Coalition for Effective Competition Wales Pennsylvania Office of Consumers Advocate Midwest ISO Participants Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. PJM Supporting Companies Michigan Public Power Agency Other Commenters Portland General Electric Company Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Powersmiths International, Inc. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. Project For Sustainable FERC Policy Wisconsin Electric Power Company Allegheny Power, et al. ProLiance Energy, LLC Barbara R. Barkovich Portland Public Service Commission of Wisconsin California Department of Water Resources Public Service Electric & Gas Company About 160 people attended the June 5, California Electricity Oversight Board Public Utilities Board of the City of 1998, Portland conference. Panelists California Independent Energy Producers Brownsville, Texas represented: Association Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan Automated Power Exchange Central Illinois Light Company County, Washington Bonneville Power Administration Citizens Group Responsible Use of Rural & Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P. California ISO Agricultural Land Sierra Pacific Power California Municipal Utilities Association Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Utility Southern California Gas Company, et al. California Public Utilities Commission Commission Southwest Transmission Dependent Utility Chelen County PUD (on behalf of Commonwealth of Virginia, Division of Group Independent Grid Scheduler) Energy Regulations Staff of Bureau of Economics of the Federal CIBC Oppenheimer Corp. Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Trade Commission Columbia Falls Aluminum Company, et al. Commission State of California Public Utilities Idaho Power Company Consumer Counsel Office of the Attorney Commission Idaho Public Utilities Commission General of Virginia State of Florida Public Service Commission Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities Consumers Energy Company State of Idaho & Idaho Public Utilities Land and Water Fund of the Rockies Energy Cooperative Power Association Commission Project CSW Operating Companies State of Kansas Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Montana Department of Environmental CSX Transportation Board’s Quality D. Basford & Associates, Inc. State of Minnesota Public Utilities Montana Power Company Dairyland Power Cooperative Commission Northern California Power Agency. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power State of Montana Department of Oregon Public Utilities Commission Administration Environmental Quality Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative Desert Southwest Power Trading Council State of New York Public Service PacifiCorp Dominion Resources Inc. Commission Platte River Power Authority Economic Resources Group, Inc. State of Rhode Island and Province Public Power Council Electricities of North Carolina, Inc. Plantations

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules 31443

The Williams Companies Inc. Commission leadership on RTO formation. suggest an appropriate size. Some suggested Transmission Operators of Public Service They differed on the urgency and the that because the existing ISOs are so crucial Company of Colorado necessary extent of Commission to promoting retail competition in states that Tucson Electric Power Company involvement. Many of the states advocating have already adopted retail choice, the University of Arizona a more aggressive role were located in the Commission should carefully consider any Virginia Committee for Fair Utility Rates, et Midwest, which had experienced price order that would expand, merge, or al. spikes during the summer of 1998. restructure an existing ISO. Some states Washington Department of Community, One state insisted that Commission action cautioned that expanding their existing ISOs Trade and Economic Development Energy is needed to quicken the pace of RTO beyond a certain point might also lead to Policy Group formation so that development of competitive reliability problems or inheriting problems Western Area Power Administration electricity markets is not delayed. One from adjacent regions. Wisconsin Intervenors vigorously complained about the persistent One state recommended that only Wisconsin Public Power, Inc. lack of fuller RTO participation in the minimum size criteria be established rather Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Midwest and the possible strategic advantage than the specific locations of boundaries. to vertically integrated utilities not Other states recommended that, if the Appendix B—Staff Summary of FERC participating. To counter the fragmentation Consultations With the States Commission insists on establishing regional in the Midwest, it recommended that the boundaries, that it consider the relative costs [Docket No. RM99–2–000] Commission mandate utility participation or, and benefits of an RTO sized according to In Docket No. RM99–2–000, as part of a at a minimum, eliminate pancaked each regional boundary set. One state broader inquiry into its RTO policies, the transmission rates within each regional suggested that the Commission rely on the Commission held a series of three regional reliability council. Another suggested that existing NERC regional councils as the the Commission interpret any utility’s refusal conferences to elicit the views and starting point for determining proper RTO to join an RTO as an indicator of undue recommendations of state regulatory boundaries. Another state suggested that the discrimination. One recommended that the authorities with respect to the development Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) and Commission strongly promote fuller of independent RTOs and whether and how Mid-American Interconnected Network participation in RTOs by using a combination it should use its authority under section (MAIN) interfaces should be placed within a 1 of ‘‘carrots’’ and ‘‘sticks’’ as incentives. 202(a) of the Federal Power Act. The single RTO. Some western states contended Commission also wanted to learn whether Flexibility that, while only one regional reliability the goals of full competition and non- A pervasive theme was the need for the council serves the West, many non- discriminatory transmission access can be jurisdictional cooperative and government achieved in the absence of broad Commission to avoid taking a one-size-fits-all approach to RTOs. Many states utilities control such a substantial amount of participation by transmission-owning transmission that creating RTOs in the West utilities in RTOs. Conferences were held in recommended that, if the Commission wants to establish RTO policy pursuant to its will be difficult absent clear direction from St. Louis, Las Vegas, and Washington, D.C. in the Commission. February 1999. section 202(a) authority, the policy must be implemented in a way that adequately Alternative Forms of RTOs Need for Commission Mandate recognizes any regional differences in industry structures. One Midwestern state While several states argued that competing There was little real dispute by ISO and transco structures could lead to participants over the need for independent counseled that the Commission should partner with the states to develop a further fragmentation and limited RTO and impartial regional grid management, operations, others argued that mandating whether it be for improved grid operation, memorandum of understanding (MOU) on regional transmission matters. The MOU specific forms of RTOs now would impede increased reliability, identifying promising the ability of the states and regions to adopt new generation locations, broadening would outline common desires and models that are best suited for their markets by reducing rate pancaking, or all of objectives, describe the regulatory tools to get particular needs and that the Commission these. Most of the states also recognized that there, and the circumstances under which should not lock in particular RTO structures the Commission is the necessary and the tools would be used. but should instead retain flexibility to appropriate facilitator for forming RTOs, due Other states suggested that the address changing future needs. One state to its broad jurisdiction. However, comments Commission, before it considers taking any favored a non-profit ISO structure, because it as to how best the Commission should stronger action, issue guidelines and allow doubted that the industry would lend itself proceed next were mixed. enough time for each state to determine to the development of any transco with One state wondered whether the which are appropriate for it in forming sufficient geographic coverage and adequate Commission has the authority to mandate regional RTOs. The guidelines would reflect independence from generation interests. It RTOs. Several Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic determinations on such issues as how to states that already have strong ISOs were encourage participation by and otherwise noted, however, that if a for-profit transco concerned that the Commission might deal with non-jurisdictional transmission could meet the size and independence disturb their ISOs before an adequate period entities; whether to allow a state to opt out criteria, the transco would have advantages of time has elapsed to reveal their strengths of a mandatory RTO policy; and how to over an ISO in the form of a stronger business and weaknesses. One state suggested that the ensure that no state’s economy is harmed by orientation and superior access to capital for Commission should look into setting up a an RTO. Several states suggested that cost/ grid expansion. joint board of state and federal regulators on benefit analyses be done for each region. Transmission Cost Shifting and Low Power RTO issues. Some Southeastern states saw no Finally, numerous states recommended that Cost States need for a Federal policy on RTOs right now. the Commission not mingle retail Many states counseled that the They felt that the grid is operated adequately competition issues with RTO issues, Commission should allow a region to opt-out and preferred to let the market sort RTO contending that retail choice is a state of an average cost based RTO-wide rate, if developments. prerogative. such a rate would shift highly disparate States west of the Appalachians generally RTO Size recognized the need for structural embedded transmission costs among its RTO independence of transmission through RTOs Several states were concerned about how customers and force some to suffer beyond functional unbundling sooner rather large is large enough for an RTO, and how transmission rate increases. Many western than later and saw a need for strong the Commission expects to set the proper states suggested that concern over the regional boundaries. In the East, states served enhanced ability of utilities to export their by established ISOs expressed concern that low cost power to other regions through an 1 See Regional Transmission Organizations, Notice Of Intent To Consult Under Section 202(a) their ISOs might have to incur additional RTO, as well as concerns about transmission dated November 24, 1998, and Notice Of Dates And costs for modifications that might be required cost shifting, not only led to the demise of Locations For Consultation Sessions With State to meet a potential Commission size criterion the IndeGo ISO but has thwarted further RTO Commissions (dated January 13, 1999). before market forces have had the chance to development in the West.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 31444 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Proposed Rules

Panelists Colorado Mid-American Regulatory Commissioners Idaho National Association of Regulatory Utility St. Louis Montana Commissioners About 120 people attended the February Nevada New England Conference of Public Utilities 11, 1999, conference in St. Louis. Panelists New Mexico Commissioners, Inc. represented commissions in: Oregon Regional Electric Power Cooperation Utah Arkansas Virginia State Corporation Commission Florida Washington Western Interstate Energy Board Illinois Wyoming Indiana Washington, D.C. Appendix C—Existing Configurations Iowa Kansas The panelists at the February 17, 1999, This Appendix depicts the three existing Kentucky conference in Washington, D.C. represented configurations discussed in Section III.D.2: Michigan commissions in: the three electric interconnections within the Minnesota Alabama continental United States, the ten NERC Missouri Connecticut reliability councils, and the twenty-three Nebraska District of Columbia NERC security coordinator areas. North Dakota Georgia [The attachments to this Appendix are Ohio Maryland available for public inspection and copying Oklahoma Massachusetts during normal business hours in the Public South Dakota Mississippi Tennessee New Jersey Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E., Texas New York Room 2A, Washington, D.C. 20426, and Wisconsin North Carolina through the Commission’s Records and Pennsylvania Information Management System (RIMS). Las Vegas Rhode Island RIMS is available remotely via Internet About 96 people attended the February 12, West Virginia through FERC’s Home page using the RIMS 1999, conference held in Las Vegas. Panelists link or the Energy Information Online icon.] represented commissions in: Other Commenters Arizona Canadian Electricity Association [FR Doc. 99–12553 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] California ISO New England BILLING CODE 6717±01±P

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:34 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices 31445

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Proposed Rulemaking, the objective of • Send two copies of your letter to: which is to encourage all transmission David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Federal Energy Regulatory facilities in the Nation, including Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Commission transmission facilities owned or First Street, NE, Room 1A, Washington, [Docket No. RM99±2±000] controlled by non-public utility entities, D.C. 20426. to form appropriate regional • Label one copy of the comments for Regional Transmission Organizations; transmission institutions in a timely the attention of Jim Turnure, Office of Notice of Intent To Prepare an manner. Economic Policy, Federal Energy Environmental Assessment for the Accordingly, as set forth in detail in Regulatory Commission, 888 First Regional Transmission Organizations the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Street, NE, Room 64–09, Washington, Rulemaking, Request for Comments Commission proposes the following: D.C. 20426. • on Environmental Issues, and Notice Minimum characteristics and • Mail your comments so that they of Public Scoping Meeting functions that an RTO must satisfy. will be received in Washington, D.C. on Industry participants will retain or before June 14, 1999. May 14, 1999. flexibility in structuring RTOs that In addition to filing paper copies, the To further the policies and goals of satisfy the standards. Commission encourages the filing of the National Environmental Policy Act • An ‘‘open architecture’’ policy comments either on computer diskettes of 1969 (NEPA), the staff of the Federal regarding RTOs, whereby all RTO or via Internet e-mail. Comments may be Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) proposals must allow the RTO and its filed in the following formats: will prepare an environmental members the flexibility to improve their WordPerfect 6.1 or lower version, MS assessment (EA) that will consider the organizations in terms of structure, Word Office 97 or lower version, or environmental impacts of the proposed operations, market support and ASCII format. rulemaking on Regional Transmission geographic scope to meet market needs. Organizations (RTO). The proposed rule In turn, the Commission will provide For diskette filing, include the was issued by the Commission on May the regulatory flexibility to following information on the diskette 13, 1999, and appears elsewhere in this accommodate such improvement. label: Docket No. RM99–2–000; the issue of the Federal Register. The • Guidance on flexible transmission name of the filing entity; the software Commission requests public comments ratemaking that may be proposed by and version used to create the file; and on the scope of the issues it will address RTOs, including ratemaking treatments the name and telephone number of a in the EA. All comments received will that will address congestion pricing and contact person. be considered during the preparation of performance based regulation. The For Internet E-Mail submittal, the EA. A comment period will be Commission will consider on a case-by- comments should be submitted to allotted for public review of the EA. case basis incentive pricing that may be ‘‘[email protected]’’ in the Scoping comments are due on or appropriate for transmission facilities following format. On the subject line, before June 14, 1999; the public scoping under RTO control. specify Docket No. RM99–2–000. In the meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. on • A plan for encouraging formation of body of the E-Mail message, include the July 8, 1999 in the Commission Meeting RTOs across the Nation that includes: name of the filing entity; the software Room, 888 First Street, NE, Room 2C, (1) A collaborative process to take place and version used to create the file, and Washington, D.C. 20426. in the spring of 2000 for all stakeholders the name and telephone number of the to actively work toward the voluntary contact person. Attach the comments to Summary of the Proposed Action development of specific RTOs; and (2) the E-Mail in one of the formats In Order Nos. 888 and 889, the filing requirements whereby all public specified above. The Commission will Commission established the foundation utilities that own, operate or control send an automatic acknowledgment to necessary to develop competitive bulk interstate transmission facilities must the sender’s E-Mail address upon power markets in the United States: file with the Commission by October 15, receipt. Non-discriminatory open access 2000 a proposal for an RTO with the Questions on electronic filings should transmission services by public utilities standards adopted in the final rule, or be directed to Brooks Carter at 202–501– and stranded cost recovery rules that a description of reasons that it has not 8145, e-mail address: Brooks. would provide a fair transition to filed such a proposal. Each proposed [email protected]. competitive markets. Order Nos. 888 RTO must plan to be operational by Commenters should take note that, and 889 were not intended to address December 15, 2001. until the Commission amends its rules all problems that might arise in the and regulations, the paper copy of the development of competitive power Public Participation filing remains the official copy of the markets. Indeed, since the issuance of The public is invited to provide document submitted. Therefore, any Order Nos. 888 and 889, the industry comments that will assist us in discrepancies between the paper filing has undergone changes. Trade in bulk conducting an accurate and thorough and the electronic filing or the diskette power markets has continued to analysis of the potential environmental will be resolve by reference to the paper increase significantly and the Nation’s impacts of the proposed rule. Comments filing. transmission grid is being used more should address environmental issues, All written comments will be placed heavily and in new ways. including any potential environmental in the Commission’s public files and After almost three years of experience effects of the proposed rule, alternatives will be available for inspection in the with implementation of Order Nos. 888 to the proposed rule, and measures to Commission’s Public Reference room at and 889, there remain transmission- avoid or lessen environmental impacts 888 First Street, N.E., Washington D.C. related impediments to a competitive (if any). The more specific the 20426, during regular business hours. wholesale electric market. In an effort to comments, the more useful they will be. Additionally, comments may be viewed, ensure that electricity consumers realize Please carefully follow these printed, or downloaded remotely via the the full benefits that competition can instructions to ensure that your Internet through FERC’s Homepage bring to wholesale markets, the comments are received in time and using the RIMS submitted in electronic Commission has issued a Notice of properly recorded: format all available on CIPS. User

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:36 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNN2 31446 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Notices assistance is available at 202–208–2222, 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2C, period will be provided for reviewing or by E-Mail to [email protected]. Washington, D.C. 20426. The purpose of the EA. The Commission will consider In addition to asking for written the public meeting is to provide all comments on the EA in developing comments, we invite any interested interested parties another opportunity to the final rule. parties to attend our public scoping offer comments on the proposed rule. David P. Boergers, meeting that will be held on July 8, A copy of the EA will be made Secretary. 1999. The meeting will be held at 10:00 available for review and comment to all [FR Doc. 99–12667 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] a.m. in the Commission Meeting Room, interested parties. A 30-day comment BILLING CODE 6717±01±M

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:36 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNN2 eDt 6MY9 63 u 9 99Jt134 O000Fm001Ft41 ft41 :F\M1JR.X fm2PsN:10JNR3 pfrm02 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX Sfmt4717 Fmt4717 Frm00001 PO00000 Jkt183247 16:38Jun09, 1999 VerDate 06-MAY-99 federal register June 10,1999 Thursday Recovery, FY1999;FinalRule Revision ofFeeSchedules;100% 10 CFRParts170and171 Commission Nuclear Regulatory Part IV 31447 31448 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

NUCLEAR REGULATORY The NRC assesses two types of fees to in accordance with the proposed fee COMMISSION recover its budget authority. First, schedule. These commenters challenged license and inspection fees, established the agency’s interpretation of the 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 at 10 CFR part 170 under the authority statutes underpinning NRC’s fee of the Independent Offices collection proposal. These same RIN 3150±AG08 Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 questions have been raised since the Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee U.S.C. 9701, recover the NRC’s costs of inception of the 100 percent fee Recovery, FY 1999 providing individually identifiable collection requirement in 1991. The services to specific applicants and Commission has consistently AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory licensees. Examples of the services interpreted its statutory mandate, but in Commission. provided by the NRC for which these the face of continuing complaints, the ACTION: Final rule. fees are assessed are the review of Commission will again address the applications for the issuance of new concerns raised by commenters. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory licenses, approvals or renewals, and 1. Comment. Comments submitted by Commission (NRC) is amending the amendments to licenses or approvals. or on behalf of commercial nuclear licensing, inspection, and annual fees Second, annual fees, established at 10 power reactors, the uranium recovery charged to its applicants and licensees. CFR Part 171 under the authority of industry, and a materials licensee The amendments are necessary to OBRA–90, recover generic and other expressed serious concern over implement the Omnibus Budget regulatory costs not recovered through inequities caused by the statutory Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA–90), 10 CFR part 170 fees. The NRC mandate that NRC collect an annual as amended, which mandates that the published a proposed rule that charge from licensees aggregating NRC recover approximately 100 percent presented the amendments to parts 170 approximately 100 percent of the budget of its budget authority in Fiscal Year and 171 necessary to comply with authority for the fiscal year, less fees (FY) 1999, less amounts appropriated OBRA–90 for FY 1999 on April 1, 1999 collected under Part 170 and any from the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF). (64 FR 15876). amount appropriated from the Nuclear The amount to be recovered for FY 1999 Waste Fund or the General Fund. These II. Responses to Comments is approximately $449.6 million. commenters are particularly distressed EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 1999. A total of thirty-four comments were at having to absorb charges in their received on the proposed rule. Although annual fees for activities that do not ADDRESSES: Copies of comments the comment period ended on May 3, directly benefit them, such as received and the agency work papers 1999, the NRC evaluated the 26 international activities, Agreement State that support these final changes to 10 comments which were received by the oversight and regulatory support, CFR Parts 170 and 171 may be close of business on May 5, 1999. The activities for other Federal agencies, and examined at the NRC Public Document NRC was unable to consider the eight fee reductions or exemptions for small Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), comments received after May 5, 1999, as entities and nonprofit educational Washington, DC 20555–0001. they were not received in sufficient time institutions. One commenter, speaking FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for the NRC staff and the Commission to on behalf of several commercial power Glenda Jackson, Office of the Chief evaluate them fully in the limited reactors, questioned the NRC’s legal and Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear period available for preparing a final constitutional authority to impose these Regulatory Commission, Washington, rule in this expedited rulemaking charges. The commenter did not believe DC 20555–0001, Telephone 301–415– proceeding. In any event, a cursory the 100 percent budget recovery 6057. review of those late comments did not requirement could be reconciled with SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: reveal any substantive new issues. OBRA–90, which requires that annual I. Background. Many of the comments were similar. fees bear a reasonable relationship to the II. Responses to Comments. These comments have been grouped, as cost of regulatory services and to be III. Final Action. appropriate, and addressed as single fairly and equitably allocated among IV. Voluntary Consensus Standards. issues in this final rule. licensees. V. Environmental Impact: Categorical The comments are as follows: Commenters concluded that the Exclusion. desired relief for this problem can come VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement. A. Legal Issues VII. Regulatory Analysis. only by legislative changes to OBRA–90 VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Several commenters raised questions to relax the 100 percent budget recovery IX. Backfit Analysis. about NRC’s legal interpretation of requirement so that certain costs can be X. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement OBRA–90 and the IOAA. These removed from the fee base. They Fairness Act. comments are addressed first because remained hopeful that the desired relief their resolution establishes the may be forthcoming in spite of their I. Background framework for addressing subsequent awareness that the Administration has OBRA–90, as amended, requires that issues raised by commenters. not supported such a relaxation. In the NRC recover approximately 100 The commenters attempted to present some cases, however, commenters percent of its budget authority, less the a balanced view of the proposed fee perceived that the NRC has alternatives amount appropriated from the schedule, and even applauded the it is not using, such as charging Department of Energy (DOE) NRC’s ‘‘considerable effort over the past Agreement States for services provided. administered Nuclear Waste Fund year to reduce inefficiencies through In addition, they insisted that the NRC (NWF). Certain NRC costs related to strategic planning and reorganizations.’’ should recover these types of costs reviews and other assistance provided Nonetheless, it is abundantly clear that through General Funds appropriations to the Department of Energy were most commenters believe that the NRC from the Congress. In their view, when excluded from the fee recovery has a long way to go to reach a truly fair all else fails, the NRC must simply requirement for FY 1999 by the FY 1999 and equitable system of fee allocation. discontinue the ‘‘unfunded’’ program Energy and Water Development Several commenters asserted that the rather than pass along these costs to the Appropriations Act. NRC lacks the legal authority to set fees licensees. These commenters asserted

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31449 that this becomes particularly necessary Response. OBRA–90 requires that the recoup approximately 100 percent of its in today’s era of utility deregulation sum total of annual charges NRC budget authority, less the amounts it because reactor licensees’ ability to pass collects from its licensees equal properly may recover from other areas, through costs to their customers has approximately 100 percent of NRC total such as charges for services (IOAA fees) been reduced. budget authority for each fiscal year, and Nuclear Waste Fund One commenter maintained that the less fees assessed under the IOAA and Appropriations. In order to meet that NRC has the authority to charge other amounts appropriated to NRC from the mandate, the NRC has been forced to Federal agencies part 170 fees. Another Nuclear Waste Fund. The NRC is assess fees to licensees to recover the commenter went so far as to say that the expected to establish a schedule of costs of certain types of activities that, NRC is not at liberty to relieve anyone annual charges that fairly and equitably while not necessarily directly from paying fees for associated services, allocates this amount among licensees benefitting the licensees charged, leave i.e., to grant exemptions from user fees and reasonably reflects the costs of no other means to be recovered. This because, under OBRA–90, Congress providing services to licensees or includes functions such as services directed NRC to recover its costs by classes of licensees, to the maximum provided to other Federal agencies, collecting fees from ‘‘any person who extent practicable. This means that the Agreement State oversight and receives a service or thing of value.’’ NRC must promulgate each fiscal year a international activities. It is This commenter maintained that there fee schedule that is as fair and equitable understandable that licensees who was no exemption authority for this as can be achieved, given the other absorb the impact of these charges will requirement, relying on the definition of constraints with which it is faced. The object to them and wish to be relieved ‘‘person’’ under the Atomic Energy Act NRC does not have discretion to assess of them. However, their arguments to argue not only that the NRC has less than this amount, as several overlook an important qualifier in the authority to impose charges for these commenters suggested. The costs of standard: namely, ‘‘to the maximum types of activities, but also that it is services that do not directly benefit extent practicable.’’ That is, when compelled to charge the recipients for licensees must be recovered under our Congress enacted this admittedly them. Thus, it would have the NRC current statutory mandate. rigorous requirement, it was aware of recover Agreement State oversight and In the Statement of Considerations for the fact that there would be certain costs support costs through fees assessed on the 1991 final fee rule the Commission that would not be susceptible to the Agreement States or their licensees. concluded that the Congressional intent recovery as others were. The Congress The commenter also stated that costs of behind the requirement to collect still has not relieved the NRC from the international activities should be ‘‘approximately 100 percent’’ of its onus of the collection requirement. recovered through fees imposed on the budget was for the NRC to identify and Certain expenses cannot be attributed to Department of State; that other Federal allocate as close as possible to 100 an individual licensee or class of agency licensing and inspection charges percent of its budget authority to the licensees but may be recovered from should be assessed against the regulated various classes of NRC licensees. The licensees who can fairly, equitably, and Federal agency; that small entities and NRC has historically interpreted this practicably contribute to payment. nonprofit educational institutions requirement as referring to the inherent should not be relieved of fees for the uncertainties in estimating and The NRC can readily explain why costs associated with them; and that collecting fees, such that additional fees these costs are spread to agency either a General Fund appropriation would not need to be collected in case licensees as part of a fee ‘‘surcharge.’’ should be sought to recover those of shortfall, nor refunds necessarily The NRC lacks the legal authority to expenses or they should pay their own made in case of over collection. (See 56 assess IOAA charges against Federal costs. Other commenters also advocated FR 31472, 31473; July 10, 1991). agencies (other than the Tennessee these proposals. Moreover, the Conference Report for Valley Authority). The IOAA states, in In support of these arguments, OBRA–90 specifically acknowledged pertinent part, ‘‘[E]ach service or thing commenters charged that OBRA–90 the fact that there would be certain of value provided by an agency . . . to does not permit charging licensees for ‘‘expenses that cannot be attributed a person (except a person on official programs not directly related to the either to an individual licensee or a business of the United States licensees charged, that the surcharge class of licensees.’’ The NRC is expected Government) is to be self-sustaining to imposed to recover these costs is to the extent possible.’’ A ‘‘person on unlawful, unfair, arbitrary, and official business of the United States fairly and equitably recover these expenses Government’’ has long been construed discriminatory. These commenters from its licensees through the annual charge charged that OBRA–90 is even though these expenses cannot be to mean a Federal agency. This unconstitutional in that it denies reactor attributable to individual licensees or classes construction indicates that the NRC licensees equal protection under the due of licensees. These expenses may be requires separate Congressional process clause of the Constitution and recovered from such licensees as the authorization in order to override this constitutes an unfair taking of property Commission, in its discretion, determines provision and lawfully impose fees on without just compensation. They can fairly, equitably, and practicably other Federal agencies. For example, in believed, uniformly, that the surcharge contribute to their payment. light of this language, section 161w. of bears no relation to services or benefits H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 101–964, at 963, the Atomic Energy Act was enacted in to the licensees against whom it is reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2374, 1972 to allow the NRC to impose Part assessed and that these costs should be 2668. Thus, Congress has directed that 170 fees on the Tennessee Valley recovered from the beneficiaries. licensees, of necessity, will have to pay Authority. Section 161w. was further Commenters cited the reduced ability of for some of the expenses that are not amended in 1992 to include the United reactor licensees to pass through costs to generated by efforts directly on their States Enrichment Corporation, prior to their ultimate customers in an era of behalf, regrettable as that may be. While its privatization. Had the NRC’s utility deregulation and reasserted their every effort is made to impose such statutory mandate included the view that power reactor licensees costs equitably, there is one controlling authority to impose fees on all Federal should only be assessed for programs of requirement which is inflexible: the agencies, this legislation would have direct relevance to them. NRC must set its schedule so that it can been unnecessary. The NRC believes it

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31450 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations should be granted the authority to 2. In FY 1995, the NRC acted under requested that the NRC change its charge other Federal agencies for existing fee laws to help to mitigate the definition of small entity for services rendered and recently fairness and equity concerns by treating environmental remediation service submitted to Congress, as a provision in costs for activities that do not directly companies to conform to the SBA’s its proposed FY 2000 authorization bill, benefit NRC licensees similar to revised size standards, which now an amendment to section 161w. which overhead and distributing the costs to categorize such companies with fewer would provide the authority to impose the broadest base of NRC licensees. than 500 employees as ‘‘small entities.’’ Part 170 fees on all Federal agencies. 3. The NRC established a policy to Response. On April 11, 1995 (60 FR Similarly, the NRC lacks the authority obtain reimbursement for services 18344), the NRC promulgated a final to impose annual fees on the Agreement provided to other Federal agencies rule, after notice and comment States and their licensees because when such reimbursements are rulemaking, that revised its size OBRA–90 permits the assessment of authorized by law. standards. The final rule established the annual fees only on NRC licensees. The 4. The NRC obtained appropriation small entity classification applicable to Agreement States and their licensees are legislation that removed from the fee small businesses as follows. Those not ‘‘NRC licensees.’’ The NRC also has base certain costs incurred as a result of companies providing services having no made policy decisions not to assess fees regulatory reviews and other assistance more than $5 million in average annual on nonprofit educational institutions in provided to the Department of Energy. gross revenues over its last three order to further the public good and to 5. The NRC took actions to shift cost completed fiscal years, or, for limit the fees assessed on small recovery for certain activities from Part manufacturing concerns, having an 171 annual fees to Part 170 specific fees businesses in accordance with the average of 500 or fewer employees for services. policies underlying the Regulatory during the preceding 12-month period 6. As part of its FY 2000 authorization Flexibility Act. Under the would qualify as small entities (10 CFR bill, the NRC is seeking an amendment circumstances, it is understandable that 2.810). The NRC promulgated this rule to section 161w. of the Atomic Energy a substantial portion of these costs are pursuant to Section 3(a)(2) of the Small Act to provide the authority to impose recovered through annual fees imposed Business Act, which permits Federal Part 170 fees on all other Federal on power reactors. A large percentage of agencies to establish size standards via agencies. the NRC’s budget is devoted to the notice and comment rulemaking, subject In sum, the Commission believes that to the approval of the SBA regulation of power reactors. the fee schedules it is promulgating in Accordingly, a large portion of the Administrator. The NRC rule, which the this final rule satisfy all legal SBA approved, established generic size annual fee must be borne by these requirements and do not deprive any licensees. standards for small businesses because licensee of its constitutional rights. NRC’s regulatory scheme is not well The commenters suggested that, in the 2. Comment. One commenter said that suited to setting standards for each absence of such legislation, the NRC the basis for annual fees for operating component of the regulated nuclear should not perform the activities reactors should be megawatt generation industry. Unlike the NRC, the SBA’s encompassed within the annual fee capability instead of the proposed fixed Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) surcharge. The Commission is not flat annual fee. This commenter argued System establishes size standards based prepared to eliminate these important that the proposed fee structure placed a on types of economic activity or functions that help assure the public disproportionate burden on the industry. health and safety and the common ratepayers of utilities with small The Commission will further consider defense and security without a clear reactors and resulted in a competitive the issue raised by this commenter statutory directive from the Congress. disadvantage to those reactors. regarding its designation of small Thus, a legislative solution to the fee Response. OBRA–90 requires that entities for reduced fee purposes, and recovery requirement is required to annual fees have a reasonable will separately address the commenter’s eliminate the concerns raised by the relationship to the expenditure of request for a partial annual fee commenters. Over the years, the NRC Commission resources. No available exemption. has had limited success in obtaining fee data demonstrates that the Commission 4. Comment. A few commenters legislation that would reduce the expends fewer resources on reactors indicated that the NRC has not provided burdens on its licensees by having some with lower generation capacity than it sufficient information on which to or all of NRC expenses in these areas does on facilities with greater generation evaluate the fees to be assessed for FY obtained through appropriations from capability. Furthermore, Commission 1999. One commenter stated that the the General Fund. services are not allocated on the basis of NRC violated the Administrative While the Commission continues to megawatt generation capability. Because Procedure Act (APA) by failing to support legislative relief, absent such there is no relationship between generic provide an explanation of how it arrived relief the Commission has limited costs and generation capacity, there is at its proposed fee schedules. ability to remedy any inequities in its no legal basis for charging annual fees Response. The NRC believes it has fee structure because it is required to based on megawatt generation provided sufficient information collect approximately 100 percent of its capability. concerning its proposed fee schedule to budget in fees. The NRC has taken 3. Comment. One commenter said that allow effective evaluation and several actions within existing fee laws the NRC should designate as small constructive comment on the proposed to address concerns regarding its fee entities, for reduced fee purposes, all rule. In Part II of the Statement of structure: those companies with small business Considerations supporting the proposed 1. The NRC identified fairness and certification under the U.S. Small rule, the NRC provided a detailed equity concern categories in its February Business Administration’s (SBA) Small explanation of the FY 1999 budgeted 1994 Report to Congress on NRC Fee Disadvantaged Business Program, costs for the various classes of licensees Policy and indicated that legislation was commonly known as the 8(a) Program. being assessed fees. In addition, the necessary to address these concerns. The NRC should then refund the higher NRC work papers pertinent to the The recommended legislation has not fees collected for the last two years from development of the fees to be assessed been enacted. all 8(a) firms. The commenter further were placed in the Public Document

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31451

Room (PDR) on April 1, 1999, on the They indicated that, in many cases, the rulemaking. Expanding the scope of Part first day of the public comment period. amount of time spent on uranium 170 is consistent with Title V of the These work papers provide additional recovery issues appears to be excessive IOAA, interpretations of that legislation information concerning the in light of what they characterize as the by the Federal courts, and Commission development and calculation of the fees, low level of risk posed by uranium guidance. These guidelines provide that including NRC’s FY 1999 budgeted recovery operations. One uranium Part 170 fees may be assessed to persons resources at the subactivity level for the recovery commenter stated that the who are identifiable recipients of agency’s major programs. The NRC has proposal presents the potential for an ‘‘special benefits’’ conferred by also made NUREG–1100, Vol. 14, open-ended escalation of fees that do specifically identified activities of the ‘‘Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 1999’’ not directly benefit the licensees. NRC. These special benefits include (Feb. 1998), which discusses in detail Other commenters partially or fully services rendered at the request of a NRC’s budget for FY 1999 available in supported the proposed expansion of recipient and all services necessary to the PDR. In addition, NRC staff always Part 170. The Nuclear Energy Institute the issuance of a required permit, makes itself available either to meet (NEI), which primarily represents the license, certificate, approval, or with interested parties in person, or to commercial nuclear reactor industry, amendment, or other services necessary respond to telephone inquiries to urged the NRC to continue to separate to assist a recipient in complying with explain its fee schedules. out fees related to a given licensee and statutory obligations under the assess those fees to the licensee under Commission’s regulations. Incident B. Specific Comments—Part 170 Part 170. NEI stated that it is investigations, performance assessments 1. Expand the Scope of Part 170 inappropriate for one licensee to and evaluations, reviews of reports and subsidize, through annual fees, other documents, and PM activities are Comment. The NRC received twelve additional agency oversight incurred by services which the NRC provides to comments on the proposal to expand another licensee because it is not specific, identifiable recipients. Thus, it the scope of Part 170 to include incident performing well. Another commenter is more appropriate that the costs of investigations, performance assessments who supported the proposal these activities be recovered through and evaluations (except those for which recommended that the NRC demonstrate Part 170 fees assessed to the recipient of the licensee volunteers at NRC’s request how the expanded Part 170 costs are the service than through annual fees and which NRC accepts), reviews of removed from the Part 171 fee schedule. assessed to all of the licensees in the reports and other submittals, and full One power reactor commenter agreed, class. cost recovery for time expended by in part, with shifting cost recovery from Based on the requirement of OBRA– Project Managers (PMs), except leave annual fees to fees for services. 90 that the NRC recover approximately time and time spent on generic activities However, the commenter stated, that as 100 percent of its budget authority such as rulemaking. more services are billed by the hour, the through fees, the costs of these services Many of those commenting on this opportunity for inefficiencies in reviews must be paid either by applicants and issue opposed full cost recovery for and billing abuse becomes greater. This licensees under Part 170 as fees for PMs. Several uranium recovery commenter suggested that hourly fees be services rendered to them or by licensees commented that, coupled with capped to allow licensees to make licensees under Part 171 as annual fees. the proposed increase in the hourly rate budget forecasts. To calculate the total amount to be to be assessed for NRC staff review time, Another commenter supported the assessed in Part 171 annual fees, the the proposed change could double Part assessment of Part 170 fees for all estimated amount to be recovered 170 fee assessments, an increase that inspections, stating that the change is through Part 170 fees in a given fiscal would be extremely burdensome to expected to lower the costs of year is subtracted from the total budget licensees. One commenter indicated inspections for good performers. authority for that fiscal year. Therefore, that billing for all of a PM’s time would However, this commenter opposed the if all other things remain equal, reduce necessary communication, such proposal to expand Part 170 to include increasing the costs to be recovered as phone calls, between the NRC and reviews of documents that do not under Part 170 would shift these costs the licensees. This commenter also require formal approval. This away from Part 171 annual fees. objected to licensees being required to commenter stated that these documents Although this change may result in pay for the time a PM spends to become are submitted in compliance with increased Part 170 fees assessed to the familiar with a site. A similar comment regulations without an expectation of individual licensees receiving the was received from a reactor licensee NRC assistance in assuring compliance, specific services, the overall fee burden who, although not specifically and that licensees should have control for licensees in that fee class is not indicating opposition to the proposal, over Part 170 charges. increased. It should be noted that stated that Part 170 fees should not be A materials licensee questioned how because this final rule will become assessed for PM or resident inspector the proposed additional Part 170 fees effective after the last quarterly part 170 time spent in training or other would be billed, indicating that if NRC billing in FY 1999, the changes will not administrative tasks not directly has truly downsized, the expanded have an effect on the estimated part 170 associated with the licensee. One scope of Part 170 is not justified. collections for FY 1999 and thus do not commenter indicated that the licensees Response. The NRC is expanding the affect the FY 1999 annual fees. paying for the PM time have little or no scope of Part 170 to include incident As described in the proposed rule, input over what the PM is reviewing. A investigations, performance assessments this change will result in the assessment power reactor commenter supported full and evaluations (except those for which of Part 170 fees to individual licensees cost recovery for PMs only if work the licensee volunteers at NRC’s request to recover the full costs for PMs priorities were mutually agreed upon by and which NRC accepts), reviews of assigned to their sites, except for PM NRC and the licensee. reports and other submittals such as activities that are of a generic nature, Several of the uranium recovery responses to Confirmatory Action such as rulemaking and preparation of commenters also questioned the amount Letters, and full cost recovery for Project generic guidance documents, and leave of time spent by PMs and other NRC Manager time, except leave time and time. If a PM is assigned multiple sites, staff in reviewing licensee submittals. time spent on generic activities such as the PM’s time that is not site-specific

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31452 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations will be prorated to all of the sites to materials licensees who hold licenses and evaluation of response to, orders which he or she is assigned. The NRC for which amendment and inspection and NOVs accompanying escalated acknowledges some commenters’ fees have been eliminated from part 170 enforcement actions. This issue will be concerns about individual licensees will not be subject to Part 170 fees for further evaluated prior to promulgation being charged for the time a PM is in these additional activities as they are of the FY 2000 fee rule. training or performing administrative included in their part 171 annual fees. 3. Eliminate Part 170 Average-cost tasks and time for a newly-appointed 2. Including Orders and Escalated (‘‘Flat’’) Amendment Fees PM to become familiar with a particular Enforcement Actions in Part 170 in FY site. However, these types of activities Comment. The NRC received one 2000 are necessary for the PMs to provide comment on its proposal to eliminate effective oversight for the operation of The NRC solicited public comment on the Part 170 fees that are based on the an assigned site or sites. Therefore, the whether to include the development of average costs to review amendments cost of these activities should be borne orders, evaluation of responses to (‘‘flat’’ fees). The commenter supported by those licensees receiving the benefit orders, development of Notices of the proposed change, stating that it of PM services, whether the services are Violation (NOVs) accompanying simplifies budgeting and increases specific licensing and inspection escalated enforcement actions, and efficiency for both the NRC and actions, or other duties associated with evaluation of responses to NOVs in next licensees. serving as the agency focal point for year’s proposed fee rule. Response. The NRC is amending 10 oversight of a site or sites. Examples of Comment. Four comments were CFR 170.31 to eliminate the flat PM activities that will be billed to the received on this issue. Two commenters amendment fees for materials licensees. specific site or sites include: discussions opposed adding these activities to Part This change streamlines the NRC with NRC regional employees on 170; one commenter supported their process and eliminates any delays in specific plant issues; visits to the site(s); inclusion. The fourth commenter processing these amendments due to scheduling, planning and coordinating indicated that the direct allocation of incorrect payments. The NRC believes work with the technical staff; and these costs to those who receive the that, as the commenter indicated, this answering technical questions. services warrants further evaluation and change will also be more efficient for The NRC disagrees with the that it would welcome the opportunity licensees. This change will result in an suggestion that PM time should be to comment on a definitive proposal in estimated $900,000 being added to the billed only if the work priorities are the FY 2000 fee rule. This commenter annual fees assessed to approximately mutually agreed upon by NRC and the stated that, in addition to being viewed 5700 materials licensees. licensee. It would be inappropriate to as a penalty upon licensees who 4. Hourly Rates have entities regulated by the NRC exercise their rights to challenge the Comment. The NRC received eight concur in how the agency carries out its NRC action, there are additional comments that specifically addressed regulatory functions related to that implications in situations where the the proposed increases in the specific entity. The agency’s work licensee is successful in such a professional hourly rates. Those priorities, including those of PMs, are challenge. Another commenter stated commenting indicated that the increases carefully reviewed by NRC management that the assessment of Part 170 fees for would create a substantial financial to assure that the appropriate resources these actions would result in a ‘‘de facto burden for the licensees, particularly are spent to accomplish the agency’s additional civil penalty, and further when added to the proposal to expand health and safety mission. Assessing challenge the economics of operation for the scope of Part 170. Several Part 170 fees to recover the cost of a that facility.’’ NEI, on the other hand, commenters stated that the proposed particular service provided to an urged the NRC to continue to assess fees hourly rates exceed the hourly charges individual applicant or licensee does under Part 170 for activities related to of senior consultants or principals at not diminish the requirement for NRC a given licensee, and stated that major consulting firms, and exceed the management to carefully balance ‘‘application of this principle dictates generally accepted rate for similar work workload and assigned resources in an that the industry support assessing fees in private industry. Some commenters efficient and effective manner. This also for escalated enforcement actions under stated that the rate is unjustifiably high applies to the suggestions that the NRC Part 170.’’ NEI went on to say that the and does not reflect the actual cost of staff spends excessive time on reviews perception that these enforcement providing regulatory services to and that increasing the scope of Part actions serve as an industry-wide licensees. One commenter said that the 170, as proposed, would open the door deterrent has not been borne out. One increase does not coincide with actual for inefficiencies in reviews and billing commenter who opposed the cost of living increases. This commenter abuses. assessment of Part 170 fees for these stated that the increases cannot be The NRC is committed to performing activities stated that the licensees would justified based on inflation indicators all of its activities as expeditiously and have to pay fees for pursuing any over the period which have increased efficiently as possible. This commitment enforcement action they disagreed with, on the order of 3 percent or less per is evidenced by the streamlining and which could result in a ‘‘chilling effect’’ year. Uranium recovery commenters downsizing the agency has on challenges to enforcement actions. stated that the hourly charges should be accomplished and the resulting budget The commenter also stated that predictable to permit licensees to budget reductions. In addition, billing for licensees would be required to pay for and plan accordingly. An individual activities under Part 170 provides the review of a violation and corrective uranium recovery licensee and The licensees a greater opportunity to review actions even if the NRC concludes that National Mining Association (NMA), and challenge specific costs because the full mitigation of a possible civil penalty whose members include owners and charges are individually itemized on the is appropriate, and potentially would be operators of uranium mills, mill tailings Part 170 bills. charged fees when NRC withdraws an sites and in situ uranium production Part 170 fees for these additional enforcement action. facilities, added that, to the extent such activities will be applicable only to Response. The NRC agrees that there hourly rates are a result of the 100 those applicants and licensees subject to are arguments for and against assessing percent budget recovery requirement of full cost billing under Part 170. Those Part 170 fees for the development of, OBRA–90, the NRC should work with

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31453

Congress to make the fee system more hourly rates to $141 for the reactor diminished as a result of the fee equitable. One commenter suggested program and $140 for the materials increases and referred to the low cost of that support staff be reduced parallel program. The method and budgeted regulating this category of radioactive with FTE reductions and questioned costs used in the calculation of the materials devices, the low activity of whether materials program support staff hourly rates are discussed in Section III material in the devices, and the safety could be shared with other programs to of this final rule. In addition, the agency record of these devices. Other lessen what the commenter termed the work papers supporting each proposed commenters indicated that the increases ‘‘support imbalance and consequent and final rule include details of the were unjustified, pointing to the safety licensee load.’’ hourly rate calculations. These work record of devices covered by fee Response. As stated in the proposed papers also contain details of the category 3P (all other byproduct rule, due to a budget coding error that agency’s budget used in the material) and the time span between occurred in FY 1998, the FY 1999 development of the FY 1999 hourly inspections for these types of licenses. hourly rates are more appropriately rates and fees. The work papers One commenter stated that, in light of compared to the FY 1997 hourly rates supporting the fee rules are available for NRC’s efforts to streamline its licensing, plus salary and benefit increases since inspection in the NRC Public Document inspection and enforcement programs, that time. The FY 1997 hourly rate for Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), costs should be reduced commensurate the reactor program was $131, and the Washington DC 20555–001. The specific with a reduction in resources and FY 1997 hourly rate for the nuclear details regarding the NRC’s FY 1999 activity. materials and nuclear waste program budget are documented in the NUREG– Response. The results of the biennial was $125. The NRC salaries and benefits 1100, Vol. 14, ‘‘Budget Estimates, Fiscal review of fees were based on actual staff increased 4.4 percent from FY 1997 to Year 1999’’ (February 1998). Copies of hours reported for the various license FY 1998, and 3.68 percent from FY 1998 NUREG–1100 may be purchased from categories over a 5-year period. During to FY 1999. Considering only these the Reproduction and Distribution the 5-year period, almost 700 new increases, the FY 1999 hourly rates Services Section, OCIO, U. S. Nuclear license applications and almost 4000 would be $142 for the reactor program Regulatory Commission, Washington, amendment requests were processed for and $136 for the materials program. DC 20555–0001, and from the National fee category 3P, ‘‘All other byproduct However, there has also been a shift in Technical Information Service, material’’, and approximately 2300 the proportion of direct resources Springfield, VA 22161–0002. A copy is inspections were conducted. Similar between the reactor program and the also available for inspection, and numbers of actions were reported for materials program. As a result, the copying for a fee, in the NRC Public nuclear medicine licenses. Although materials program has a larger share of Document Room. fewer actions were reported for certain the direct resources than in the past and 5. Fee Adjustments other categories, the volume of data is consequently must absorb more of the sufficient to support the increases in the overhead and management and support Comment. Five comments were average time spent on these categories. costs. The professional hourly rates are received on the proposed fee Based on the volume analyzed in the based on budgeted costs. Because adjustments to the fee schedules for biennial review, the NRC has no basis overhead resources are budgeted specific classes of licensees set forth in to modify the average time results for §§ 170.21 and 170.31. NEI specifically separately for the materials and reactor processing these applications and commented on the NRC’s proposal to programs, they cannot be ‘‘shared’’ for inspections. The NRC is streamlining its revise §§ 170.21 and 170.31 to reflect purposes of the hourly rate calculations licensing and inspection efforts and is the increased hourly rates and the as suggested by one commenter. Agency working on a series of guidance results of the biennial review of Part 170 management and support costs, on the documents related to about 20 fees required by the Chief Financial other hand, are not budgeted separately categories of materials licenses. Because Officers (CFO) Act. NEI questioned the for the reactor and materials programs. these initiatives are still under statement in the proposed rule that the Instead, these costs are allocated to the development, the full efficiencies have average number of professional hours programs based on their share of the yet to be realized. Based on the required to conduct inspections and to budgeted direct resources. Because the requirement for NRC to recover materials program now has a larger review and approve new license approximately 100 percent of its budget share of the direct resources than in the applications increased for 20 of 33 fee authority through fees each fiscal year past, more of the management and categories. NEI stated that license and the requirement to biennially support costs have been allocated to the applications have become more uniform review and revise charges to recover the materials program. and inspection frequency is expected to As indicated in previous final rules, decline as a result of implementation of costs of providing the services, the NRC the NRC professional hourly rates must the NRC’s new risk-informed, is unable to establish fees based on cost be established at levels to meet the performance-based regulatory reductions that may occur in future statutory requirement of OBRA–90 to philosophy. Four other commenters fiscal years. Part 170 fees must recover through fees approximately 100 expressed opposition to the increased approximate current costs. The NRC is percent of the budget authority, less the fees for materials licensees, which adopting the results of the biennial appropriation from the Nuclear Waste include increases in Part 170 fees for review in this final rule for those fee Fund. The NRC is not able to use certain categories. These commenters categories subject to flat fees based on inflation or other indices as the basis for indicated that the proposed changes the average professional time to the development of the hourly rates would have adverse affects on licensees. complete the actions. These revised flat charged under 10 CFR 170 and 171 A manufacturer of portable density and fees also reflect the increased hourly because these factors may not allow the moisture testing gauges stated that rates for FY 1999. NRC to meet the 100 percent fee economic hardship on licensees will C. Specific Comments—Part 171 recovery requirement. lead to the sale and disposal or Given the budgeted costs that must be abandonment of gauges and subsequent 1. Rebaseline With a 50 Percent Cap recovered through the hourly rates, it is license termination. The commenter Comment. Nine commenters necessary to increase the FY 1999 stated that use of a valuable tool will be specifically addressed the two options

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31454 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations presented by the NRC for rebaselining those licensees with significant fee to year. These commenters stated that a the FY 1999 annual fees: Option A, increases, establishing new baseline reasonable degree of predictability of rebaseline without a cap, or Option B, annual fees without a cap results in a the fees is needed to enable licensees to rebaseline with a 50 percent cap on FY fair and equitable allocation of costs plan, forecast, and budget accurately. 1999 annual fee increases. Five among licensees. The United States Enrichment commenters, uranium recovery The major purpose for the option to Corporation (USEC) also supported licensees or persons representing the establish the FY 1999 rebaselined rebaselining every several years as uranium recovery class, preferred the 50 annual fees with a 50 percent cap was appropriate, such as when there is percent cap, ‘‘if forced to choose.’’ to provide greater fee stability than significant downsizing, agency These commenters indicated that the would be provided by rebaselining reorganization, or additions of new fee cap would at least spread the annual fee without a cap, and to provide advance classes. USEC stated that although increases for uranium recovery licensees notice to licensees of the full annual rebaselining provides for a more in- over two years to lessen the drastic fees for their future budget planning depth review of the NRC’s impact to their budgets for a given year. purposes. There was, however, a lack of programmatic efforts, it also has the One uranium recovery commenter overwhelming support for the cap. potential to reintroduce into the fee indicated that even the 50 percent Some commenters who chose the cap process an instability that the increase is excessive when were in fact reluctant to support either percentage change method was created governmental inflation indexes indicate option. Capping fee increases for a class to address. USEC referred to the an inflation rate of 3 percent or less. The or classes of licensees necessarily methodology for stabilizing fees National Mining Association (NMA) results in additional fees being assessed described by the NRC in the FY 1996 fee stated that the uranium recovery to other classes of licensees in order to rule, stating that consistent and licensees had no warning of how recover approximately 100 percent of appropriate application of that significant the increase in fees would be the budget as required by statute. A cap methodology should result in for FY 1999. Another commenter, a on FY 1999 fee increases has the rebaselining when warranted, but not materials licensee, supported the cap, potential to exacerbate concerns about necessarily annually. USEC stated that but stated that 50 percent was too high. the fairness and equity of licensees the methodology will result in a fair This commenter recommended that all being charged for activities that do not allocation of fees while maintaining fee increases be capped at a level directly benefit them. Based on these some stabilization and fee commensurate with the inflation rate. concerns, an evaluation of NRC budget predictability. allocation data, and the lack of Three commenters, NEI, a reactor Response. The majority of those licensee, and a materials licensee, overwhelming support from commenters, the Commission has commenting on the frequency for supported rebaselining without a cap. rebaselining annual fees supported These commenters stated that decided against adopting a cap on fee increases for FY 1999. rebaselining every several years as rebaselining without a cap is more fair warranted. The current policy of because it allows NRC to determine the 2. Rebaselining Frequency adjusting the annual fees only by the amount of resources devoted to Comment. Eight comments were percent change in NRC’s total budget regulation of certain licensees and received in response to the NRC’s unless there is a substantial change in allocate the costs to those licensees. One solicitation of public comment on the total NRC budget or the magnitude commenter stated that the cap could whether the NRC should, in future of the budget allocated to a specific result in an unfair allocation to some years, continue to use the percent class of licensees provides for fee licensees of costs over the cap amount change method and rebaseline fees stabilization, which is a continuing incurred for other licensees. NEI stated every several years, as established in the issue of concern for licensees as that it is inappropriate given the FY 1995 fee rule statements of evidenced by the comments received. developing competitive environment in consideration, or return to a policy of The commenters did not provide which nuclear licensees will operate or rebaselining annual fees every year. Five overwhelming support for reversing the are already operating, to require all commenters were in favor of current policy. Therefore, the licensees to subsidize any licensee who rebaselining every several years, three Commission is continuing the policy as received services costing more than the were in favor of rebaselining annually. described in the Statement of cap amount. In support of annual rebaselining, NEI Considerations for the FY 1995 final fee Response. The Commission is stated that the percentage change rule (60 FR 32218; June 20, 1995) to establishing rebaselined FY 1999 annual method does not promote the in-depth stabilize fees by adjusting the annual fees without a cap, after comparing the review, revision, and streamlining of fees only by the percent change in allocation of its FY 1999 budgeted costs programs it believes is necessary to NRC’s total budget, with additional with those of FY 1995. The Commission ensure maximum agency efficiency. In a adjustments for the numbers of concluded that there have been similar comment, Duke Energy licensees paying fees, changes in Part significant changes in the allocation of Corporation (Duke) stated it believes 170 fees, and other adjustments that agency resources among the various that annual rebaselining would enable may be required, unless there is a classes of NRC licensees. This fulfills the NRC to better monitor its programs substantial change in the total NRC the Commission’s policy commitment and ensure that costs are accurately budget or the magnitude of the budget made in the Statement of Considerations assessed to licensees who benefit from allocated to a specific class of licensees, accompanying the FY 1995 fee rule (60 the associated services and would in which case the annual fee base would FR 32225) that base annual fees would ensure that licensees would not unjustly be reestablished. The Commission be re-established (rebaselined) if there is subsidize the costs of services provided stated in the FY 1995 rule that the a substantial change in the total NRC to other licensees. The NMA and several percent change method would be used budget or the magnitude of the budget uranium recovery licensees commented for a maximum of four years. Annual allocated to a specific class of licensees. that the fees should only be rebaselined fees for FYs 1996, 1997, and 1998 were Although the NRC is sensitive to the every several years so that the fees established based on the percent change effects the rebaselined fees will have on remain reasonably predictable from year method. The Commission determined

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31455 that it is appropriate to establish new commenters argued that because they designs. Further, the annual fee will baseline fees for FY 1999 based on the have no fuel onsite they derive no result in most reactor licensees being program and fee policy changes that benefit from NRC activities related to assessed the costs of NRC’s generic have taken place since FY 1995, and the spent fuel storage. GE Nuclear stated reactor decommissioning activities. This addition of a new fee class for spent fuel that its Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor annual fee includes the costs of NRC’s storage/reactor decommissioning. Based (VBWR) derives no comparable benefit generic and other research activities on the experience gained as a result of from the NRC’s decommissioning directly related to reactor applying the criteria for rebaselining activities because essentially all of the decommissioning and spent fuel storage over the past four years, the facilities, structures, and systems, (both storage options), and other safety, Commission has determined that in the external to the containment vessel environmental, and safeguards activities future annual fees should be rebaselined associated with VBWR operations have related to reactor decommissioning and every three years, or earlier if warranted. been removed, leaving a very small spent fuel storage, except those The decision on the appropriate method containment structure and internal activities which are subject Part 170 for establishing annual fees for the components subject to future fees. The final FY 1999 spent fuel intervening two years will be made each decommissioning. PECO Energy storage/reactor decommissioning annual year. Company (PECO) stated that the Peach fee is $206,000. This reflects that an annual fee is not being imposed on 3. Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 1 those six reactors which have Decommissioning Annual Fee (PBAPS) spent fuel pool has been offloaded, drained, and decontaminated. permanently ceased operations and Comment. Four comments were PECO stated that it plans to keep PBAPS have no fuel onsite. This also takes into received on NRC’s proposal to establish Unit 1 in a SAFSTOR and the only account the prorated FY 1999 annual fee a spent fuel/storage decommissioning activity being performed is required to be assessed to DOE for the Part 72 annual fee to be assessed to all reactor Technical Specifications Surveillance license issued on March 19, 1999, for licensees, regardless of their operating through December 2015. the storage of fuel and fuel debris status, and to Part 72 licensees who do Response. The NRC is establishing a resulting from the Three Mile Island not hold a Part 50 license. Duke Unit 2 accident. supported the proposed change, stating spent fuel storage/reactor that the current fee regulation would decommissioning annual fee in this 4. Revised Fuel Cycle Matrix impose duplicative fees on licensees for final rule. However, this new annual fee Comment. USEC, although supportive use of a part 72 general license if they will not be assessed to those reactors of the decreased FY 1999 annual fees for already perform the same activities that have permanently ceased the Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, under a specific Part 72 license. Duke operations and have no spent fuel Ohio Gaseous Diffusion Plants (GDPs), contends that imposition of such onsite. The NRC agrees with the requested that the NRC revise the fee substantial and duplicative fees is commenters that NRC’s generic spent rule to recognize that the GDPs are the inconsistent with Congress’ direction in fuel storage activities are not applicable operational equivalent of a single plant the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, to reactors that have ceased operations and assess a single fee for the complex. as amended, that NRC eliminate the and have removed all fuel from the site. USEC argued that a double assessment need for specific NRC authorization for However, the new fee will be assessed on the two certificates of compliance onsite storage of spent fuel to the to all reactors who have fuel onsite results in a significantly maximum extent practicable. Duke regardless of the storage option the disproportionate allocation of costs to stated that the duplicate annual fees for licensee elects to use. The NRC USEC. USEC also requested that NRC both types of licenses would deny recognizes that sites will be required to revise the Effort Factor rating in the fuel licensees the reasonable opportunity to continue to store spent fuel onsite until facility matrix used by NRC to assess use the general licenses, and supports another solution becomes available. The relative effort for a facility. Specifically, the removal of such disincentive by fact that DOE has not taken possession USEC took issue with NRC’s matrix revising the fee regulations as proposed. of the spent fuel does not relieve NRC evaluation of the relative weight and, South Carolina Electric and Gas of the OBRA–90 requirement to recover hence, NRC’s regulatory effort for GDP Company objected to the proposed fee approximately 100 percent of its budget activities. USEC stated that NRC because it does not maintain an authority through fees, including those counted the risk for UF6 twice, once as Independent Spent Fuel Storage costs associated with generic spent fuel solid and once as liquid. USEC argues Installation (ISFSI), has adequate storage storage activities. The NRC believes that that the risk is less, and that the Effort capacity in its Spent Fuel Pool (SFP), assessing a spent fuel storage/reactor Factor for UF6 should be reduced from and does not plan to build an ISFSI for decommissioning annual fee to all 10 to 5 for the GDPs. at least 15 years. The commenter stated reactor licensees who have spent fuel Response. The NRC has rejected that, under the proposal, it would pay onsite and all Part 72 licensees who do previous requests from USEC that a fees for continuing to store spent fuel in not hold a Part 50 license is a reasonable single fee be assessed for the two GDPs. the SFP until an ISFSI is needed, but approach for recovering NRC costs for For the reasons stated in response to would not realize services or benefits for generic spent fuel storage and reactor USEC’s comments on the proposed FYs those fees. The commenter stated that it decommissioning activities. The current 1997 and 1998 fee rules (62 FR 29197; is not appropriate for its customers to policy has raised concerns that the fee May 29, 1997, and 63 FR 31843; June pay the ISFSI fees of other licensees structure could create a disincentive for 10, 1998), and in NRC’s March 23, 1998, and, had DOE honored its obligation to licensees to pursue dry storage. The denial of USEC’s annual fee exemption take possession of spent fuel by January spent fuel storage/reactor request, the NRC believes that USEC 1998, the fee would not be an issue. decommissioning annual fee will give must pay a full annual fee for each of Two other commenters, reactor equivalent fee treatment to both storage its enrichment facilities. USEC has licensees who have permanently ceased options. The annual fee also addresses recently appealed the FY 1998 annual operations, opposed the imposition of concerns about the fairness of assessing fee assessments for the two GDPs. the proposed fee for their licenses multiple annual fees if a licensee holds Because USEC raised these same because they have no fuel onsite. These multiple Part 72 licenses for different specific issues in its current exemption

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31456 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations request, we will address those issues in expressed concerns that with the The rebaselined annual fees, which our forthcoming response to the decline in the number of licensees, the increased for some classes and exemption request. In the fuel facility remaining licensees are required to pay decreased for other classes, reflect the matrix, the NRC assessed the risk based a greater share of NRC’s costs with no budgeted costs for each class of licensee. on the total relative amounts of UF6 and increase in benefits. Some commenters The NRC recognizes that there may be the number and complexity of the stated that NRC’s budget should be adverse economic impacts on those processes involved with UF6. These reduced in a manner that is consistent classes of licensees with fee increases factors merit weighting the value as 10 with the reduction in the number of for FY 1999. However, as the NRC has for the GDPs when compared to other licensees. Others specifically requested stated in response to similar comments fuel cycle facilities. that the NRC consider options to received on previous fee rules, because address the effects of increased license D. Other Comments OBRA–90, as amended, requires the fees and a declining number of NRC to recover approximately 100 1. Inconsistency in Hourly Rate and licensees. Commenters also indicated percent of its budget authority through Annual Fee Calculation Tables that there should be a reduction in NRC fees, the NRC cannot mitigate the costs as the agency moves towards a adverse economic impacts by Comment. One commenter stated that performance-based regulatory structure, there is an inconsistency in the eliminating or reducing the fee increases translating to lower fees. Although some for one class of licensee without proposed rule between the table commenters recognized NRC’s efforts to showing the calculation of the increasing the fees, and thus creating downsize and streamline its programs, adverse economic impacts, for another professional hourly rates and the table they indicated that the NRC should find showing the amount to be recovered class of licensees. Therefore the NRC ways to further streamline and operate has considered only the impacts it is through annual fees. Specifically, the more efficiently. Some commenters commenter stated that Table I, ‘‘Budget required to consider by law. As required requested that the increased fees be by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of and Fee Recovery Amounts for FY reconsidered based on the low risk and 1999’’, indicates that $103.5 million is 1980, the NRC has considered the safety records associated with the impact of its fee regulations on small expected to be recovered through Part licensed activities. NEI cited several 170 fees in FY 1999, while Table II, ‘‘FY entities and evaluated alternatives to reasons why the NRC should consider minimize those impacts. This 1999 Budget Authority to be Included in decreasing its future budget requests, Hourly Rates’’ indicates that $257.4 evaluation is included in the Regulatory including: NRC’s revised oversight Flexibility Analysis which is Appendix million is to be recovered through Part process which should result in 170 fees in FY 1999. A to this final rule. As a result of this decreased inspection hours; a declining analysis, the NRC is continuing the Response. The amounts shown in number of industry events that should Tables I and II are correct. In the maximum annual fee of $1,800 lead to fewer inspections; and the NRC’s established in FY 1991 for certain small proposed rule, Table I, ‘‘Budget and Fee revised enforcement process which Recovery Amounts for FY 1999,’’ shows entities, and the lower-tier small entity should require fewer agency resources. fee of $400 established in FY 1992 for that the estimated amount for recovery NEI also suggested that the NRC small entities with relatively low gross under Part 170 totals $103.5 million. consider additional changes to its annual receipts and for manufacturing Table II, ‘‘FY 1999 Budget Authority to organizational structure, such as concerns with relatively few employees. be Included in Hourly Rates,’’ shows eliminating the regional offices and that the total budgeted costs for the reducing the resources related to As explained in the proposed rule, the reactor program excluding direct research activities. rebaselined FY 1999 annual fees reflect contract support, plus the management Response. The NRC’s budget, which is program changes that have occurred and support costs allocated to the carefully scrutinized and reviewed by since the last rebaselining in FY 1995. reactor program, totals $257.4 million. OMB and Congress prior to approval, These changes include the NRC’s This sum, which is used to develop the reflects the resources necessary to carry successful downsizing and streamlining reactor program hourly rate, is out its health and safety mission. The efforts. The NRC’s budget to be recovered through the imposition of fees NRC is continuing its streamlining recovered through fees has decreased under both Parts 170 and Parts 171. efforts and constantly looks for ways to from approximately $504.0 million in further improve its operations. FY 1995 to approximately $449.6 2. Adverse Effects of Fee Increases However, some of the NRC’s million in FY 1999, a reduction of more Comment. Many commenters opposed streamlining initiatives and the than 10 percent. In constant 1993 the fee increases in general, indicating activities required to transition to dollars, the NRC’s budget has decreased that the increases are not justified and performance-based licensing require an by $127.5 million, or approximately 24 would have adverse economic impacts initial expenditure of resources before percent, since FY 1993, as shown in the on NRC licensees. Several commenters the results of those actions are realized. following table:

Fiscal year (FY) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Budget ($ millions, constant 1993 dollars) ...... 540.0 522.4 498.7 439.7 434.1 427.0 412.5 Difference from FY1993 ($ millions) ...... 17.6 41.3 100.3 105.9 113.0 127.5

The rebaselined FY 1999 annual fees also reflect the results of the biennial categories of these materials licensees. reflect the budgeted costs for each class review of fees as required by the CFO However, these licensees are no longer of licensee, less the estimated Part 170 Act, as well as the inclusion of the required to pay Part 170 fees for collections for that class for FY 1999. budgeted costs for license amendments, amendments, renewals, and inspections. The FY 1999 annual fees for materials renewals, and inspections. The FY 1999 Although fewer resources may be licenses subject to ‘‘flat’’ Part 170 fees annual fees increased for certain needed to complete licensing reviews

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31457 and conduct inspections for a particular infrastructure. Commenters stated that request is received from a licensee for class of licensees as the number of NRC efforts to promote performance- the NRC staff to review elements of licensees in the class declines, there is based licenses for uranium recovery construction. Sites on standby status are not necessarily a correlation between licensees should result in lower, not to be inspected every two to three years. the number of licensees and the higher, licenses fees for the uranium Facilities that are currently in agency’s regulatory oversight mission. recovery class. Commenters pointed to operational status are to be inspected For instance, the need for rulemaking is areas where they believe NRC engages twice a year, with the option for a not diminished as the number of in excessive regulatory oversight of the reduction to once a year, depending on licensees decrease. However, a portion uranium recovery licensees: conducting the inspection record. If an operating of the costs associated with certain two inspections each year of uranium uranium recovery licensee has a good rulemaking and other generic activities in-situ leach (ISL) operations, compared inspection record and the NRC is allocated to the annual fee surcharge to the one inspection conducted per based on the ratio of Agreement States year before the NRC’s closed the determines that a reduced number of licenses to NRC licenses in the affected Uranium Recovery Field Office, and inspections is warranted, the NRC will class of licensees. The surcharge costs requiring excessively detailed studies eliminate one annual inspection. are then assessed to all classes of and analysis of surface water drainage The NRC agrees that performance- licensees based on their share of the issues at sites with uranium mill tailings based licensing should result in reduced budget. As a result, the full economic impoundments. The commenters also Part 170 fees for uranium recovery impact of additional Agreement States questioned the need for increased NRC licensees. Under a performance-based and the resulting loss of NRC licensees efforts related to groundwater concerns license, a licensee is allowed flexibility is not borne entirely by the affected for in-situ facilities when it is to make certain changes at the site class. questionable if NRC should be without the need for a license The NRC’s budgets are outside the regulating in-situ leach wellfields and amendment. This streamlined form of scope of this rulemaking and therefore associated groundwater concerns. license, when implemented properly by commenters’ suggestions regarding Response. The NRC does not select, or the licensee, should result in less hours future NRC budgets are not addressed in ‘‘target,’’ any class of licensees for fee this final rule. The NRC’s budget is increases or fee reductions. Instead, spent on staff reviews of licensee public information and undergoes rebaselined annual fees are established submittals. Office of Management and Budget and to recover the budgeted costs of NRC’s The NRC staff’s experience in the area Congressional review annually. The regulatory programs for each class of of erosion protection has shown that NRC is establishing the rebaselined FY licensee, plus a percentage of the this is an area where impacts to the 1999 annual fees at the levels necessary surcharge costs allocated to that class impoundment may be the greatest. To to recover the budgeted costs for each based on their share of the budget. The provide additional guidance for the class of licensee from that class to the NRC has addressed similar comments in licensees in this and other technical extent practicable, and to recover the previous fee rules concerning the areas, the NRC developed a Standard surcharge costs from all classes of market condition of the uranium Review Plan for Reclamation of Title II licensees based on their share of the recovery industry and the national Sites and an erosion report that budget. interest of preserving the energy discusses acceptable design methods production infrastructure. The 3. Uranium Recovery Issues and analyses for erosion control. These Commission continues to conclude that two documents were released for public Comment. Several comments relating it cannot set fees based on passthrough to specific uranium recovery issues considerations. As stated in response to comment in February 1999. The NRC were received from uranium recovery comments on this issue in the FY 1993 staff is reviewing and will be licensees and their representatives. The fee rule (58 FR 38667; July 20, 1993), the responding to the comments received. commenters claimed that the uranium Commission lacks the expertise or The final versions of these documents recovery industry has been targeted for information needed to determine should provide more clearly the types of especially large fee increases and gave whether, in a market economy, design methods and analyses that would several reasons why they believe their particular licensees can or cannot serve as acceptable bases for the NRC’s treatment under the proposed rule is recapture the costs of annual fees from staff’s conclusions about the stability of especially harsh and unfair. The their customers. The Commission is not the site. commenters stated that the increases in a financial regulatory agency and does In late 1997, the NRC began hourly rates and license fees place an not have the resources necessary to examining its role in the regulation of undue burden on the uranium recovery evaluate continuously purely business ISL wellfields and the associated industry, which is suffering from a factors. The annual fees must have, to depressed market. The commenters groundwater. To assist the NRC in this the maximum extent practicable, a endeavor, in April 1998, the National expressed concern that they cannot reasonable relationship to the cost of Mining Association (NMA) provided the ‘‘pass through’’ such costs, and the fee providing regulatory services in order to Commission with a White Paper in increases directly affect the profitability meet the requirements of OBRA–90. and viability of an operation. The Therefore, the Commission is not which it discussed four major concerns, commenters also indicated that the changing its previous decisions against including one related to in-situ facility imposition of such high fees and hourly basing fees on licensees’ economic regulation. Based on the NRC staff’s and rates on the uranium recovery industry status. NMA’s concerns, the NRC staff prepared discourages current uranium production The NRC has examined ways to a paper which is now before the and discourages companies from reduce or eliminate inspections. In Commission which outlines options for maintaining facilities in a standby status establishing inspection frequencies, the NRC regulation of groundwater and until market conditions improve. This, NRC considers the risk to public health wastes at ISL facilities. The commenters claimed, is against the and safety and the environment. Sites Commission’s decision will shape national interest of preserving the under reclamation are to be inspected NRC’s future regulatory program in this domestic energy production once every three years unless a specific area.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31458 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

4. NRC’s Fee Billing Systems and inspector at the site, each docket will be for FY 1999 is $5.2 million less than the Practices billed for one-third of the senior amount estimated for recovery in the Comment. Two commenters requested resident inspector’s time that is not NRC’s FY 1998 fee rule. related to a specific inspection. that NRC modify its billing systems and The reduced budgeted costs to be With respect to the request from practices. NEI requested that NRC recovered through fees for FY 1999 materials licensees that more detailed reflect several actions taken by the NRC. allocate the costs of services to information be provided on their bills, individual units at multi-unit sites. NEI These actions include strategic the NRC converted to a new billing planning, downsizing, and a more complained that under current practice format in October 1998 for materials the agency ‘‘arbitrarily’’ allocates site- aggressive policy on seeking licensing actions subject to full cost reimbursement from Federal agencies wide inspection fees to one unit. NEI recovery under Part 170. These bills stated that due to varying ownership for performing services that are not a now provide more detailed information required part of the agency’s statutory percentages in each unit, it is critically on the charges to support the licensing important in a competitive environment mission. For example, for FY 1999, the review costs. A supporting document is NRC entered into an agreement with the for site-wide fees to be allocated to the included with these bills which individual units. The NMA requested U.S. Agency for International provides information on the date of the Development to fund NRC’s staff costs that NRC continue its efforts to provide application, the control number for the bills that contain more meaningful associated with providing nuclear safety application, the name of the NRC assistance to the countries of the former descriptions of the work done. The reviewer and/or contractor, the number NMA stated that in the private sector, Soviet Union. As a result, NRC licensees of regular and non-regular hours are not required to pay for the costs of adequate explanations are provided for expended by the reviewer, and the NRC clients to fully understand what was this activity in FY 1999. These costs reviewer’s title. In FY 2000 the NRC were previously included in NRC’s done, when it was done, and how much plans to convert to a new inspection fee time was spent on each discreet activity. budget authority and the costs were billing system for materials licensees recovered through annual fees assessed The NMA indicated that such a system that will provide more detailed to NRC licensees. could help identify problems, such as information for inspections. excessive time spent on reviews of The NRC estimates that licensee submittals. III. Final Action approximately $107.7 million will be Response. Beginning with the FY The NRC is amending its licensing, recovered in FY 1999 from fees assessed 1998 fee rule, which became effective inspection, and annual fees to recover under Part 170 and other receipts, August 10, 1998, the NRC is assessing approximately 100 percent of its FY compared to $94.6 million in FY 1998. Part 170 fees to recover all of the 1999 budget authority, including the The increase from FY 1998 is primarily resident inspector’s time, except leave budget authority for its Office of the due to increased Part 170 collections time and time spent in support of Inspector General, less the largely attributable to changes in another facility. For resident inspectors, appropriations received from the NWF Commission policy included in the FY all non-inspection time is charged to the and the General Fund. For FY 1999, the 1998 final fee rule, such as billing full docket to which they are assigned. NRC’s budget authority is $469.8 cost under Part 170 for resident However, a senior resident inspector million, of which $17.0 million has inspectors, and a $4.1 million carryover may be assigned to the site rather than been appropriated from the NWF. In from additional collections in FY 1998 to a specific unit at a multi-unit site. In addition, $3.2 million has been that were unanticipated at the time the these cases, the senior resident appropriated from the General Fund for final FY 1998 fee rule was published. In inspector’s non-inspection time is activities related to regulatory reviews addition to the estimated Part 170 currently billed to the lowest docket and other assistance provided to the collections and other receipts, the NRC number for the site. Due to billing DOE and other Federal agencies. The estimates a net adjustment of system limitations, the NRC is not able NRC’s FY 1999 Appropriations Act approximately $2.1 million for at this time to provide separate billings states that this $3.2 million payments received in FY 1999 for FY for each unit for the non-inspection appropriation shall be excluded from 1998 invoices. The remaining $339.8 senior resident inspector time. The NRC license fee revenues. Therefore, the NRC million will be recovered in FY 1999 will pursue modification of its billing is required to collect approximately through the 10 CFR Part 171 annual system in the future to allocate this $449.6 million in FY 1999 through 10 fees, which is approximately $20.4 senior resident time to each docket on CFR Part 170 licensing and inspection million less than in FY 1998. a prorated basis, e.g, if there are three fees and 10 CFR Part 171 annual fees. Table I summarizes the budget and fee dockets and one senior resident The total amount to be recovered in fees recovery amounts for FY 1999:

TABLE I.ÐBUDGET AND FEE RECOVERY AMOUNTS FOR FY 1999 [Dollars in millions]

Total Budget ...... $469.8 Less NWF ...... ¥17.0 Less General Fund (Reviews for DOE and other Federal agencies) ...... ¥3.2 Total Fee Base ...... $449.6 Less estimated Part 170 fees ...... ¥103.5 Less other receipts (estimated) ...... ¥4.2

Part 171 Fee Collections Required ...... 341.9 Part 171 Billing Adjustment 1. Unpaid FY 1999 invoices (estimated) ...... 3.4 Less estimated payments received in FY 1999 for prior year invoices ...... ¥5.5

Subtotal ...... ¥2.1

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31459

TABLE I.ÐBUDGET AND FEE RECOVERY AMOUNTS FOR FY 1999ÐContinued [Dollars in millions] Adjusted Part 171 Collections Required ...... $339.8 1 These adjustments are necessary to ensure that the ``billed'' amount results in the required collections. Positive amounts indicate amounts billed that will not be collected in FY 1999.

Because the final FY 1999 fee rule is 1. Expanded Part 170 Cost Recovery determined and corrective actions a ‘‘major’’ final action as defined by the The NRC is expanding the scope of taken. Incident Investigation Teams Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Part 170 to include incident investigate events of potentially major Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC’s fees for investigations, performance assessments significance. Although the FY 1999 will become effective 60 days and evaluations (except those for which investigations may result in some after publication of the final rule in the the licensee volunteers at NRC’s request generic lessons, the investigations are Federal Register. and which NRC accepts), reviews of primarily a direct service provided to The NRC announced in the FY 1998 reports and other submittals such as the specific licensee and assist the licensee in complying with NRC proposed rule that the final rule would responses to Confirmatory Action regulations. The costs of any generic no longer be mailed to all licensees. Letters, and full cost recovery for time efforts that may result from the However, because the NRC solicited expended by Project Managers. investigations, such as the development public comments on two potential Part 170 fees are based on Title V of of new regulatory requirements and annual fee schedules for FY 1999, the the IOAA, interpretations of that guidance, will continue to be recovered FY 1999 final rule is being mailed to all legislation by the Federal courts, and through Part 171 annual fees, not licensees. As a cost-saving measure, the Commission guidance. These guidelines through Part 170 fees assessed to the NRC does not plan to routinely mail provide that Part 170 fees may be licensee. In addition, any time future final fee rules to all licensees, but assessed to persons who are identifiable expended by NRC’s Office of will send the final rules to any licensee recipients of ‘‘special benefits’’ Investigations on these activities will be or other person upon request. As a conferred by specifically identified recovered through Part 171 fees. These matter of courtesy, the NRC will activities of the NRC. The term ‘‘special continue to send the proposed fee rules Part 170 fees will not apply to materials benefits’’ includes services rendered at licenses for which no inspection fee is to all licensees. the request of a recipient and all In addition to publication in the specified in Part 170 because the services necessary to the issuance of a inspection costs are included in the Part Federal Register, the final rule is required permit, license, certificate, available on the Internet at http:// 171 annual fee for those fee categories. approval, or amendment, or other b. Additional Document Reviews. ruleforum.llnl.gov/. Copies of the final services necessary to assist a recipient Part 170 is also expanded to include rule will also be mailed upon request. in complying with statutory obligations reviews of documents submitted to the To request a copy, contact the License under the Commission’s regulations. NRC that do not require formal or legal Fee and Accounts Receivable Branch, In the NRC’s FY 1998 fee rulemaking, approvals or amendments to the Division of Accounting and Finance, steps were taken to more appropriately technical specifications or license. Office of the Chief Financial Officer, at recover costs for certain activities Examples are certain financial assurance 301–415–7554, or e-mail us at through Part 170 fees rather than reviews, reviews of responses to [email protected]. through Part 171 fees. This further Confirmatory Action Letters, reviews of The NRC is amending 10 CFR Parts expansion of the scope of Part 170 for uranium recovery licensees’ land-use 170 and 171 as discussed in Sections A. FY 1999 will result in cost recovery for survey reports, and reviews of 10 CFR and B. below: additional activities through Part 170 50.71(e) Final Safety Analysis Reports A. Amendments to 10 CFR Part 170: fees rather than through Part 171 fees. (FSARs). Although no specific approval Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and a. Inspections. is issued, reviews of these submittals are Part 170 fees will be assessed for all Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory services provided by the NRC to inspections, including licensee-specific Services Under the Atomic Energy Act identifiable recipients that assist them performance reviews, assessments, of 1954, as Amended in complying with NRC regulations. evaluations, and incident investigations. c. Project Manager Time. Four major amendments have been Examples of activities that will be All Project Manager’s (PM) time, made to 10 CFR Part 170 as well as billable under Part 170 are performance excluding leave and time spent on several administrative amendments to assessments of fuel facilities, Diagnostic generic activities such as rulemaking, update information in certain sections Evaluation Team assessments, and will be recovered through Part 170 fees and to accommodate the major changes. Incident Investigation Team assessed to the specific applicant or These amendments further the investigations. Licensees who volunteer licensee to which the PM is assigned. underlying basis for the regulation—that to participate in a performance review This change is applicable to all fees be assessed to applicants, persons, or assessment at NRC’s request and licensees subject to full cost fees under and licensees for specific identifiable which the NRC accepts will be Part 170 and to which PMs are assigned. services rendered. The amendments also exempted from these Part 170 fees. The Examples of PM activities which will comply with the guidance in the inspections that are being included in be subject to Part 170 cost recovery are Conference Committee Report on Part 170 are ‘‘special benefits’’ provided those associated with oversight of the OBRA–90 that fees assessed under the to identifiable recipients, whether or not assigned license or plant (e.g., setting IOAA recover the full cost to the NRC an inspection report is issued. For work priorities, planning and of identifiable regulatory services that example, incident investigations are scheduling review efforts, preparation each applicant or licensee receives. investigations of significant operational and presentations of briefings for visits The major changes to 10 CFR Part 170 events involving power reactors and to NRC by utility officials, interfacing are: other facilities. Causes of the events are with other NRC offices, the public, and

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31460 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations other Federal and state and local licensees currently take to submit the in FY 1999 results in substantial government agencies, and visits to the payments for their amendment requests. increases in the hourly rates compared assigned site for purposes other than a It also eliminates any delays in to FY 1998, from $124 to $141 for the specific inspection), and training. approving proposed amendments due to reactor program, and from $121 to $140 Examples of PM generic activities that incorrect payments and provides an for the materials program. This is the will not be subject to fee recovery under efficient means of recovering these result of the increased overhead costs to Part 170 are rulemaking and the costs. The NRC believes that the be allocated to the two programs, with development of regulatory guides, efficiencies to be gained outweigh any fewer direct FTE to divide the costs generic licensing guides, standard inequities that may result because not among. In addition, the proportion of review plans, and generic letters and all materials licenses are amended each direct resources has shifted. The bulletins. If a PM is assigned to more fiscal year. materials program now has a larger than one license or site, costs for This change results in an estimated share. Therefore, the materials program activities other than licensee-specific $900,000 being added to the annual fees must absorb more of the overhead and licensing or inspection activities will be assessed to approximately 5700 management and support costs. materials licensees. prorated to each of the licenses or sites Because of the error in FY 1998, the to which the PM is assigned. The 3. Hourly Rates FY 1999 hourly rates are more concept of full cost recovery for PMs is The NRC is revising the two appropriately compared to the FY 1997 similar to the concept of full cost hourly rates of $131 and $125 for the recovery for Resident Inspectors, which professional hourly rates for NRC staff time established in § 170.20. These reactors and materials programs, was added to Part 170 in the FY 1998 respectively. Applying only the salary final fee rule (June 10, 1998; 63 FR revised rates are based on the number of and benefit increases of 4.4 percent from 31840). FY 1999 direct FTEs and the FY 1999 FY 1997 to FY 1998, and 3.68 percent d. Other. NRC budget, excluding direct program The NRC also solicited public support costs and NRC’s appropriations from FY 1998 to FY 1999, would result comment in the proposed rule on from the NWF and the General Fund. in FY 1998 hourly rates of $137 for the whether to include the development of These rates are used to determine the reactor program and $131 for the orders, evaluation of responses to Part 170 fees. The hourly rate for the materials program, and 1999 hourly orders, development of Notices of reactor program is $141 per hour rates of $142 for the reactor program and Violation (NOVs) accompanying ($250,403 per direct FTE). This rate is $136 for the materials program. This escalated enforcement actions, and applicable to all activities for which fees does not consider the shift that has evaluation of responses to NOVs in next are based on full cost under § 170.21 of occurred in the proportion of direct year’s proposed fee rule. The costs of the fee regulations. The hourly rate for resources from the reactor program to these activities are currently recovered the nuclear materials and nuclear waste the materials program that results in the through Part 171 annual fees. The program is $140 per hour ($248,728 per materials program having a larger share Commission will further evaluate this direct FTE). This rate is applicable to all and therefore absorbing more of the issue prior to promulgating the FY 2000 activities for which fees are based on overhead and management and support fee rule. full cost under § 170.31 of the fee costs. regulations. In the FY 1998 final fee The method used to determine the 2. Amendment Fees Based on Average rule, these rates were $124 and $121, two professional hourly rates is as Costs respectively. The FY 1998 rates follows: The NRC is revising 10 CFR 170.31 to represented a decrease from FY 1997 of a. Direct program FTE levels are eliminate the amendment fees for small $7 per hour for the reactor program from identified for both the reactor program materials licensees that are based on the FY 1997, and $4 per hour for the and the nuclear material and waste average time to complete the reviews materials program. program. (‘‘flat’’ fees) and include the amendment This increase can be readily processing costs in the Part 171 annual explained. In calculating the FY 1999 b. Direct contract support, which is fees assessed to the small materials hourly rates, the NRC staff discovered the use of contract or other services in licensees. This change continues the that a coding error in NRC’s budget, support of the line organization’s direct NRC’s initiatives to streamline its fee which is used in the development of program, is excluded from the program. In a similar action, the fees, occurred for FY 1998. This coding calculation of the hourly rate because inspection and renewal fees for these error contributed to the hourly rate the costs for direct contract support are licensees were eliminated in the FY decreases for that year. In addition, charged directly through the various 1995 and FY 1996 fee rulemakings, costs for direct FTEs and overhead are categories of fees. respectively, and the costs included in calculated for the reactor and materials c. All other direct program costs (i.e., the annual fees for these categories of programs and for the surcharge. Salaries and Benefits, Travel) represent licensees. Although the FY 1999 hourly rates ‘‘in-house’’ costs and are to be allocated Although not all materials licensees reflect an increase of $17–$19 per hour by dividing them uniformly by the total request amendments during a given compared to FY 1998, the error was in number of direct FTEs for the program. fiscal year, approximately 80 percent the reduced FY 1998 hourly rate, not in In addition, salaries and benefits plus request at least one amendment over a the increased FY 1999 hourly rate. contracts for non-program direct five-year period and approximately 40 Specifically, 134 FTE and management and support, and the percent of these licensees request approximately $10 million in contract Office of the Inspector General are multiple amendments during a five-year support for regional management and allocated to each program based on that period. support were erroneously coded as program’s direct costs. This method In addition to streamlining the NRC direct resources for FY 1998 rather than results in the following costs which are process, this change eliminates the steps as overhead. The correction of that error included in the hourly rates.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31461

TABLE II.ÐFY 1999 BUDGET AUTHORITY TO BE INCLUDED IN HOURLY RATES

Materials Reactor program program

Direct Program Salaries and Benefits ...... $99.2m ...... $26.4m Overhead Salaries and Benefits, Program Travel and Other Support ...... $54.1m ...... $15.0m Allocated Agency Management and Support ...... $104.2m ...... $28.1m

Subtotal ...... $257.5m ...... $69.5m Less offsetting receipts ...... ¥.1m ......

Total Budget Included in Hourly Rate ...... $257.4m ...... $69.5m Program Direct FTEs ...... 1,028.0 ...... 279.7. Rate per Direct FTE ...... $250,403 ...... $248,728. Professional Hourly Rate (Rate per direct FTE divided by 1,776 hours) ...... $141 ...... $140.

As shown in Table II above, dividing categories and decreased in others to specifically include Certificates of the $257.4 million (rounded) budget for reflect the costs incurred in completing Compliance (Certificates) issued the reactor program by the reactor the licensing actions. The data for the pursuant to Part 76. The NRC issued program direct FTEs (1,028) results in a average number of professional staff two Certificates pursuant to Part 76 to rate for the reactor program of $250,403 hours needed to complete licensing the United States Enrichment per FTE for FY 1999. The Direct FTE action were last updated in FY 1997 (62 Corporation for operation of the two Hourly Rate for the reactor program is FR 29194; May 29, 1997). Thus, the gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment $141 per hour (rounded to the nearest revised average professional staff hours plants located at Paducah, Kentucky, whole dollar). This rate is calculated by reflect the changes in the NRC licensing and Piketon, Ohio. Part 76 certificates dividing the cost per direct FTE review program that have occurred are added to the definition of Materials ($250,403) by the number of productive since FY 1997. The licensing fees are License in § 170.3 (Uranium enrichment hours in one year (1,776 hours) as set based on the revised average facilities are already defined in § 170.3). forth in the revised OMB Circular A–76, professional staff hours needed to These changes are administrative ‘‘Performance of Commercial process the licensing actions multiplied changes to clarify the applicability of Activities.’’ Dividing the $69.5 million by the professional hourly rate for FY Part 170 fees to these Certificates. (rounded) budget for the nuclear 1999 of $140 per hour. b. The NRC is revising the definition materials and nuclear waste program by The licensing fees reflect an increase of ‘‘Inspection’’ to specifically include the program direct FTEs (279.7) results in average time for new license performance assessments, evaluations, in a rate of $248,728 per FTE for FY applications for 20 of the 33 materials and incident investigations. This change 1999. The Direct FTE Hourly Rate for fee categories included in the biennial is being made to incorporate the the materials program is $140 per hour review, a decrease in average time for 8 expansion of Part 170 in this final rule (rounded to the nearest whole dollar). fee categories, and the same average to include these activities. This rate is calculated by dividing the time for the remaining 5 fee categories. c. The NRC is revising the definition cost per direct FTE ($248,728) by the The average time for export and import of ‘‘Special projects’’ to include number of productive hours in one year new license applications and financial assurance submittals, (1,776 hours). amendments remained the same for 6 responses to Confirmatory Action Any professional hours expended on fee categories in §§ 170.21 and 170.31, Letters, uranium recovery licensees’ or after the effective date of the final and decreased for 4 fee categories. land-use survey reports, and 10 CFR rule will be assessed at the FY 1999 The amounts of the materials 50.71 Final Safety Analysis Reports in hourly rates. licensing ‘‘flat’’ fees were rounded so the list of examples of documents that the amounts would be de minimis submitted for review that would be 4. Fee Adjustments and the resulting flat fee would be subject to special project fees. This The NRC is adjusting the Part 170 fees convenient to the user. Fees under revision is needed to incorporate the in §§ 170.21 and 170.31 to reflect both $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10. change in this final rule to include the the changes in the revised hourly rates Fees that are greater than $1,000 but less review of these documents in Part 170. and the results of the biennial review of than $100,000 are rounded to the d. The NRC is revising § 170.5, Part 170 fees required by the Chief nearest $100. Fees that are greater than Communications, to indicate that all Financial Officers (CFO) Act. To comply $100,000 are rounded to the nearest communications concerning Part 170 with the requirements of the CFO Act, $1,000. should be addressed to the Office of the the NRC has evaluated historical The licensing ‘‘flat’’ fees are Chief Financial Officer rather than the professional staff hours used to process applicable to fee categories K.1 through Executive Director for Operations. a new license application for those K.5 of § 171.21, and fee categories 1.C, Effective with the January 5, 1997, NRC materials licensees whose fees are based 1.D, 2.B, 2.C, 3.A through 3.P, 4.B reorganization, the Executive Director on the average cost method (flat fees). through 9.D, 10.B, 15.A through 15.E, for Operations no longer serves as the This review also included new license and 16 of § 171.16. Applications filed on Chief Financial Officer. The Chief and amendment applications for import or after the effective date of the final Financial Officer has been delegated and export licenses. rule will be subject to the revised fees authority to exercise all authority vested Evaluation of the historical data in this final rule. in the Commission under 10 CFR Parts shows that the fees based on the average 170 and 171. number of professional staff hours 5. Administrative Amendments e. The NRC is deleting the current needed to complete materials licensing a. The NRC is amending § 170.2, exemption in § 170.11(a)(11), which actions should be increased in some Scope, and § 170.3, Definitions, to eliminates fees for amendments to

VerDate 06-MAY-99 18:18 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31462 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations change the name of the Radiation Safety revised to reflect the cost to the agency, 1. Reactor Decommissioning/Spent Fuel Officer for portable gauge licenses and to reflect the revised hourly rates. Storage issued in accordance with NUREG– The NRC is revising 10 CFR Part 1556,1 Volume 1. This final rule B. Amendments to 10 CFR Part 171: Annual Fees for Reactor Licenses, Fuel 171.15 to establish a spent fuel storage/ eliminates the requirement for reactor decommissioning annual fee. amendment fees for these licenses and Cycle Licenses and Materials Licenses, Including Holders of Certificates of This annual fee will be assessed to those thus the exemption is no longer needed. Part 72 licensees who do not hold a Part f. The NRC is adding § 170.11(a)(12) Compliance, Registrations, and Quality 50 license and to all operating and non- to provide an exemption from Part 170 Assurance Program Approvals, and operating Part 50 power reactor fees for those licensee-specific Government Agencies Licensed by the licensees, except those power reactor performance assessments or evaluations NRC licensees who have permanently ceased for which the licensee volunteers at NRC’s request. This change The NRC has made three major operations and have no fuel onsite. The accommodates action in this final rule amendments to 10 CFR Part 171 and full amount of the FY 1999 annual fee to include performance assessments and several administrative amendments to will be billed to those Part 50 licensees evaluations in Part 170, except those for update information in certain sections who are in a decommissioning or which the licensee volunteers at NRC’s and to incorporate the major changes. possession only status upon publication request and which are accepted by the These major changes result in annual of the FY 1999 final rule. Payment will NRC. fees being assessed to licensees be due on the effective date of the FY g. The NRC is revising § 170.12, previously exempted from annual fees, 1999 rule. For operating power reactors Payment of Fees, to reflect the revision increased annual fees for some and those Part 72 licensees who do not to Part 170 to include performance licensees, and decreased annual fees for hold a Part 50 license, the new fee will assessments, evaluations, and incident other licensees. be reflected in the fourth quarter FY investigations, reviews of reports and 1999 annual fee bill. Any adjustments The changes are consistent with our for prior payments during FY 1999 will other documents, and full cost recovery statutory mandate; that is, charging a for project managers. This section is also be made in accordance with § 171.19(b). class of licensees for NRC costs revised to delete references to The annual fees in 10 CFR 171.16 for attributable to that class of licensees. amendment fees for materials licenses Part 72 licenses for independent spent The changes are consistent with the that are not based on full cost to reflect fuel storage have been eliminated. This the elimination of these fees in this final Congressional guidance in the change assures equivalent fee treatment rule. The costs for these activities will Conference Committee Report on for both wet (spent fuel pool) and dry be included in the Part 171 annual fee OBRA–90, which states that the (Independent Spent Fuel Storage for these materials licensees. ‘‘conferees contemplate that the NRC Installation) storage of spent fuel. This Section 170.12(h), Method of will continue to allocate generic costs change will also ensure that power Payment, is redesignated as § 170.12(f) that are attributable to a given class of reactor licensees who benefit from and revised to specify the information licensees to such class’ and the NRC’s generic activities bear a fair the NRC needs to issue refunds. This ‘‘conferees intend that the NRC assess portion of these costs relating to change is necessitated by new Treasury the annual charge under the principle decommissioning of reactors. requirements that were effective January that licensees who require the greatest This change does not affect the 1, 1999. expenditures of the agency’s resources manner in which licensing and In summary, the NRC has: should pay the greatest annual fee’’ (136 inspection costs are recovered (i.e., Part 1. Revised Part 170 to include full Cong. Rec. at H12692–93). Costs not 170 fees will still be assessed to Part 72 cost recovery for all plant or licensee- attributable to a class of licensees are licensees and to Part 50 licensees in specific inspections, including allocated following the conferees’ decommissioning or possession only performance reviews, assessments, guidance that ‘‘the Commission should status for licensing and inspection evaluations, and incident investigations, assess the charges for these costs as services). The NRC will continue to reviews of reports and other documents, broadly as practicable in order to include the costs for generic and all of the Project Managers’ time minimize the burden for these costs on decommissioning/reclamation costs for excluding time spent on generic any licensee or class of licensees so as nonpower reactors, fuel facilities, activities and leave time; to establish as fair and equitable a materials, and uranium recovery 2. Eliminated Part 170 ‘‘flat’’ system as is feasible.’’ (136 Cong. Rec. licensees in the surcharge assessed to amendment fees for materials licenses. at H12692-3). The Conference Report operating licensees, including operating The amendment costs will be recovered guidance also provides that: ‘‘these power reactors. through Part 171 annual fees assessed to expenses may be recovered from such 2. Annual Fees materials licensees; licensees as the Commission, in its 3. Revised the two 10 CFR Part 170 discretion, determines can fairly, The NRC is establishing new baseline hourly rates; and annual fees for FY 1999. The annual equitably and practicably contribute to 4. Revised the licensing fees assessed fees in §§ 171.15 and 171.16 are revised their payment.’’ As in the past, these under 10 CFR Part 170 to comply with for FY 1999 to recover approximately costs are allocated to the entire the CFO Act’s requirement that fees be 100 percent of the FY 1999 budget population of NRC licensees that pays authority, less fees collected under 10 1 annual fees, based on the amount of the Copies of NUREGS may be purchased from the CFR Part 170 and funds appropriated Reproduction and Distribution Section, Office of budget directly attributable to a class of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear from the NWF and the General Fund. licensees. This results in a higher The total amount to be recovered Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– percentage of these costs being allocated 0001. Copies are also available from the National through annual fees for FY 1999 is Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal to operating power reactor licensees as $339.8 million, compared to $360.2 Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also opposed to other classes of licensees. available for inspection and/or copying at the NRC million for FY 1998. Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower The major changes to Part 171 are in In the FY 1995 final fee rule (60 FR Level), Washington, DC. the following areas. 32218, 32225; June 20, 1995), the NRC

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31463 stated that it would stabilize annual fees number of licensees paying the fees. reactor decommissioning) as previously as follows: This method of determining annual fees described. In addition, there have been For FY 1996 through FY 1999, the is the ‘‘percent change’’ method. The FY several fee policy changes since FY NRC would adjust the annual fees only 1996, FY 1997, and FY 1998 annual fees 1995. Fee policy changes include the by the percentage change (plus or were based on the percent change elimination of renewal fees in FY 1996 minus) in NRC’s total budget authority method. for most materials licensees, the unless there was a substantial change in New baseline fees are established for elimination of amendment fees for these the total NRC budget authority or the FY 1999 based on the program changes licensees in FY 1999, and the inclusion magnitude of the budget allocated to a that have taken place since the baseline of these costs in the materials licensees’ specific class of licensees. If either fees were established in FY 1995, annual fees. condition occurred, the annual fee base including those resulting from the would be recalculated. The percentage agency’s strategic planning efforts, Table III below shows the FY 1999 change would be adjusted based on downsizing, reorganization of agency rebaselined annual fees for changes in 10 CFR Part 170 fees and resources, and the addition of a new representative categories of licensees. other adjustments as well as on the annual fee class (spent fuel storage/

TABLE III

FY 1999 an- Class of licensees nual fee

Power Reactors (including spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee) ...... $2,776,000 Spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning ...... 206,000 Nonpower Reactors ...... 85,900 High Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility ...... 3,281,000 Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility ...... 1,100,000 UF6 Conversion Facility ...... 472,000 Uranium Mills ...... 131,000 Solution Mining ...... 109,000 Transportation: Users and Fabricators ...... 66,700 Users only ...... 2,200 Typical Materials Licenses: Radiographers ...... 14,700 Well loggers ...... 9,900 Gauge users ...... 2,600 Broad scope medical ...... 27,800 Broad scope manufacturers ...... 26,000

The annual fees assessed to each class of licensees include a surcharge to recover those NRC budgeted costs that are not directly or solely attributable to the classes of licensees but must be recovered from the licensees to comply with the requirements of OBRA–90. The FY 1999 budgeted costs that will be recovered in the surcharge from all licensees are shown in Table IV.

TABLE IV.ÐSURCHARGE

FY 1999 budg- Category of costs eted costs ($, M)

1. Activities not directly attributable to an existing NRC licensee or class of licensee: a. International activities ...... 6.3 b. Agreement State oversight ...... 6.4 c. Low-level waste disposal generic activities ...... 4.1 d. Site decommissioning management plan activities not recovered under Part 170 ...... 4.6 2. Activities not assessed Part 170 licensing and inspection fees or Part 171 annual fees based on legal constraints or Commis- sion policy: a. Fee exemption for nonprofit educational institutions ...... 6.9 b. Licensing and inspection activities associated with other Federal agencies ...... 2.8 c. Costs not recovered from small entities under 10 CFR 171.16(c) ...... 5.3 3. Activities supporting NRC operating licensees and others: a. Regulatory support to Agreement States ...... 14.6 b. Generic decommissioning/reclamation, except those related to power reactors ...... 4.2

Total Budgeted Costs ...... 55.2

The NRC has continued to allocate the surcharge costs, except LLW surcharge costs, to each class of licensees based on the percent of budget for that class. The NRC has continued to allocate the LLW surcharge costs based on the volume disposed by the certain classes of licensees. The surcharge costs allocated to each class are included in the annual fee to be assessed to each licensee. The FY 1999 surcharge costs that are allocated to each class of licensee are shown in Table V.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4706 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31464 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE V.ÐALLOCATION OF SURCHARGE

LLW surcharge Non-LLW surcharge Total surcharge Percent $,M Percent $,M $,M

Operating power reactors ...... 74 3.0 80.3 41.0 44.0 Spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning ...... 6.3 3.2 3.2 Nonpower reactors ...... 0.1 0.0 0.0 Fuel facilities ...... 8 0.4 5.0 2.6 2.9 Materials users ...... 18 0.7 5.9 3.1 3.8 Transportation ...... 1.0 0.5 0.5 Rare earth facilities ...... 0.1 0.0 0.0 Uranium recovery ...... 1.3 0.7 0.7

Total Surcharge ...... 4.1 ...... 51.1 55.2

The budgeted costs allocated to each activity and the relative programmatic through annual fees. When a license or class of licensees and the calculation of effort associated with each category. certificate is modified, given that NRC the rebaselined fees are described in 3. a. Fuel Facility Matrix. recovers approximately 100 percent of and 4. below. The work papers which The NRC is using a revised fuel its generic regulatory program costs support this final rule show in detail the facility matrix based on the through fee recovery, this fuel facility allocation of NRC budgeted resources commensurate level of regulatory effort fee methodology may result in a change for each class of licensee and how the related to the various fuel facility in fee category and may have an effect fees are calculated. The work papers categories from both safety and on the fees assessed to other licensees may be examined at the NRC Public safeguards perspectives. The revised and certificate holders. For example, if Document Room, 2120 L Street NW matrix results in a more accurate a fuel facility licensee amended its (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555– reflection of the NRC’s current costs of license/certificate in such a way that it providing generic and other regulatory 0001. resulted in them not being subject to services to each type of fuel facility. Because this final FY 1999 fee rule is Part 171 fees applicable to fuel facilities, a ‘‘major’’ final action as defined by the The FY 1999 budgeted costs of the budget for the safety and/or Small Business Regulatory Enforcement approximately $16.3 million to be safeguards component would be spread Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC’s fees for recovered in annual fees assessed to the among those remaining licensees/ FY 1999 will become effective 60 days fuel facility class is allocated to the after publication of the final rule in the individual fuel facility licensees based certificate holders. This would result in Federal Register. The NRC will send an on the revised matrix. The revisions to a higher fee for those remaining in the invoice for the amount of the annual fee the matrix take into account changes in fee category. upon publication of the FY 1999 final process operations at certain fuel The methodology is applied as rule to reactors and major fuel cycle facilities. The revised matrix also follows. First, a fee category is assigned facilities. For these licensees, payment explicitly recognizes the addition of the based on the nuclear material and will be due on the effective date of the uranium enrichment plants to the fee activity authorized by license or FY 1999 rule. Those materials licensees base and a reduction of three licensees certificate. Although a licensee/ whose license anniversary date during (B&W Parks Township, B&W Research certificate holder may elect not to fully FY 1999 falls before the effective date of and General Atomic) as the result of the utilize a license/certificate, the license/ the FY 1999 final rule will be billed termination of licensed activities. In the certificate is still used as the source for during the anniversary month of the revised matrix (which is included in the determining authorized nuclear material license and continue to pay annual fees publicly available work papers), possession and use/activity. Next, the at the FY 1998 rate in FY 1999. Those licensees are grouped into five category and license/certificate materials licensees whose license categories according to their licensed information are used to determine anniversary date falls on or after the activities (i.e., nuclear material where the licensee/certificate holder fits effective date of the FY 1999 final rule enrichment, processing operations, and into the matrix. The matrix depicts the will be billed at the FY 1999 revised material form) and according to the categorization of licensees/certificate rates during the anniversary month of level, scope, depth of coverage, and holders by authorized material types the license and payment will be due on rigor of generic regulatory programmatic and use/activities and the relative effort applicable to each category from the date of the invoice. programmatic effort associated with safety and safeguards perspectives. This each category. The programmatic effort 3. Revised Fuel Cycle and Uranium methodology can be applied to (expressed as a value in the matrix) Recovery Matrixes determine fees for new licensees, reflects the safety and safeguards risk The NRC is adopting revised matrixes current licensees, licensees in unique significance associated with the nuclear in the determination of annual fees for license situations, and certificate fuel facility and uranium recovery holders. material and use/activity, and the licensees. As part of the rebaselining The methodology is amenable to commensurate generic regulatory efforts, the NRC is using a revised changes in the number of licensees or program (i.e., scope, depth and rigor). matrix depicting the categorization of certificate holders, licensed-certified The effort factors for the various fuel facility and uranium recovery material/activities, and total subclasses of fuel facility licensees are licenses by authorized material and use/ programmatic resources to be recovered as follows:

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31465

Number of Effort factors licenses Safety Safeguards

High Enriched Uranium Fuel ...... 2 91 (33.1%) 76 (54.7%). Enrichment ...... 2 70 (25.5%) 34 (24.5%). Low Enriched Uranium Fuel ...... 4 88 (32.0%) 24 (17.3%). UF6 Conversion ...... 1 12 (4.4%) 0 (0%). Limited Operations Facility ...... 1 8 (2.9%) 3 (2.2%). Others ...... 1 6 (2.2%) 2 (1.4%).

Total ...... 11 275 (100%) 139 (100%).

These effort factors are applied to the solution mining uranium mills, and mill program are activities related to facility $16.3 million total annual fee amount. tailings disposal facilities. The revised operations and those related to facility This amount includes the low level matrix reflects NRC’s significantly closure; waste (LLW) surcharge and other increased efforts related to groundwater (4) Each of the major program surcharges allocated to the fuel facility concerns for in-situ licenses and its elements has been further divided into class. somewhat increased efforts related to three subelements; b. Uranium Recovery Matrix. groundwater concerns for conventional (5) The three major subelements of Of the $2.1 million total budgeted mills. The revised matrix also reflects an costs allocated to the uranium recovery generic activities related to uranium increase in regulatory efforts related to facility operations are activities related class to be recovered through annual waste operations for in-situ licenses. fees, approximately $870,000 will be to the operation of the mill, activities The matrix has also been updated to related to the handling and disposal of assessed to DOE to recover the costs reflect the changes in the number of associated with DOE facilities under the waste, and activities related to licensees within each fee category. The prevention of groundwater Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation number of conventional mills has Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). The contamination. The three major decreased from 4 in FY 1995 to 3 in FY subelements of generic activities related remaining $1.3 million will be 1999 and the number of licensees in the recovered through annual fees assessed to uranium facility closure are activities solution mining fee category has related to decommissioning of facilities to conventional mills, solution mining increased by 1. uranium mills, and mill tailings and cleanup of land, reclamation and The methodology for establishing Part closure of the tailings impoundment, disposal facilities. Because the final FY 171 annual fees for uranium recovery 1999 annual fees will result in certain and cleanup of contaminated licensees has not changed: groundwater. Weighted factors were uranium recovery licensees going from (1) The methodology identifies three assigned to each program element and an annual billing process based on the categories of licenses: conventional subelement. anniversary date of their license to uranium mills, solution mining uranium quarterly billing, those licensees will be mills, and mill tailings disposal The applicability of the generic billed upon publication of the final FY facilities. Each of these categories program in each subelement to each 1999 rule for the balance of the full FY benefits from the generic uranium uranium recovery category was 1999 annual fee. Payment of the balance recovery program; qualitatively estimated as either of the FY 1999 annual fee will be due (2) The matrix relates the category and significant, some, minor, or none. on the effective date of the FY 1999 rule. the level of benefit, by program element The resulting relative weighted factors The NRC has revised the matrix and subelement; and the percentage of the total generic established in FY 1995 to determine the (3) The two major program elements uranium recovery program benefitting annual fees for the conventional mills, of the generic uranium recovery the various subclasses are as follows:

Level of benefit Number of licenses Weighted Total for factor subclass Percent

Class I facilities ...... 3 770 2310 31 Class II facilities ...... 7 645 4515 61 11e(2) disposal ...... 1 475 475 6 11e(2) disposal incidental to existing tailings sites ...... 2 75 150 2

Total ...... 13 1965 7450 100

4. Annual Fee Determination for Other reactor. In addition, each operating b. Spent Fuel Storage/Reactor Classes reactor will be assessed the spent fuel Decommissioning. storage/reactor decommissioning annual a. Power Reactor Licensees. For FY 1999, budgeted costs of fee (see paragraph 4.b.), which for FY The approximately $267.3 million in approximately $24.8 million are to be 1999 is $206,000 for each power reactor. budgeted costs to be recovered through recovered through annual fees assessed This results in a total FY 1999 annual annual fees assessed to operating power to Part 50 power reactors, except those reactors is divided equally among the fee of $2,776,000 for each operating Part 50 licensees who have permanently 104 operating reactors. This results in a power reactor. ceased operations and have no spent FY 1999 annual fee of $2,570,000 per fuel onsite, and to Part 72 licensees who

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31466 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations do not hold a Part 50 license. The costs Of the remaining $2.7 million, (3) Paragraph (e) of § 171.15 is revised are divided equally among the licensees, approximately 10 percent is allocated to to show the amount of the FY 1999 resulting in a FY 1999 annual fee of holders of approved quality assurance annual fee for nonpower (test and $206,000 for each licensee. plans authorizing use, and research) reactors. The NRC will c. Nonpower Reactors. approximately 90 percent will be continue to grant exemptions from the Budgeted costs for FY 1999 of allocated to holders of approved quality annual fee to Federally-owned and approximately $343,400 are to be assurance plans authorizing design, State-owned research and test reactors recovered from four nonpower reactors fabrication, and use. This results in FY that meet the exemption criteria subject to annual fees. This results in a 1999 annual fees of $2,200 for holders specified in § 171.11(a)(2). FY 1999 annual fee of $85,900. of approved quality assurance plans for d. The NRC is revising § 171.16 as d. Rare Earth Facilities. use only. The FY 1999 annual fees for follows: The FY 1999 budgeted costs of holders of approved quality assurance (1) Section 171.16(c) covers the fees approximately $91,200 for rare earth plans for design, fabrication, and use is assessed for those licensees that can facilities to be recovered through annual $66,700. qualify as small entities under NRC size fees are allocated uniformly to the three standards. A materials licensee may pay licensees who have a specific license for 5. Administrative Amendments a reduced annual fee if the licensee receipt and processing of source a. The NRC is revising § 171.9, qualifies as a small entity under the material. This results in a FY 1999 Communications, to indicate that all NRC’s size standards and certifies that annual fee of $30,400. communications concerning Part 171 it is a small entity using NRC Form 526. e. Materials Users. should be addressed to the Office of the This section is revised to clarify that To equitably and fairly allocate the Chief Financial Officer rather than the failure to file a small entity certification $30.5 million in FY 1999 budgeted costs Executive Director for Operations. in a timely manner could form the basis to be recovered in annual fees assessed Effective with the January 5, 1997, NRC for the denial of any refund that would to the approximately 5700 diverse reorganization, the Executive Director otherwise be due. The NRC will material users and registrants, the NRC for Operations no longer serves as the continue to assess two fees for licensees has continued the methodology used in Chief Financial Officer. The Chief that qualify as small entities under the FY 1995 to establish baseline annual Financial Officer has been delegated NRC’s size standards. In general, fees for this class. The annual fee is authority to exercise all authority vested licensees with gross annual receipts of based on the Part 170 application fees in the Commission under 10 CFR Parts $350,000 to $5 million will pay a and an estimated cost for inspections. 170 and 171. maximum annual fee of $1,800. A Because the application fees and b. The NRC is revising § 171.13 to second or lower-tier small entity fee of inspection costs are indicative of the $400 is in place for small entities with reflect the establishment of an annual complexity of the license, this approach gross annual receipts of less than fee for power reactors in a continues to provide a proxy for $350,000 and small governmental decommissioning or possession only allocating the generic and other jurisdictions with a population of less status, except those that have no spent regulatory costs to the diverse categories than 20,000. No change in the amount fuel onsite. of licensees based on how much it costs of the small entity fees is being made c. The NRC is revising § 171.15 as NRC to regulate each category. The fee because the small entity fees are not follows: calculation also continues to consider based on budgeted costs but are the inspection frequency (priority), (1) The heading for § 171.15 is revised established at a level to reduce the which is indicative of the safety risk and to read: Section 171.15 Annual Fees: impact of fees on small entities. The resulting regulatory costs associated Reactor licenses and independent spent small entity fees are shown in the final with the categories of licensees. The fuel storage licenses rule for convenience. annual fee for these categories of (2) Paragraph (b) of § 171.15 is revised (2) Section 171.16(d) is revised to licensees is developed as follows: in its entirety to establish the FY 1999 establish the FY 1999 annual fees for Annual Fee = (Application Fee + annual fees for operating power materials licensees, including Federal (Average Inspection Cost divided by reactors, power reactors in agencies, licensed by the NRC. The FY Inspection Priority)) multiplied by the decommissioning or possession only 1999 annual fees for materials licenses constant + (Unique Category Costs). status that have no spent fuel onsite, range from $600 for a license The constant is the multiple necessary and Part 72 licensees who do not hold authorizing the use of source material to recover $30.5 million and is 1.3 for Part 50 licenses. Fiscal year references for shielding, to $27,800 for a license of FY 1999. The unique category costs are are changed from FY 1998 to FY 1999. broad scope for human use of any special costs that the NRC has The activities comprising the base byproduct, source, or special nuclear budgeted for a specific category of annual fees and the additional charge material. The annual fee for the licensees. For FY 1999, unique costs of (surcharge) are listed in § 171.15(b), (c), ‘‘master’’ materials licenses of broad approximately $955,400 were identified and (d) for convenience purposes. scope issued to Federal agencies is for the medical development program Each operating power reactor will pay $358,000. which is attributable to medical an FY 1999 annual fee of $2,776,000, (3) Footnote 1 of § 171.16(d) is being licensees. The annual fees for each fee which includes the annual fee of amended to provide a waiver of the category are shown in § 171.16(d). $206,000 for spent fuel storage/reactor annual fees for materials licensees, and f. Transportation. decommissioning. Each power reactor holders of certificates, registrations, and Of the approximately $3.6 million in in decommissioning or possession only approvals, who either filed for FY 1999 budgeted costs to be recovered status, except those who have termination of their licenses or through annual fees assessed to the permanently ceased operations and approvals or filed for possession only/ transportation class of licensees, have no spent fuel on-site, and each Part storage only licenses before October 1, approximately $870,000 will be 72 licensee who does not hold a Part 50 1998, and permanently ceased licensed recovered from annual fees assessed to license will pay the spent fuel storage/ activities entirely by September 30, DOE based on the number of Part 71 reactor decommissioning annual fee of 1998. All other licensees and approval Certificates of Compliance DOE holds. $206,000. holders who held a license or approval

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31467 on October 1, 1998, will be subject to NRC will adjust the fourth quarterly licenses. The annual fee will be assessed the FY 1999 annual fees. invoice to recover the full amount of the to those Part 72 licensees who do not Holders of new licenses issued during revised annual fee or to make refunds, hold a Part 50 license and to all Part 50 FY 1999 are subject to a prorated annual as necessary. Payment of the annual fee power reactor licensees, except those fee in accordance with the proration is due on the date of the invoice and that have permanently ceased provision of § 171.17. For example, interest accrues from the invoice date. operations and have no spent fuel those new materials licenses issued However, interest will be waived if onsite; during the period October 1 through payment is received within 30 days 2. Established new baseline annual March 31 of the FY will be assessed from the invoice date. fees for FY 1999. one-half the annual fee in effect on the (2) Section 171.19(c) is being revised 3. Used revised matrixes for allocating anniversary date of the license. New to update fiscal year references. the fuel facility and uranium recovery materials licenses issued on or after As in FY 1998, the NRC will continue budgeted costs to licensees in those fee April 1, 1999, will not be assessed an to bill annual fees for most materials classes. annual fee for FY 1999. Thereafter, the licenses on the anniversary date of the full annual fee will become due and license (licensees whose annual fees are IV. Voluntary Consensus Standards payable each subsequent fiscal year on $100,000 or more will continue to be The National Technology Transfer the anniversary date of the license. assessed quarterly). The annual fee and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. Beginning June 11, 1996, (the effective assessed will be the fee in effect on the 104–113, requires that agencies use date of the FY 1996 final rule), affected license anniversary date, unless the technical standards that are developed materials licensees are subject to the annual fee for the prior year was less or adopted by voluntary consensus annual fee in effect on the anniversary than $100,000 and the revised annual standard bodies unless the use of such date of the license. The anniversary date fee for the current fiscal year is $100,000 a standard is inconsistent with of the materials license for annual fee or more. In this case, the revised amount applicable law or otherwise impractical. purposes is the first day of the month in will be billed to the licensees upon In this final rule, the NRC is establishing which the original license was issued. publication of the final rule in the the licensing, inspection, and annual e. The NRC is revising § 171.17 as Federal Register, adjusted for any fees necessary to recover approximately follows: annual fee payments already made for 100 percent of its budget authority less (1) Section 171.17(a) is being revised that fiscal year based on the anniversary amounts appropriated from the Nuclear to add an annual fee proration provision month billing process. For FY 1999, the Waste Fund and the General Fund as for those reactor licensees in a anniversary date billing process applies required by the Omnibus Budget decommissioning or possession only to those materials licenses in the Reconciliation Act of 1990. This action status that have no spent fuel onsite and following fee categories: 1C, 1D, 2A(2) does not constitute the establishment of those Part 72 licensees that do not hold Other, 2A(3), 2A(4), 2B, 2C, 3A through a standard that establishes generally- Part 50 licenses. The spent fuel storage/ 3P, 4A through 9D, 10A, and 10B. For applicable requirements. reactor decommissioning annual fee for annual fee purposes, the anniversary these licensees will be prorated based date of the materials license is V. Environmental Impact: Categorical on the number of days during the fiscal considered to be the first day of the Exclusion year the license subject to the annual fee month in which the original materials The NRC has determined that this was in effect. This provision is the same license was issued. For example, if the final rule is the type of action described as the proration provision provided for original materials license was issued on in categorical exclusion 10 CFR operating reactors in this section. June 17 then, for annual fee purposes, 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an (2) Section 171.17(b) is being revised the anniversary date of the materials environmental impact statement nor an to exclude Part 72 licenses from the license is June 1 and the licensee will environmental impact assessment has proration provision for materials continue to be billed in June of each been prepared for the final regulation. licenses. The annual fees for Part 72 year for the annual fee in effect on June By its very nature, this regulatory action licenses will be prorated as provided in 1. Materials licensees with anniversary does not affect the environment, and revised § 171.17(a). dates in FY 1999 before the effective therefore, no environmental justice f. The NRC is revising Section 171.19 date of the FY 1999 final rule will be issues are raised. as follows: billed during the anniversary month of (1) Section 171.19(b) is being revised the license and continue to pay annual VI. Paperwork Reduction Act to update the fiscal year references, to fees at the FY 1998 rate in FY 1999. Statement include a billing process for those Those materials licensees with license This final rule contains no licensees whose annual fee for the anniversary dates falling on or after the information collection requirements previous fiscal year was based on the effective date of the FY 1999 final rule and, therefore, is not subject to the anniversary date of the license and will be billed at the FY 1999 revised requirements of the Paperwork whose revised annual fee for the current rates during the anniversary month of Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 fiscal year is based on quarterly billing, their license. Payment will be due on et seq.). and to give credit for partial payments the date of the invoice. VII. Regulatory Analysis made by certain licensees in FY 1999 The NRC reemphasizes that the toward their FY 1999 annual fees. The annual fee will be assessed based on With respect to 10 CFR Part 170, this NRC anticipates that the first, second, whether a licensee holds a valid NRC final rule was developed pursuant to and third quarterly payments for FY license that authorizes possession and Title V of the Independent Offices 1999 will have been made by operating use of radioactive material. Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA) (31 power reactor licensees and some large In summary, the NRC has: U.S.C. 9701) and the Commission’s fee materials licensees before the final rule 1. Established a new spent fuel guidelines. When developing these becomes effective. Therefore, the NRC storage/reactor decommissioning annual guidelines the Commission took into will credit payments received for those fee in 10 CFR 171.15, and eliminated account guidance provided by the U.S. quarterly annual fee assessments toward the current annual fee in 10 CFR 171.16 Supreme Court on March 4, 1974, in its the total annual fee to be assessed. The for independent spent fuel storage decision of National Cable Television

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31468 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Ass’n, Inc. v. United States, 415 U.S. requirement for NRC through FY 1998, and decreases in annual fees for others. 352 (1974), and Federal Power and was amended in FY 1998 to extend The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Commission v. New England Power Co., the 100 percent fee recovery prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 415 U.S. 345 (1974). In these decisions, requirement through FY 1999. To 604, is included as Appendix A to this the Court held that the IOAA authorizes accomplish this statutory requirement, final rule. The Small Business an agency to charge fees for special the NRC, in accordance with § 171.13, is Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of benefits rendered to identifiable persons publishing the amount of the FY 1999 1996 (SBREFA) was signed into law on measured by the ‘‘value to the annual fees for operating reactor March 29, 1996. The SBREFA requires recipient’’ of the agency service. The licensees, fuel cycle licensees, materials all Federal agencies to prepare a written meaning of the IOAA was further licensees, and holders of Certificates of compliance guide for each rule for clarified on December 16, 1976, by four Compliance, registrations of sealed which the agency is required by 5 U.S.C. decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals sources and devices and QA program 604 to prepare a regulatory flexibility for the District of Columbia Circuit: approvals, and Government agencies. analysis. Therefore, in compliance with National Cable Television Association OBRA–90 and the Conference the law, Attachment 1 to the Regulatory v. Federal Communications Committee Report specifically state Flexibility Analysis is the small entity Commission, 554 F.2d 1094 (D.C. Cir. that— compliance guide for FY 1999. 1976); National Association of (1) The annual fees be based on the Broadcasters v. Federal Commission’s FY 1999 budget of $469.8 IX. Backfit Analysis Communications Commission, 554 F.2d million less the amounts collected from The NRC has determined that the 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Electronic Part 170 fees and the funds directly backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not Industries Ass’n v. Federal appropriated from the NWF to cover the apply to this final rule and that a backfit Communications Commission, 554 F.2d NRC’s high level waste program; analysis is not required for this final (2) The annual fees shall, to the 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1976) and Capital Cities rule. The backfit analysis is not required maximum extent practicable, have a Communication, Inc. v. Federal because these final amendments do not reasonable relationship to the cost of Communications Commission, 554 F.2d require the modification of or additions regulatory services provided by the 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1976). These decisions of to systems, structures, components, or the Courts enabled the Commission to Commission; and (3) The annual fees be assessed to the design of a facility or the design develop fee guidelines that are still used approval or manufacturing license for a for cost recovery and fee development those licensees the Commission, in its discretion, determines can fairly, facility or the procedures or purposes. organization required to design, The Commission’s fee guidelines were equitably, and practicably contribute to construct or operate a facility. upheld on August 24, 1979, by the U.S. their payment. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in In addition, the NRC’s FY 1999 X. Small Business Regulatory Mississippi Power and Light Co. v. U.S. appropriations language provides that Enforcement Fairness Act Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 601 $3.2 million appropriated from the F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, General Fund for activities related to In accordance with the Small 444 U.S. 1102 (1980). The Court held regulatory reviews and other assistance Business Regulatory Enforcement that— provided to the Department of Energy Fairness Act of 1996 the NRC has (1) The NRC had the authority to and other Federal agencies be excluded determined that this action is a major recover the full cost of providing from fee recovery. rule and has verified this determination services to identifiable beneficiaries; 10 CFR Part 171, which established with the Office of Information and (2) The NRC could properly assess a annual fees for operating power reactors Regulatory Affairs of the Office of fee for the costs of providing routine effective October 20, 1986 (51 FR 33224; Management and Budget. inspections necessary to ensure a September 18, 1986), was challenged List of Subjects licensee’s compliance with the Atomic and upheld in its entirety in Florida Energy Act and with applicable Power and Light Company v. United 10 CFR Part 170 regulations; States, 846 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1988), (3) The NRC could charge for costs cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1045 (1989). Byproduct material, Import and incurred in conducting environmental The NRC’s FY 1991 annual fee rule export licenses, Intergovernmental reviews required by NEPA; was largely upheld by the D.C. Circuit relations, Non-payment penalties, (4) The NRC properly included the Court of Appeals in Allied Signal v. Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants costs of uncontested hearings and of NRC, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993). and reactors, Source material, Special administrative and technical support nuclear material. VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis services in the fee schedule; (5) The NRC could assess a fee for The NRC is required by OBRA–90 to 10 CFR Part 171 renewing a license to operate a low- recover approximately 100 percent of its Annual charges, Byproduct material, level radioactive waste burial site; and budget authority through the assessment Holders of certificates, registrations, (6) The NRC’s fees were not arbitrary of user fees. OBRA–90 further requires approvals, Intergovernmental relations, or capricious. that the NRC establish a schedule of Non-payment penalties, Nuclear With respect to 10 CFR Part 171, on charges that fairly and equitably materials, Nuclear power plants and November 5, 1990, the Congress passed allocates the aggregate amount of these reactors, Source material, Special Pub.L. 101–508, the Omnibus Budget charges among licensees. nuclear material. Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA–90) This final rule establishes the which required that for FYs 1991 schedules of fees that are necessary to For the reasons set out in the through 1995, approximately 100 implement the Congressional mandate preamble and under the authority of the percent of the NRC budget authority be for FY 1999. The final rule results in Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, recovered through the assessment of increases in the annual fees charged to and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is fees. OBRA–90 was amended in 1993 to certain licensees and holders of adopting the following amendments to extend the 100 percent fee recovery certificates, registrations, and approvals, 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31469

PART 170ÐFEES FOR FACILITIES, reviews of financial assurance application or not. The application MATERIALS, IMPORT AND EXPORT submittals that do not require a license fee(s) is also charged if the applicant LICENSES, AND OTHER amendment, reviews of responses to withdraws the application. REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE Confirmatory Action Letters, reviews of (b) Licensing fees. (1) Licensing fees ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS uranium recovery licensees’ land-use will be assessed to recover full costs AMENDED survey reports, and reviews of 10 CFR for— 50.71 final safety analysis reports. As (i) The review of applications for new 1. The authority citation for Part 170 used in this part, special projects does licenses and approvals; continues to read as follows: not include requests/reports submitted (ii) The review of applications for Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051; to the NRC: amendments to and renewal of existing sec. 301, Pub. L. 92–314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 (1) In response to a Generic Letter or licenses or approvals; U.S.C. 2201w); sec. 201, Pub. L. 93–4381, 88 NRC Bulletin which does not result in (iii) Preapplication consultations and Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. an amendment to the license, does not reviews; and 205, Pub. L. 101–576, 104 Stat. 2842, (31 result in the review of an alternate (iv) The full cost for project managers U.S.C. 901). method or reanalysis to meet the assigned to a specific plant or facility, 2. In § 170.2, paragraph (r) is added to requirements of the Generic Letter, or excluding leave time and time spent on read as follows: does not involve an unreviewed safety generic activities (such as rulemaking). (2) Full cost fees will be determined § 170.2 Scope. issue; (2) In response to an NRC request (at based on the professional staff time and * * * * * the Associate Office Director level or appropriate contractual support services (r) An applicant for or a holder of a above) to resolve an identified safety, expended. The full cost fees for certificate of compliance issued under safeguards or environmental issue, or to professional staff time will be 10 CFR Part 76. assist the NRC in developing a rule, determined at the professional hourly 3. In § 170.3, the definition of the regulatory guide, policy statement, rates in effect the time the service was terms Inspections, Materials license, and generic letter, or bulletin; or provided. The full cost fees are payable Special projects are revised to read as (3) As a means of exchanging upon notification by the Commission. (3) The NRC intends to bill each follows: information between industry applicant or licensee at quarterly organizations and the NRC for the § 170.3 Definitions. intervals for all accumulated costs for purpose of supporting generic * * * * * each application the applicant or regulatory improvements or efforts. Inspections means: licensee has on file for NRC review, (1) Routine inspections designed to * * * * * until the review is completed, except for evaluate the licensee’s activities within 4. Section 170.5 is revised to read as costs that were deferred before August the context of the licensee having follows: 9, 1991. The deferred costs will be primary responsibility for protection of § 170.5 Communications. billed as described in paragraphs (b)(5), the public and environment; All communications concerning the (b)(6) and (b)(7) of this section. Each bill (2) Non-routine inspections in will identify the applications and response or reaction to an incident, regulations in this part should be addressed to the Chief Financial Officer, documents submitted for review and the allegation, follow up to inspection costs related to each. deficiencies or inspections to determine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. (4) The NRC intends to bill each implementation of safety issues. A non- applicant or licensee for costs related to routine or reactive inspection has the Communications may be delivered in person at the Commission’s offices at project manager time on a quarterly same purpose as the routine inspection; basis. Each bill will identify the costs (3) Reviews and assessments of 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. 5. In § 170.11, paragraph (a)(11) is related to project manager time. licensee performance; (5) Costs for review of an application (4) Evaluations, such as those removed and reserved and paragraph (a)(12) is added to read as follows: for renewal of a standard design performed by Diagnostic Evaluation certification which have been deferred Teams; or § 170.11 Exemptions. prior to the effective date of this rule (5) Incident investigations. (a) * * * must be paid as follows: The full cost of * * * * * (12) A performance assessment or review for a renewed standard design Materials license means a license, evaluation for which the licensee certification must be paid by the certificate, approval, registration, or volunteers at the NRC’s request and applicant for renewal or other entity other form of permission issued by the which is selected by the NRC. supplying the design to an applicant for NRC under the regulations in 10 CFR * * * * * a construction permit, combined license parts 30, 32 through 36, 39, 40, 61, 70, 6. Section 170.12 is revised to read as issued under 10 CFR Part 52, or 71, 72 and 76. follows: operating license, as appropriate, in five * * * * * (5) equal installments. An installment is Special projects means those requests § 170.12 Payment of fees. payable each of the first five times the submitted to the Commission for review (a) Application fees. Each application renewed certification is referenced in an for which fees are not otherwise for which a fee is prescribed must be application for a construction permit, specified in this chapter. Examples of accompanied by a remittance for the full combined license, or operating license. special projects include, but are not amount of the fee. The NRC will not The applicant for renewal shall pay the limited to, topical reports reviews, early issue a new license or an amendment installment, unless another entity is site reviews, waste solidification increasing the scope of an existing supplying the design to the applicant for facilities, route approvals for shipment license to a higher fee category or the construction permit, combined of radioactive materials, services adding a new fee category prior to license, or operating license, in which provided to certify licensee, vendor, or receiving the prescribed application fee. case the entity shall pay the installment. other private industry personnel as The application fee(s) is charged If the design is not referenced, or if all instructors for Part 55 reactor operators, whether the Commission approves the of the costs are not recovered, within

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31470 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations fifteen years after the date of renewal of senior resident inspector), assigned to a intervals to the licensee employing the the certification, the applicant for specific plant or facility. The fees operators. renewal shall pay the costs for the assessed will be based on the number of (f) Method of payment. All license fee renewal, or remainder of those costs, at hours that each inspector assigned to payments are to be made payable to the that time. the plant or facility is in an official duty U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (6) Costs for the review of an status (i.e., all time in a non-leave status The payments are to be made in U.S. application for renewal of an early site will be billed), and the hours will be funds by electronic funds transfer such permit which have been deferred prior billed at the appropriate hourly rate as ACH (Automated Clearing House) to the effective date of this rule will established in 10 CFR 170.20. Resident using E.D.I. (Electronic Data continue to be deferred as follows: The inspectors’ time related to a specific Interchange), check, draft, money order, holder of the renewed permit shall pay inspection will be included in the fee or credit card. Payment of invoices of the applicable fees for the renewed assessed for the specific inspection in $5,000 or more should be paid via ACH permit at the time an application for a accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this through NRC’s Lockbox Bank at the construction permit or combined license section. address indicated on the invoice. Credit referencing the permit is filed. If, at the (2) Inspection fees will be assessed to card payments should be made up to the end of the renewal period of the permit, recover the full cost for each specific limit established by the credit card bank no facility application referencing the inspection, including plant- or licensee- at the address indicated on the invoice. early site permit has been docketed, the specific performance reviews and Specific written instructions for making permit holder shall pay any outstanding assessments, evaluations, and incident electronic payments and credit card fees for the permit. investigations. For inspections that payments may be obtained by (7)(i) The full cost of review for a result in the issuance of an inspection contacting the License Fee and standardized design approval or report, fees will be assessed for costs Accounts Receivable Branch at 301– certification that has been deferred prior incurred up to approximately 30 days 415–7554. In accordance with to the effective date of the rule must be after the inspection report is issued. The Department of the Treasury paid by the holder of the design costs for these inspections include requirements, refunds will only be made approval, the applicant for certification, preparation time, time on site, upon receipt of information on the or other entity supplying the design to documentation time, and follow-up payee’s financial institution and bank an applicant for a construction permit, activities and any associated contractual accounts. combined license issued under 10 CFR service costs, but exclude the time Part 52, or operating license, as 7. Section 170.20 is revised to read as involved in the processing and issuance follows: appropriate, in five (5) equal of a notice of violation or civil penalty. installments. An installment is payable (3) The NRC intends to bill for § 170.20 Average cost per professional each of the first five times the approved/ resident inspectors’ time and for staff-hour. certified design is referenced in an specific inspections subject to full cost Fees for permits, licenses, application for a construction permit, recovery on a quarterly basis. The fees amendments, renewals, special projects, combined license issued under 10 CFR are payable upon notification by the Part 55 requalification and replacement Part 52, or operating license. In the case Commission. examinations and tests, other required of a standard design certification, the (d) Special Project Fees. (1) Fees for reviews, approvals, and inspections applicant for certification shall pay the special projects are based on the full under §§ 170.21 and 170.31 will be installment, unless another entity is cost of the review. Special projects calculated using the following supplying the design to the applicant for includes activities such as— applicable professional staff-hour rates: the construction permit, combined (i) Topical reports; license, or operating license, in which (ii) Financial assurance submittals Reactor Program (§ 170.21 $141 per hour. case the other entity shall pay the that do not require a license Activities). installment. amendment; Nuclear Materials and Nu- $140 per hour. (ii) In the case of a design which has (iii) Responses to Confirmatory Action clear Waste Program been approved and for which an Letters; (§ 170.31 Activities). application for certification is pending, (iv) Uranium recovery licensees’ land- 8. In § 170.21, the introductory text, no fees are due until after the use survey reports; and (v) 10 CFR 50.71 Category K, and footnotes 1 and 2 to the certification is granted. If the design is final safety analysis reports. table are revised to read as follows: not referenced, or if all costs are not (2) The NRC intends to bill each recovered, within fifteen years after the applicant or licensee at quarterly § 170.21 Schedule of fees for production date of certification, the applicant shall intervals until the review is completed. and utilization facilities, review of standard pay the costs, or remainder of those, at Each bill will identify the documents referenced design approvals, special submitted for review and the costs projects, inspections and import and export the time. licenses. (iii) In the case of a design for which related to each. The fees are payable a certification has been granted, if the upon notification by the Commission. Applicants for construction permits, design is not referenced, or if all costs (e) Part 55 review fees. Fees for Part manufacturing licenses, operating are not recovered, within fifteen years 55 review services are based on NRC licenses, import and export licenses, after the date of the certification, the time spent in administering the approvals of facility standard reference applicant shall pay the costs for the examinations and tests and any related designs, requalification and replacement review of the application, or remainder contractual costs. The fees assessed will examinations for reactor operators, and of those costs, at that time. also include related activities such as special projects and holders of (c) Inspection fees. (1) Inspection fees preparing, reviewing, and grading of the construction permits, licenses, and will be assessed to recover full cost for examinations and tests. The NRC other approvals shall pay fees for the each resident inspector (including the intends to bill the costs at quarterly following categories of services.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31471

SCHEDULE OF FACILITY FEES [See footnotes at end of table]

Facility categories and type of fees Fees 1 2

***** K. Import and export licenses: Licenses for the import and export only of production and utilization facilities or the export only of components for production and utilization facilities issued under 10 CFR Part 110. 1. Application for import or export of reactors and other facilities and exports of components which must be reviewed by the Commissioners and the Executive Branch, for example, actions under 10 CFR 110.40(b). ApplicationÐnew license ...... $9,100 Amendment ...... 9,100 2. Application for export of reactor and other components requiring Executive Branch review only, for example, those actions under 10 CFR 110.41(a)(1)±(8). ApplicationÐnew license ...... 5,600 Amendment ...... 5,600 3. Application for export of components requiring foreign government assurances only. ApplicationÐnew license ...... 1,700 Amendment ...... 1,700 4. Application for export of facility components and equipment not requiring Commissioner review, Executive Branch review, or foreign government assurances. ApplicationÐnew license ...... 1,100 Amendment ...... $1,100 5. Minor amendment of any export or import license to extend the expiration date, change domestic information, or make other revisions which do not require in-depth analysis or review. Amendment ...... 210 1 Fees will not be charged for orders issued by the Commission under § 2.202 of this chapter or for amendments resulting specifically from the requirements of these types of Commission orders. Fees will be charged for approvals issued under a specific exemption provision of the Com- mission's regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., §§ 50.12, 73.5) and any other sections in effect now or in the future, regardless of whether the approval is in the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other form. Fees for licenses in this schedule that are initially issued for less than full power are based on review through the issuance of a full power license (generally full power is considered 100 percent of the facility's full rated power). Thus, if a licensee received a low power license or a temporary license for less than full power and subsequently receives full power authority (by way of license amendment or otherwise), the total costs for the license will be determined through that period when authority is granted for full power operation. If a situation arises in which the Commission determines that full operating power for a particular facility should be less than 100 percent of full rated power, the total costs for the license will be at that determined lower operating power level and not at the 100 percent capacity. 2 Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff time and appropriate contractual support services expended. For applications currently on file and for which fees are determined based on the full cost expended for the review, the professional staff hours expended for the review of the application up to the effective date of the final rule will be determined at the professional rates in effect at the time the service was provided. For those applications currently on file for which review costs have reached an applicable fee ceiling established by the June 20, 1984, and July 2, 1990, rules but are still pending completion of the review, the cost incurred after any applicable ceiling was reached through January 29, 1989, will not be billed to the applicant. Any professional staff-hours expended above those ceilings on or after January 30, 1989, will be assessed at the applicable rates established by § 170.20, as appropriate, except for topical reports whose costs exceed $50,000. Costs which exceed $50,000 for any topical report, amendment, revision or supplement to a topical report completed or under review from January 30, 1989, through August 8, 1991, will not be billed to the applicant. Any professional hours expended on or after August 9, 1991, will be assessed at the applicable rate established in § 170.20.

* * * * * § 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials materials licenses, or import and export licenses and other regulatory services, 9. Section 170.31 is revised to read as licenses shall pay fees for the following including inspections, and import and categories of services. This schedule follows: export licenses. includes fees for health and safety and Applicants for materials licenses, safeguards inspections where import and export licenses, and other applicable. regulatory services and holders of

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee 2 3

1. Special nuclear material: A. Licenses for possession and use of 200 grams or more of plutonium in unsealed form or 350 grams or more of contained U±235 in unsealed form or 200 grams or more of U±233 in unsealed form. This includes applications to terminate licenses as well as licenses authorizing possession only: Licensing and Inspection ...... Full Cost. B. Licenses for receipt and storage of spent fuel at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI): Licensing and inspection ...... Full Cost. C. Licenses for possession and use of special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in devices used in industrial measuring systems, including x-ray fluorescence analyzers:4 Application ...... $640. D. All other special nuclear material licenses, except licenses authorizing special nuclear material in unsealed form in combination that would constitute a critical quantity, as defined in § 150.11 of this chapter, for which the licensee shall pay the same fees as those for Category 1A:4

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31472 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEESÐContinued [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee 2 3

Application ...... $1,300. E. Licenses or certificates for construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facility. Licensing and inspection ...... Full Cost. 2. Source material: A.(1) Licenses for possession and use of source material in recovery operations such as milling, in-situ leaching, heap-leaching, refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride, ore buying stations, ion exchange facilities and in processing of ores containing source material for extraction of metals other than uranium or thorium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery operations, as well as licenses authorizing the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby mode: Licensing and inspection ...... Full Cost. (2) Licenses that authorize the receipt of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from other persons for possession and disposal except those licenses subject to fees in Category 2.A.(1). Licensing and inspection ...... Full Cost. (3) Licenses that authorize the receipt of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from other persons for possession and disposal incidental to the disposal of the uranium waste tailings generated by the licensee's milling operations, except those licenses subject to the fees in Category 2.A.(1). Licensing and inspection ...... Full Cost. B. Licenses which authorize the possession, use, and/or installation of source material for shielding: Application ...... $150. C. All other source material licenses: Application ...... $5,500. 3. Byproduct material: A. Licenses of broad scope for the possession and use of byproduct material issued under Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution: Application ...... $6,600. B. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under Part 30 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution: Application ...... $2,400. C. Licenses issued under §§ 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of this chapter that authorize the processing or manufacturing and distribution or redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits, and/or sources and devices containing byproduct material. This category does not apply to licenses issued to nonprofit educational institutions whose processing or manufacturing is exempt under 10 CFR 170.11(a)(4). These licenses are covered by fee Category 3D. Application ...... $10,200. D. Licenses and approvals issued under §§ 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of this chapter authorizing distribution or redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits, and/or sources or devices not involving processing of byproduct material. This category includes licenses issued under §§ 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of this chapter to nonprofit educational institutions whose processing or manufacturing is exempt under 10 CFR 170.11(a)(4). Application ...... $2,400. E. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is not removed from its shield (self-shielded units): Application ...... $1,700. F. Licenses for possession and use of less than 10,000 curies of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes. This category also includes underwater irradiators for irradiation of materials where the source is not exposed for irradiation purposes. Application ...... $3,300. G. Licenses for possession and use of 10,000 curies or more of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes. This category also includes underwater irradiators for irradiation of materials where the source is not exposed for irradiation purposes. Application ...... $3,400. H. Licenses issued under Subpart A of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require device review to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter. The category does not include specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter: Application ...... $2,000. I. Licenses issued under Subpart A of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require device evaluation to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter. This category does not include specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter: Application ...... $3,200. J. Licenses issued under Subpart B of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter. This category does not include specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter: Application ...... $1,000. K. Licenses issued under Subpart B of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter. This category does not include specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter: Application ...... $600. L. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution:

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31473

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEESÐContinued [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee 2 3

Application ...... $5,500. M. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under Part 30 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution: Application ...... $2,300. N. Licenses that authorize services for other licensees, except: (1) Licenses that authorize only calibration and/or leak testing services are subject to the fees specified in fee Category 3P; and (2) Licenses that authorize waste disposal services are subject to the fees specified in fee Categories 4A, 4B, and 4C: Application ...... $2,300. O. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under Part 34 of this chapter for industrial radiography operations: Application ...... $5,800. P. All other specific byproduct material licenses, except those in Categories 4A through 9D: Application ...... $1,300. 4. Waste disposal and processing: A. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of contingency storage or commercial land disposal by the licensee; or licenses authorizing contingency storage of low-level radioactive waste at the site of nuclear power reactors; or licenses for receipt of waste from other persons for incineration or other treatment, packaging of resulting waste and residues, and transfer of packages to another person authorized to receive or dispose of waste material: Licensing and inspection ...... Full Cost. B. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of packaging or repackaging the material. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material: Application ...... $1,700. C. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material: Application ...... $2,500. 5. Well logging: A. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material for well logging, well surveys, and tracer studies other than field flooding tracer studies: Application ...... $6,000. B. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material for field flooding tracer studies: Licensing ...... Full Cost. 6. Nuclear laundries: A. Licenses for commercial collection and laundry of items contaminated with byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material: Application ...... $11,200. 7. Medical licenses: A. Licenses issued under Parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices: Application ...... $6,100. B. Licenses of broad scope issued to medical institutions or two or more physicians under Parts 30, 33, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter authorizing research and development, including human use of byproduct material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices: Application ...... $4,400. C. Other licenses issued under Parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material, except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices: Application ...... $2,400. 8. Civil defense: A. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material for civil defense activities: Application ...... $320. 9. Device, product, or sealed source safety evaluation: A. Safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel devices, for commercial distribution: ApplicationÐeach device ...... $5,200. B. Safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel devices: ApplicationÐeach device ...... $3,700. C. Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for commercial distribution: ApplicationÐeach source ...... $1,580. D. Safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel: ApplicationÐeach source ...... $530. 10. Transportation of radioactive material: A. Evaluation of casks, packages, and shipping containers: Licensing and inspection ...... Full Cost.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31474 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEESÐContinued [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee 2 3

B. Evaluation of 10 CFR Part 71 quality assurance programs: Application ...... $390. Inspections ...... Full Cost. 11. Review of standardized spent fuel facilities: Licensing and inspection ...... Full Cost. 12. Special projects: 5 Approvals and preapplication/Licensing activities ...... Full Cost. Inspections ...... Full Cost. 13. A. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance: Licensing ...... Full Cost. B. Inspections related to spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance ...... Full Cost. C. Inspections related to storage of spent fuel under § 72.210 of this chapter ...... Full Cost. 14. Byproduct, source, or special nuclear material licenses and other approvals authorizing decommissioning, decontamination, reclamation, or site restoration activities under Parts 30, 40, 70, 72, and 76 of this chapter: Licensing and inspection ...... Full Cost. 15. Import and Export licenses: Licenses issued under 10 CFR Part 110 of this chapter for the import and export only of special nuclear material, source material, tritium and other byproduct material, heavy water, or nuclear grade graphite. A. Application for export or import of high enriched uranium and other materials, including radioactive waste, which must be reviewed by the Commissioners and the Executive Branch, for example, those actions under 10 CFR 110.40(b). This category includes application for export or import of radioactive wastes in multiple forms from multiple generators or brokers in the exporting country and/or going to multiple treatment, storage or disposal facilities in one or more receiving countries. ApplicationÐnew license ...... $9,100. Amendment ...... $9,100. B. Application for export or import of special nuclear material, source material, tritium and other byproduct material, heavy water, or nuclear grade graphite, including radioactive waste, requiring Executive Branch review but not Com- missioner review. This category includes application for the export or import of radioactive waste involving a single form of waste from a single class of generator in the exporting country to a single treatment, storage and/or disposal facility in the receiving country. ApplicationÐnew license ...... $5,600. Amendment ...... $5,600. C. Application for export of routine reloads of low enriched uranium reactor fuel and exports of source material requiring only foreign government assurances under the Atomic Energy Act. ApplicationÐnew license ...... $1,700. Amendment ...... $1,700. D. Application for export or import of other materials, including radioactive waste, not requiring Commissioner review, Executive Branch review, or foreign government assurances under the Atomic Energy Act. This category includes application for export or import of radioactive waste where the NRC has previously authorized the export or import of the same form of waste to or from the same or similar parties, requiring only confirmation from the receiving facility and licensing authorities that the shipments may proceed according to previously agreed understandings and procedures. ApplicationÐnew license ...... $1,100. Amendment ...... $1,100. E. Minor amendment of any export or import license to extend the expiration date, change domestic information, or make other revisions which do not require in-depth analysis, review, or consultations with other agencies or foreign governments. Amendment ...... $210. 16. Reciprocity: Agreement State licensees who conduct activities under the reciprocity provisions of 10 CFR 150.20. Application (initial filing of Form 241) ...... $1,200. Revisions ...... $200. 1 Types of feesÐSeparate charges, as shown in the schedule, will be assessed for preapplication consultations and reviews and applications for new licenses and approvals, issuance of new licenses and approvals, certain amendments and renewals to existing licenses and approvals, safety evaluations of sealed sources and devices, and certain inspections. The following guidelines apply to these charges: (a)Application fees. Applications for new materials licenses and export and import licenses; applications to reinstate expired, terminated, or inactive licenses except those subject to fees assessed at full costs; applications filed by Agreement State licensees to register under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 150.20; and applications for amendments to materials licenses that would place the license in a higher fee category or add a new fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for each category. (1) Applications for licenses covering more than one fee category of special nuclear material or source material must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the highest fee category. (2) Applications for new licenses that cover both byproduct material and special nuclear material in sealed sources for use in gauging devices will pay the appropriate application fee for fee Category 1C only. (b) Licensing fees. Fees for reviews of applications for new licenses and for renewals and amendments to existing licenses, for preapplication consultations and for reviews of other documents submitted to NRC for review, and for project manager time for fee categories subject to full cost fees (fee Categories 1A, 1B, 1E, 2A, 4A, 5B, 10A, 11, 12, 13A, and 14) are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with § 170.12(b). (c) Amendment/revision fees. Applications for amendments to export and import licenses and revisions to reciprocity initial applications must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment/revision fee for each license/revision affected. An application for an amendment to a license or approval classified in more than one fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the category affected by the amendment unless the amendment is applicable to two or more fee categories in which case the amendment fee for the highest fee category would apply.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31475

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS FEES [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses and type of fees 1 Fee 2 3

(d) Inspection fees. Inspections resulting from investigations conducted by the Office of Investigations and nonroutine inspections that result from third-party allegations are not subject to fees. Inspection fees are due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with § 170.12(c). 2 Fees will not be charged for orders issued by the Commission under 10 CFR 2.202 or for amendments resulting specifically from the requirements of these types of Commission orders. However, fees will be charged for approvals issued under a specific exemption provision of the Commission's regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 30.11, 40.14, 70.14, 73.5, and any other sections in effect now or in the future) regardless of whether the approval is in the form of a license amendment, letter of approval, safety evaluation report, or other form. In addition to the fee shown, an applicant may be assessed an additional fee for sealed source and device evaluations as shown in Categories 9A through 9D. 3 Full cost fees will be determined based on the professional staff time multiplied by the appropriate professional hourly rate established in § 170.20 in effect at the time the service is provided, and the appropriate contractual support services expended. For applications currently on file for which review costs have reached an applicable fee ceiling established by the June 20, 1984, and July 2, 1990, rules, but are still pending completion of the review, the cost incurred after any applicable ceiling was reached through January 29, 1989, will not be billed to the applicant. Any professional staff-hours expended above those ceilings on or after January 30, 1989, will be assessed at the applicable rates established by § 170.20, as appropriate, except for topical reports whose costs exceed $50,000. Costs which exceed $50,000 for each topical report, amendment, revision, or supplement to a topical report completed or under review from January 30, 1989, through August 8, 1991, will not be billed to the applicant. Any professional hours expended on or after August 9, 1991, will be assessed at the applicable rate established in § 170.20. 4 Licensees paying fees under Categories 1A, 1B, and 1E are not subject to fees under Categories 1C and 1D for sealed sources authorized in the same license except for an application that deals only with the sealed sources authorized by the license. 5 Fees will not be assessed for requests/reports submitted to the NRC: (a) In response to a Generic Letter or NRC Bulletin that does not result in an amendment to the license, does not result in the review of an alternate method or reanalysis to meet the requirements of the Generic Letter, or does not involve an unreviewed safety issue; (b) In response to an NRC request (at the Associate Office Director level or above) to resolve an identified safety, safeguards, or environmental issue, or to assist NRC in developing a rule, regulatory guide, policy statement, generic letter, or bulletin; or (c) As a means of exchanging information between industry organizations and the NRC for the purpose of supporting generic regulatory improvements or efforts.

10. The heading of Part 171 is revised calculated in accordance with §§ 171.15 (2) The FY 1999 annual fee is to read as follows: and 171.16, will be published as a comprised of a base operating power notice in the Federal Register as soon as reactor annual fee, a base spent fuel PART 171ÐANNUAL FEES FOR possible but no later than the third storage/reactor decommissioning annual REACTOR LICENSES AND FUEL quarter of the fiscal year. The annual fee, and associated additional charges CYCLE LICENSES AND MATERIALS fees will become due and payable to the (surcharges). The activities comprising LICENSES, INCLUDING HOLDERS OF NRC as indicated in § 171.19. Quarterly the spent storage/reactor CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE, payments of the annual fee of $100,000 decommissioning base annual fee are REGISTRATIONS, AND QUALITY or more will continue during the fiscal shown in paragraph (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVALS year and be based on the applicable this section. The activities comprising AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES annual fees as shown in §§ 171.15 and the surcharge are shown in paragraph LICENSED BY THE NRC 171.16 until a notice concerning the (d)(1) of this section. The activities 11. The authority citation for Part 171 revised amount of the fees for the fiscal comprising the base annual fee for continues to read as follows: year is published by the NRC. If the operating power reactors are as follows: NRC is unable to publish a final fee rule (i) Power reactor safety and safeguards Authority: Sec. 7601, Pub. L. 99–272, 100 that becomes effective during the regulation except licensing and Stat. 146, as amended by sec. 5601, Pub. L. current fiscal year, fees would be inspection activities recovered under 100–203, 101 Stat. 1330, as amended by Sec. Part 170 of this chapter and generic 3201, Pub. L. 101–239, 103 Stat. 2106 as assessed based on the rates in effect for amended by sec. 6101, Pub. L. 101–508, 104 the previous fiscal year. reactor decommissioning activities. Stat. 1388, (42 U.S.C. 2213); sec. 301, Pub. L. (ii) Research activities directly related 14. Section 171.15 is revised to read to the regulation of power reactors 92–314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C. 2201(w)); sec. as follows: 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. except those activities specifically 5841); sec. 2903, Pub. L. 102–486, 106 Stat. § 171.15 Annual Fees: Reactor licenses related to reactor decommissioning. 3125, (42 U.S.C. 2214 note). and spent fuel storage/reactor (iii) Generic activities required largely 12. Section 171.9 is revised to read as decommissioning. for NRC to regulate power reactors, e.g., follows: updating Part 50 of this chapter, or (a) Each person licensed to operate a operating the Incident Response Center. power, test, or research reactor; each § 171.9 Communications. The base annual fee for operating power person holding a Part 50 power reactor All communications concerning the reactors does not include generic license that is in decommissioning or activities specifically related to reactor regulations in this part should be possession only status, except those that addressed to the Chief Financial Officer, decommissioning. have no spent fuel on-site; and each (c)(1) The FY 1999 annual fee for each U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, person holding a Part 72 license who Washington, DC 20555–0001. power reactor holding a Part 50 license does not hold a Part 50 license shall pay that is in a decommissioning or Communications may be delivered in the annual fee for each unit for each person at the Commission’s offices at possession only status and has spent license held at any time during the fuel on-site and each independent spent 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Federal FY in which the fee is due. This 13. Section 171.13 is revised to read fuel storage Part 72 licensee who does paragraph does not apply to test and as follows: not hold a Part 50 license is $206,000. research reactors exempted under (2) This fee is comprised of a base § 171.13 Notice. § 171.11(a). spent fuel storage/reactor The annual fees applicable to any (b)(1) The FY 1999 annual fee for each decommissioning annual fee (this fee is NRC licensee subject to this part and operating power reactor is $2,776,000. also included in the operating power

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31476 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations reactor annual fee shown in paragraph number of operating power reactors (2) Each person identified in (b) of this section), and an additional (104). paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall pay charge (surcharge). The activities (3) The FY 1999 surcharge allocated an annual fee for each license the comprising the surcharge are shown in to spent fuel storage/reactor person holds at any time during the first paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The decommissioning class of licensees is six months of the Federal fiscal year activities comprising the FY 1999 spent $3.2 million. The FY 1999 spent fuel (October 1 through March 31). Annual fuel storage/reactor decommissioning storage/reactor decommissioning fees will be prorated for new licenses base annual fee are: surcharge to be added to each operating issued and for licenses for which (i) Generic and other research power reactor, each power reactor in termination is requested and activities activities directly related to reactor decommissioning or possession only permanently ceased during the period decommissioning and spent fuel status that has spent fuel onsite, and to October 1 through March 31 of the fiscal storage; and each independent spent fuel storage Part year as provided in § 171.17 of this (ii) Other safety, environmental, and 72 licensee who does not hold a Part 50 section. If a single license authorizes safeguards activities related to reactor license is $26,500. This amount is more than one activity (e.g., human use decommissioning and spent fuel calculated by dividing the total and irradiator activities), annual fees storage, except costs for licensing and surcharge costs allocated to this class by will be assessed for each fee category inspection activities that are recovered the total number of power reactor applicable to the license. If you hold under part 170 of this chapter. licensees, except those that permanently more than one license, the total annual (d)(1) The activities comprising the ceased operations and have no fuel fee you will be assessed will be the FY 1999 surcharge are as follows: onsite, and Part 72 licensees who do not cumulative total of the annual fees (i) Low level waste disposal generic hold a Part 50 license. applicable to the licenses you hold. activities; (e) The FY 1999 annual fees for (b) The annual fee is comprised of a (ii) Activities not directly attributable licensees authorized to operate a base annual fee and an additional to an existing NRC licensee or class of nonpower (test and research) reactor charge (surcharge). The activities licensees (e.g., international cooperative licensed under Part 50 of this chapter, comprising the surcharge are shown in safety program and international unless the reactor is exempted from fees paragraph (e) of this section. The safeguards activities; support for the under § 171.11(a), are as follows: Agreement State program, and site activities comprising the base annual fee decommissioning management plan Research reactor ...... $85,900 is the sum of the NRC budgeted costs (SDMP) activities); and Test reactor ...... $85,900 for: (iii) Activities not currently subject to 15. Section 171.16 is revised to read (1) Generic and other research 10 CFR Part 170 licensing and as follows: activities directly related to the inspection fees based on existing law or regulation of materials licenses as § 171.16 Annual Fees: Materials Commission policy, e.g., reviews and defined in this part; and inspections conducted of nonprofit Licensees, Holders of Certificates of educational institutions and licensing Compliance, Holders of Sealed Source and (2) Other safety, environmental, and Device Registrations, Holders of Quality actions for Federal agencies, and costs safeguards activities for materials Assurance Program Approvals and licenses, except costs for licensing and that would not be collected from small Government Agencies Licensed by the entities based on Commission policy in inspection activities that are recovered NRC. under Part 170 of this chapter. accordance with the Regulatory (a)(1) The provisions of this section Flexibility Act. apply to person(s) who are authorized to (c) A licensee who is required to pay (2) The total FY 1999 surcharge conduct activities under— an annual fee under this section may allocated to operating power reactor (i) 10 CFR part 30 for byproduct qualify as a small entity. If a licensee class of licensees is $44 million, not material; qualifies as a small entity and provides including the amount allocated to the (ii) 10 CFR part 40 for source material; the Commission with the proper new fee class, spent fuel storage/reactor (iii) 10 CFR part 70 for special nuclear certification with the annual fee decommissioning. The FY 1999 material; payment, the licensee may pay reduced operating power reactor surcharge to be (iv) 10 CFR part 71 for packaging and annual fees for as shown below. Failure assessed to each operating power reactor transportation of radioactive material; to file a small entity certification in a is $423,000. This amount is calculated and timely manner could result in the denial by dividing the total operating power (v) 10 CFR part 76 for uranium of any refund that might otherwise be reactor surcharge ($44 million) by the enrichment. due.

Maximum annual fee per licensed category

Small Businesses Not Engaged in Manufacturing and Small Not-For-Profit Organizations (Gross Annual Receipts): $350,000 to $5 million ...... $1,800 Less than $350,000 ...... 400 Manufacturing entities that have an average of 500 employees or less; 35 to 500 employees ...... 1,800 Less than 35 employees ...... 400 Small Governmental Jurisdictions (Including publicly supported educational institutions) (Population): 20,000 to 50,000 ...... 1,800 Less than 20,000 ...... 400 Educational Institutions that are not State or Publicly Supported, and have 500 Employees or Less: 35 to 500 employees ...... 1,800 Less than 35 employees ...... 400

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31477

(1) A licensee qualifies as a small entity if it meets the size standards established by the NRC (See 10 CFR 2.810). (2) A licensee who seeks to establish status as a small entity for purpose of paying the annual fees required under this section must file a certification statement with the NRC. The licensee must file the required certification on NRC Form 526 for each license under which it is billed. The NRC will include a copy of NRC Form 526 with each annual fee invoice sent to a licensee. A licensee who seeks to qualify as a small entity must submit the completed NRC Form 526 with the reduced annual fee payment. (3) For purposes of this section, the licensee must submit a new certification with its annual fee payment each year. (4) The maximum annual fee a small entity is required to pay is $1,800 for each category applicable to the license(s). (d) The FY 1999 annual fees, including the surcharge shown in paragraph (e) of this section, for materials licensees subject to fees under this section are shown below:

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS ANNUAL FEES AND FEES FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY NRC [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses Annual fees 1 2 3

1. Special nuclear material: A.(1) Licenses for possession and use of U±235 or plutonium for fuel fabrication activities. (a) Strategic Special Nuclear Material: Babcock & Wilcox SNM±42 ...... 3,281,000 Nuclear Fuel Services SNM±124 ...... 3,281,000 (b) Low Enriched Uranium in Dispersible Form Used for Fabrication of Power Reactor Fuel: Combustion Engineering (Hematite) SNM±33 ...... 1,100,000 General Electric Company SNM±1097 ...... 1,100,000 Siemens Nuclear Power SNM±1227 ...... 1,100,000 Westinghouse Electric Company SNM±1107 ...... 1,100,000 (2) All other special nuclear materials licenses not included in Category 1.A.(1) which are licensed for fuel cycle activities: (a) Facilities with limited operations: Framatome Cogema SNM±1168 ...... 432,000 (b) All Others: General Electric SNM±960 ...... 314,000 B. Licenses for receipt and storage of spent fuel at an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) See 10 CFR part 171.15(c). C. Licenses for possession and use of special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in devices used in industrial measuring systems, including x-ray fluorescence analyzers ...... 1,200 D. All other special nuclear material licenses, except licenses authorizing special nuclear material in unsealed form in combination that would constitute a critical quantity, as defined in § 150.11 of this chapter, for which the licensee shall pay the same fees as those for Category 1.A.(2) ...... 3,300 E. Licenses or certificates for the operation of a uranium enrichment facility ...... 2,043,000 2. Source material: A.(1) Licenses for possession and use of source material for refining uranium mill concentrates to uranium hexafluoride ..... 472,000 (2) Licenses for possession and use of source material in recovery operations such as milling, in-situ leaching, heap-leaching, ore buying stations, ion exchange facilities and in processing of ores containing source material for extraction of metals other than uranium or thorium, including licenses authorizing the possession of byproduct waste material (tailings) from source material recovery operations, as well as licenses authorizing the possession and maintenance of a facility in a standby mode. Class I facilities 4 ...... 131,000 Class II facilities 4 ...... 109,000 Other facilities 4 ...... 30,400 (3) Licenses that authorize the receipt of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from other persons for possession and disposal, except those licenses subject to the fees in Category 2.A.(2) or Category 2.A.(4) ...... 81,000 (4) Licenses that authorize the receipt of byproduct material, as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, from other persons for possession and disposal incidental to the disposal of the uranium waste tailings generated by the licensee's milling operations, except those licenses subject to the fees in Category 2.A.(2) ...... 13,000 B. Licenses that authorize only the possession, use and/or installation of source material for shielding ...... 600 C. All other source material licenses ...... 11,700 3. Byproduct material: A. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution ...... 26,000 B. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under Part 30 of this chapter for processing or manufacturing of items containing byproduct material for commercial distribution ...... 6,300 C. Licenses issued under §§ 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of this chapter authorizing the processing or manufacturing and distribution or redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits and/or sources and devices containing byproduct material. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding authorized under Part 40 of this chapter when included on the same license. This category does not apply to licenses issued to nonprofit educational institutions whose processing or manufacturing is exempt under 10 CFR 171.11(a)(1). These licenses are covered by fee Category 3D ...... 15,300

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31478 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS ANNUAL FEES AND FEES FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY NRCÐContinued [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses Annual fees 1 2 3

D. Licenses and approvals issued under §§ 32.72, 32.73, and/or 32.74 of this chapter authorizing distribution or redistribution of radiopharmaceuticals, generators, reagent kits and/or sources or devices not involving processing of byproduct material. This category includes licenses issued under §§ 32.72, 32.73 and 32.74 of this chapter to nonprofit educational institutions whose processing or manufacturing is exempt under 10 CFR 171.11(a)(1). This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding authorized under Part 40 of this chapter when included on the same license ...... 3,800 E. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is not removed from its shield (self-shielded units) ...... 3,400 F. Licenses for possession and use of less than 10,000 curies of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes. This category also includes underwater irradiators for irradiation of materials in which the source is not exposed for irradiation purposes ...... 5,700 G. Licenses for possession and use of 10,000 curies or more of byproduct material in sealed sources for irradiation of materials in which the source is exposed for irradiation purposes. This category also includes underwater irradiators for irradiation of materials in which the source is not exposed for irradiation purposes ...... 14,800 H. Licenses issued under Subpart A of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require device review to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter ...... 3,200 I. Licenses issued under Subpart A of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require device evaluation to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter, except for specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons exempt from the licensing requirements of Part 30 of this chapter ...... 4,600 J. Licenses issued under Subpart B of Part 32 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material that require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter ...... 2,100 K. Licenses issued under Subpart B of Part 31 of this chapter to distribute items containing byproduct material or quantities of byproduct material that do not require sealed source and/or device review to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter, except specific licenses authorizing redistribution of items that have been authorized for distribution to persons generally licensed under Part 31 of this chapter ...... 1,700 L. Licenses of broad scope for possession and use of byproduct material issued under Parts 30 and 33 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution ...... 11,200 M. Other licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under Part 30 of this chapter for research and development that do not authorize commercial distribution ...... 5,000 N. Licenses that authorize services for other licensees, except: (1) Licenses that authorize only calibration and/or leak testing services are subject to the fees specified in fee Cat- egory 3P; and (2) Licenses that authorize waste disposal services are subject to the fees specified in fee Categories 4A, 4B, and 4C 5,200 O. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material issued under Part 34 of this chapter for industrial radiography operations. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding authorized under Part 40 of this chapter when authorized on the same license ...... 14,700 P. All other specific byproduct material licenses, except those in Categories 4A through 9D ...... 2,600 4. Waste disposal and processing: A. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of contingency storage or commercial land disposal by the licensee; or licenses authorizing contingency storage of low-level radioactive waste at the site of nuclear power reactors; or licenses for receipt of waste from other persons for incineration or other treatment, packaging of resulting waste and residues, and transfer of packages to another person authorized to receive or dispose of waste material ...... 5 N/A B. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons for the purpose of packaging or repackaging the material. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material ...... 11,300 C. Licenses specifically authorizing the receipt of prepackaged waste byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material from other persons. The licensee will dispose of the material by transfer to another person authorized to receive or dispose of the material ...... 8,400 5. Well logging: A. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material for well logging, well surveys, and tracer studies other than field flooding tracer studies ...... 9,900 B. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material for field flooding tracer studies ...... 5 N/A 6. Nuclear laundries: A. Licenses for commercial collection and laundry of items contaminated with byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material ...... 18,900 7. Medical licenses: A. Licenses issued under Parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same license ...... 15,300 B. Licenses of broad scope issued to medical institutions or two or more physicians under Parts 30, 33, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter authorizing research and development, including human use of byproduct material except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same license.9 ... 27,800

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31479

SCHEDULE OF MATERIALS ANNUAL FEES AND FEES FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY NRCÐContinued [See footnotes at end of table]

Category of materials licenses Annual fees 1 2 3

C. Other licenses issued under Parts 30, 35, 40, and 70 of this chapter for human use of byproduct material, source material, and/or special nuclear material except licenses for byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material in sealed sources contained in teletherapy devices. This category also includes the possession and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same license.9 ...... 5,800 8. Civil defense: A. Licenses for possession and use of byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material for civil defense activities ...... 1,200 9. Device, product, or sealed source safety evaluation: A. Registrations issued for the safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel devices, for commercial distribution ...... 6,000 B. Registrations issued for the safety evaluation of devices or products containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel devices ...... 4,300 C. Registrations issued for the safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, except reactor fuel, for commercial distribution ...... 1,800 D. Registrations issued for the safety evaluation of sealed sources containing byproduct material, source material, or special nuclear material, manufactured in accordance with the unique specifications of, and for use by, a single applicant, except reactor fuel ...... 600 10. Transportation of radioactive material: A. Certificates of Compliance or other package approvals issued for design of casks, packages, and shipping containers. Spent Fuel, High-Level Waste, and plutonium air packages ...... 6 N/A Other Casks ...... 6 N B. Quality assurance program approvals issued under 10 CFR Part 71: Users and Fabricators ...... 66,700 Users ...... 2,200 11. Standardized spent fuel facilities ...... 6 N/A 12. Special Projects ...... 6 N/A 13. A. Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance ...... 6 N/A B. General licenses for storage of spent fuel under 10 CFR 72.210 N/A (See 10 CFR Part 171.15(c). 14. Byproduct, source, or special nuclear material licenses and other approvals authorizing decommissioning, decontamination, reclamation, or site restoration activities under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, 72, and 76 of this chapter ...... 7 N/A 15. Import and Export licenses ...... 8 N/A 16. Reciprocity ...... 8 N/A 17. Master materials licenses of broad scope issued to Government agencies ...... 358,000 18. Department of Energy: A. Certificates of Compliance ...... 10 872,000 B. Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) activities ...... 869,000 1 Annual fees will be assessed based on whether a licensee held a valid license with the NRC authorizing possession and use of radioactive material during the fiscal year. However, the annual fee is waived for those materials licenses and holders of certificates, registrations, and approvals who either filed for termination of their licenses or approvals or filed for possession only/storage licenses prior to October 1, 1998, and permanently ceased licensed activities entirely by September 30, 1998. Annual fees for licensees who filed for termination of a license, downgrade of a license, or for a possession only license during the fiscal year and for new licenses issued during the fiscal year will be prorated in accordance with the provisions of § 171.17. If a person holds more than one license, certificate, registration, or approval, the annual fee(s) will be assessed for each license, certificate, registration, or approval held by that person. For licenses that authorize more than one activity on a single license (e.g., human use and irradiator activities), annual fees will be assessed for each category applicable to the license. Licensees paying annual fees under Category 1A(1) are not subject to the annual fees for Category 1C and 1D for sealed sources authorized in the license. 2 Payment of the prescribed annual fee does not automatically renew the license, certificate, registration, or approval for which the fee is paid. Renewal applications must be filed in accordance with the requirements of Parts 30, 40, 70, 71, 72, or 76 of this chapter. 3 Each fiscal year, fees for these materials licenses will be calculated and assessed in accordance with § 171.13 and will be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER for notice and comment. 4 A Class I license includes mill licenses issued for the extraction of uranium from uranium ore. A Class II license includes solution mining licenses (in-situ and heap leach) issued for the extraction of uranium from uranium ores including research and development licenses. An ``other'' license includes licenses for extraction of metals, heavy metals, and rare earths. 5 There are no existing NRC licenses in these fee categories. Once NRC issues a license for these categories, the Commission will consider establishing an annual fee for that type of license. 6 Standardized spent fuel facilities, 10 CFR Parts 71 and 72 Certificates of Compliance, and special reviews, such as topical reports, are not assessed an annual fee because the generic costs of regulating these activities are primarily attributable to the users of the designs, certificates, and topical reports. 7 Licensees in this category are not assessed an annual fee because they are charged an annual fee in other categories while they are licensed to operate. 8 No annual fee is charged because it is not practical to administer due to the relatively short life or temporary nature of the license. 9 Separate annual fees will not be assessed for pacemaker licenses issued to medical institutions who also hold nuclear medicine licenses under Categories 7B or 7C. 10 This includes Certificates of Compliance issued to DOE that are not under the Nuclear Waste Fund.

(e) The activities comprising the licensees; e.g., international cooperative decommissioning management plan surcharge are as follows: safety program and international (SDMP) activities; and (1) LLW disposal generic activities; safeguards activities; support for the (3) Activities not currently assessed (2) Activities not directly attributable Agreement State program; site licensing and inspection fees under 10 to an existing NRC licensee or classes of CFR Part 170 based on existing law or

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31480 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

Commission policy, e.g., reviews and licenses issued during the period fee category will be assessed one-half inspections conducted of nonprofit October 1 through March 31 of the FY the annual fee for the fee category being educational institutions and reviews for will be assessed one-half the annual fee deleted and the full annual fee for the Federal agencies; activities related to for that FY. New licenses issued on or remaining categories. decommissioning and reclamation; and after April 1 of the FY will not be (iii) Licenses for which applications costs that would not be collected from assessed an annual fee for that FY. to downgrade are filed on or after April small entities based on Commission Thereafter, the full fee is due and 1 of the FY are assessed the full fee for policy in accordance with the payable each subsequent FY. The that FY. Regulatory Flexibility Act. annual fee will be prorated for licenses 17. Section 171.19 is revised to read 16. Section 171.17 is revised to read for which a termination request or a as follows: as follows: request for a POL has been received on § 171.19 Payment. or after October 1 of a FY on the basis § 171.17 Proration. of when the application for termination (a) Method of payment. Annual fee Annual fees will be prorated for NRC or POL is received by the NRC provided payments, made payable to the U.S. licensees as follows: the licensee permanently ceased Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are to (a) Reactors and Part 72 licensees who licensed activities during the specified be made in U.S. funds by electronic do not hold Part 50 licenses. The annual period. Licenses for which applications funds transfer such as ACH (Automated fees for power and nonpower reactors for termination or POL are filed during Clearing House) using EDI (Electronic and those Part 72 licensees who do not the period October 1 through March 31 Data Interchange), check, draft, money hold a Part 50 license that are subject to of the FY are assessed one-half the order, or credit card. Federal agencies fees under this part and are granted a annual fee for the applicable may also make payment by the On-line license to operate on or after October 1 category(ies) for that FY. Licenses for Payment and Collection System of a Fiscal Year is prorated on the basis which applications for termination or (OPAC’s). Where specific payment of the number of days remaining in the POL are filed on or after April 1 of the instructions are provided on the fiscal year. Thereafter, the full annual FY are assessed the full annual fee for invoices to applicants and licensees, fee is due and payable each subsequent that FY. Materials licenses transferred to payment should be made accordingly, fiscal year. The base operating power a new Agreement State during the FY e.g. invoices of $5,000 or more should reactor annual fee for operating reactor are considered terminated by the NRC, be paid via ACH through NRC’s licensees who have requested for annual fee purposes, on the date that Lockbox Bank at the address indicated amendment to withdraw operating the Agreement with the State becomes on the invoice. Credit card payments authority permanently during the fiscal effective; therefore, the same proration should be made up to the limit year will be prorated based on the provisions will apply as if the licenses established by the credit card bank, in number of days during the fiscal year were terminated. accordance with specific instructions the license was in effect before (2) Downgraded licenses. (i) The provided with the invoices, to the docketing of the certifications for annual fee for a materials license that is Lockbox Bank designated for credit card permanent cessation of operations and subject to fees under this part and payments. In accordance with permanent removal of fuel from the downgraded on or after October 1 of a Department of the Treasury reactor vessel or when a final legally FY is prorated upon request by the requirements, refunds will only be made effective order to permanently cease licensee on the basis of when the upon receipt of information on the operations has come into effect. The application for downgrade is received payee’s financial institution and bank spent fuel storage/reactor by the NRC provided the licensee accounts. decommissioning annual fee for reactor permanently ceased the stated activities (b) Annual fees in the amount of licensees who permanently cease during the specified period. Requests for $100,000 or more and described in the operations and have permanently proration must be filed with the NRC Federal Register notice issued under removed fuel from the site during the within 90 days from the effective date § 171.13 must be paid in quarterly fiscal year will be prorated on the basis of the final rule establishing the annual installments of 25 percent as billed by of the number of days remaining in the fees for which a proration is sought. the NRC. The quarters begin on October fiscal year after docketing of both the Absent extraordinary circumstances, 1, January 1, April 1, and July 1 of each certifications of permanent cessation of any request for proration of the annual fiscal year. The NRC will adjust the operations and permanent removal of fee for a downgraded license filed fourth quarterly invoice to recover the fuel from the site. The spent fuel beyond that date will not be considered. full amount of the revised annual fee. If storage/reactor decommissioning annual (ii) Annual fees for licenses for which the amounts collected in the first three fee will be prorated for those Part 72 applications to downgrade are filed quarters exceed the amount of the licensees who do not hold a Part 50 during the period October 1 through revised annual fee, the overpayment license who request termination of the March 31 of the FY will be prorated as will be refunded. Licensees whose Part 72 license and permanently cease follows: annual fee for FY 1998 was less than activities authorized by the license (A) Licenses for which applications $100,000 (billed on the anniversary date during the fiscal year based on the have been filed to reduce the scope of of the license), and whose revised number of days the license was in effect the license from a higher fee annual fee for FY 1999 is $100,000 or prior to receipt of the termination category(ies) to a lower fee category(ies) more (subject to quarterly billing), will request. will be assessed one-half the annual fee be issued a bill upon publication of the (b) Materials licenses (excluding Part for the higher fee category and one-half final rule for the full amount of the FY 72 licenses included in § 171.17(a)). (1) the annual fee for the lower fee 1999 annual fee, less any payments New licenses and terminations. The category(ies), and, if applicable, the full received for FY 1999 based on the annual fee for a materials license that is annual fee for fee categories not anniversary date billing process. subject to fees under this part and afftected by the downgrade; and (c) Annual fees that are less than issued on or after October 1 of the FY (B) Licenses with multiple fee $100,000 are billed on the anniversary is prorated on the basis of when the categories for which applications have date of the license. For annual fee NRC issues the new license. New been filed to downgrade by deleting a purposes, the anniversary date of the

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31481 license is considered to be the first day The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1. Large firms would gain an unfair of the month in which the original (OBRA–90), as amended, requires that the competitive advantage over small entities. license was issued by the NRC. NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its Commenters noted that small and very small Licensees that are billed on the license budget authority, less appropriations from companies (‘‘Mom and Pop’’ operations) the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license would find it more difficult to absorb the anniversary date will be assessed the and annual fees. OBRA–90 requires that the annual fee than a large corporation or a high- annual fee in effect on the anniversary schedule of charges established by rule volume type of operation. In competitive date of the license. Materials licenses should fairly and equitably allocate the total markets, such as soils testing, annual fees subject to the annual fee that are amount to recovered from NRC’s licensees would put small licensees at an competitive terminated during the fiscal year but and be assessed under the principle that extreme disadvantage with its much larger prior to the anniversary month of the licensees who require the greatest competitors because the proposed fees would license will be billed upon termination expenditure of agency resources pay the be the same for a two-person licensee and for for the fee in effect at the time of the greatest annual charges. The amount to be a large firm with thousands of employees. billing. New materials licenses subject collected for FY 1999 is approximately 2. Some firms would be forced to cancel their licenses. A licensee with receipts of less to the annual fee will be billed in the $449.6 million. Since 1991, the NRC has complied with than $500,000 per year stated that the month the license is issued or in the OBRA–90 by issuing a final rule that amends proposed rule would, in effect, force it to next available monthly billing for the its fee regulations. These final rules have relinquish its soil density gauge and license, fee in effect on the anniversary date of established the methodology used by NRC in thereby reducing its ability to do its work the license. Thereafter, annual fees for identifying and determining the fees to be effectively. Other licensees, especially well- new licenses will be assessed in the assessed and collected in any given fiscal loggers, noted that the increased fees would anniversary month of the license. year. force small businesses to get rid of the (d) Annual fees of less than $100,000 Because the NRC is establishing a new materials license altogether. Commenters must be paid as billed by the NRC. annual fee class for FY 1999 and based on stated that the proposed rule would result in Materials license annual fees that are program changes that have occurred, the NRC about 10 percent of the well-logging licensees terminating their licenses immediately and less than $100,000 are billed on the is establishing new baseline annual fees this fiscal year. This rebaselining results in an approximately 25 percent terminating their anniversary date of the license. The increase in the annual fees charged to some licenses before the next annual assessment. materials licensees that are billed on the categories of materials licensees. 3. Some companies would go out of anniversary date of the license are those The Small Business Regulatory business. covered by fee categories 1C, 1.D, Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) 4. Some companies would have budget 2(A)(2) other, 2A(3), 2A(4), 2B, 2C, 3A is intended to reduce regulatory burdens problems. Many medical licensees noted through 3P, 4B through 9D, 10A, and imposed by Federal agencies on small that, along with reduced reimbursements, the 10B. businesses, nonprofit organizations, and proposed increase of the existing fees and the (e) Payment is due on the invoice date governmental jurisdictions. SBREFA also introduction of additional fees would and interest accrues from the date of the provides Congress with the opportunity to significantly affect their budgets. Others invoice. However, interest will be review agency rules before they go into effect. noted that, in view of the cuts by Medicare and other third party carriers, the fees would waived if payment is received within 30 Under this legislation, the NRC annual fee rule is considered a ‘‘major’’ rule and must produce a hardship and some facilities days from the invoice date. be reviewed by Congress and the Comptroller would experience a great deal of difficulty in Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day General before the rule becomes effective. meeting this additional burden. of June, 1999. SBREFA also requires that an agency prepare Since annual fees were first established, For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. a guide to assist small entities in complying approximately 3,000 license, approval, and registration terminations have been Jesse Funches, with each rule for which final regulatory flexibility analysis is prepared. This requested. Although some of these Chief Financial Officer. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the small terminations were requested because the Note: This appendix will not appear in the entity compliance guide (Attachment 1) have license was no longer needed or licenses or Code of Federal Regulations. been prepared for the FY 1999 fee rule as registrations could be combined, indications required by law. are that other termination requests were due Appendix A to This Final Rule—Regulatory to the economic impact of the fees. Flexibility Analysis for the Amendments to II. Impact on Small Entities The NRC continues to receive written and 10 CFR Part 170 (License Fees) and 10 CFR The fee rule results in substantial fees oral comments from small materials licensees Part 171 (Annual Fees) being charged to those individuals, indicating that the monetary threshold for I. Background organizations, and companies that are small entities was not representative of small licensed by the NRC, including those businesses with gross receipts in the The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended, (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that licensed under the NRC materials program. thousands of dollars. These commenters agencies consider the impact of their The comments received on previous believe that even the $1,800 maximum rulemakings on small entities and, consistent proposed fee rules and the small entity annual fee represents a relatively high with applicable statutes, consider certifications received in response to percentage of gross annual receipts for these alternatives to minimize these impacts on the previous final fee rules indicate that NRC ‘‘Mom and Pop’’ type businesses. Therefore, businesses, organizations, and government licensees qualifying as small entities under even the reduced annual fee could have a jurisdictions to which they apply. the NRC’s size standards are primarily significant impact on the ability of these The NRC has established standards for materials licensees. Therefore, this analysis types of businesses to continue to operate. determining which NRC licensees qualify as will focus on the economic impact of the To alleviate the significant impact of the small entities (10 CFR 2.801). These size annual fees on materials licensees. About 20 annual fees on a substantial number of small standards reflect the Small Business percent of these licensees (approximately entities, the NRC considered the following Administration’s most common receipts- 1,400 licensees) have requested small entity alternatives, in accordance with the RFA, in based size standards and include a size certification in the past. A 1993 NRC survey developing each of its fee rules since 1991. standard for business concerns that are of its materials licensees indicated that about 1. Base fees on some measure of the manufacturing entities. The NRC uses the 25 percent of these licensees could qualify as amount of radioactivity possessed by the size standards to reduce the impact of annual small entities under the NRC’s size licensee (e.g., number of sources). fees on small entities by establishing a standards. 2. Base fees on the frequency of use of the licensee’s eligibility to qualify for a The commenters on previous fee licensed radioactive material (e.g., volume of maximum small entity fee. The small entity rulemakings consistently indicated that the patients). fee categories in § 171.16(c) of this final rule following results would occur if the proposed 3. Base fees on the NRC size standards for are based on the NRC’s size standards annual fees were not modified. small entities.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 31482 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

The NRC has reexamined its previous annual fees will result in increased annual Licensees may use this guide to determine evaluations of these alternatives and fees charged to several categories of materials whether they qualify as a small entity under continues to believe that establishment of a licensees, licensees who qualify as small NRC regulations and are eligible to pay maximum fee for small entities is the most entities will not be adversely affected. reduced FY 1999 annual fees assessed under appropriate and effective option for reducing III. Summary 10 CFR Part 171. The NRC has established the impact of its fees on small entities. two tiers of separate annual fees for those The NRC established, and is continuing for The NRC has determined that the 10 CFR materials licensees who qualify as small Part 171 annual fees significantly impact a FY 1999, a maximum annual fee for small entities under NRC’s size standards. entities. The RFA and its implementing substantial number of small entities. A maximum fee for small entities strikes a Licensees who meet NRC’s size standards guidance do not provide specific guidelines for a small entity must complete NRC Form on what constitutes a significant economic balance between the requirement to collect 526 to qualify for the reduced annual fee. impact on a small entity. Therefore, the NRC 100 percent of the NRC budget and the This form accompanies each annual fee has no benchmark to assist it in determining requirement to consider means of reducing the amount or the percent of gross receipts the impact of the fee on small entities. On the invoice mailed to materials licensees. The that should be charged to a small entity. For basis of its regulatory flexibility analyses, the completed form, the appropriate small entity FY 1999, the NRC will rely on the analysis NRC concludes that a maximum annual fee fee, and the payment copy of the invoice, previously completed that established a of $1,800 for small entities and a lower-tier should be mailed to the U.S. Nuclear maximum annual fee for a small entity and small entity annual fee of $400 for small Regulatory Commission, License Fee and the amount of costs that must be recovered businesses and not-for-profit organizations Accounts Receivable Branch, to the address from other NRC licensees as a result of with gross annual receipts of less than indicated on the invoice. Failure to file a establishing the maximum annual fees. $350,000, small governmental jurisdictions small entity certification in a timely manner The NRC continues to believe that the 10 with a population of less than 20,000, small may result in the denial of any refund that CFR Part 170 application fees, or any manufacturing entities that have less than 35 might otherwise be due. adjustments to these licensing fees during the employees and educational institutions that past year, do not have a significant impact on are not State or publicly supported and have NRC Definition of Small Entity small entities. less than 35 employees reduces the impact The NRC has defined a small entity for By maintaining the maximum annual fee on small entities. At the same time, these purposes of compliance with its regulations for small entities at $1,800, the annual fee for reduced annual fees are consistent with the (10 CFR 2.810) as follows: objectives of OBRA–90. Thus, the fees for many small entities is reduced while at the 1. Small business—a for-profit concern that small entities maintain a balance between the same time materials licensees, including provides a service or a concern not engaged small entities, will pay for most of the FY objectives of OBRA–90 and the RFA. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions in manufacturing with average gross receipts 1999 costs attributable to them. The costs not of $5 million or less over its last 3 completed recovered from small entities are allocated to established in previous fee rules remain valid for FY 1999. fiscal years; other materials licensees and to power 2. Manufacturing industry—a reactors. However, the amount that must be Attachment 1 to Appendix A—U.S. Nuclear manufacturing concern with an average recovered from other licensees as a result of Regulatory Commission, Small Entity number of 500 or fewer employees based maintaining the maximum annual fee is not Compliance Guide, Fiscal Year 1999 upon employment during each pay period for expected to increase significantly. Therefore, the preceding 12 calendar months; the NRC is continuing for FY 1999, the Contents 3. Small organization—a not-for-profit maximum annual fee (base annual fee plus Introduction organization which is independently owned surcharge) for certain small entities at $1,800 NRC Definition of Small Entity and operated and has annual gross receipts for each fee category covered by each license NRC Small Entity Fees of $5 million or less; issued to a small entity. Instructions for Completing NRC Form 526 While reducing the impact on many small 4. Small governmental jurisdiction—a entities, the Commission agrees that the Introduction government of a city, county, town, maximum annual fee of $1,800 for small The Small Business Regulatory township, village, school district or special entities, when added to the Part 170 license Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) district with a population of less than 50,000; fees, may continue to have a significant requires all Federal agencies to prepare a 5. Small educational institution—an impact on materials licensees with annual written guide for each ‘‘major’’ final rule as educational institution supported by a gross receipts in the thousands of dollars. defined by the Act. The NRC’s fee rule, qualifying small governmental jurisdiction, Therefore, as in each year since 1992, the published annually to comply with the or one that is not state or publicly supported NRC is continuing the lower-tier small entity Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and has 500 or fewer employees.1 annual fee of $400 for small entities with (OBRA–90) which requires the NRC to collect NRC Small Entity Fees relatively low gross annual receipts. The approximately 100 percent of its budget lower-tier small entity fee of $400 also authority each year through fees, is In 10 CFR 171.16 (c), the NRC has applies to manufacturing concerns, and considered a ‘‘major’’ rule under this law. established two tiers of small-entity fees for educational institutions not State or publicly This compliance guide has been prepared to licensees that qualify under the NRC’s size supported, with less than 35 employees. assist NRC material licensees in complying standards. Currently, these fees are as Therefore, even though the rebaselined with the FY 1999 fee rule. follows:

Maximum annual fee per licensed category

Small Business Not Engaged in Manufacturing and Small Not-For Profit Organizations (Gross Annual Receipts): $350,000 to $5 million ...... $1,800 Less than $350,000 ...... 400 Manufacturing entities that have an average of 500 employees or less: 35 to 500 employees ...... 1,800 Less than 35 employees ...... 400 Small Governmental Jurisdictions (Including publicly supported educational institutions) (Population):

1 An educational institution referred to in the size nationally recognized accrediting agency or provides an educational program for which it standards is an entity whose primary function is association, who is legally authorized to provide a awards academic degrees, and whose educational education, whose programs are accredited by a program of organized instruction or study, who programs are available to the public.

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 31483

Maximum annual fee per licensed category

20,000 to 50,000 ...... 1,800 Less than 20,000 ...... 400 Educational Institutions that are not State or Publicly Supported, and have 500 Employees or Less 35 to 500 employees ...... 1,800 Less than 35 employees ...... 400

To pay a reduced annual fee, a licensee licensed activities. There are limited maximum annual fee shown on NRC Form must use NRC Form 526, enclosed with the exceptions as set forth at 13 CFR 121.104. 526 for the size standard under which the annual fee invoice, to certify that it meets These are: the term receipts excludes net licensee qualifies, resulting in a fee of either NRC’s size standards for a small entity. capital gains or losses, taxes collected for and $900 or $200 for each fee category billed Failure to file NRC Form 526 in a timely remitted to a taxing authority if included in instead of the full small entity annual fee of manner may result in the denial of any gross or total income, proceeds from the $1,800 or $400. refund that might otherwise be due. transactions between a concern and its A new small entity form (NRC Form 526) domestic or foreign affiliates (if also excluded Instructions for Completing NRC Form 526 must be filed with the NRC each fiscal year from gross or total income on a consolidated to qualify for reduced fees for that fiscal year. 1. File a separate NRC Form 526 for each return filed with the IRS), and amounts Because a licensee’s ‘‘size,’’ or the size annual fee invoice received. collected for another by a travel agent, real standards, may change from year to year, the 2. Complete all items on NRC Form 526 as estate agent, advertising agent, or conference invoice reflects the full fee and a new Form follows: management service provider. must be completed and returned for the fee a. The license number and invoice number (3) A licensee who is a subsidiary of a large to be reduced to the small entity fee. must be entered exactly as they appear on the entity does not qualify as a small entity. Licensees will not be issued a new invoice annual fee invoice. (4) The owner of the entity, or an official for the reduced amount. The completed NRC b. The Standard Industrial Classification empowered to act on behalf of the entity, (SIC) Code should be entered if it is known. must sign and date the small entity Form 526, the payment of the appropriate c. The licensee’s name and address must be certification. small entity fee, and the ‘‘Payment Copy ‘‘ of entered as they appear on the invoice. Name The NRC sends invoices to its licensees for the invoice should be mailed to the U. S. and/or address changes for billing purposes the full annual fee, even though some entities Nuclear Regulatory Commission, License Fee must be annotated on the invoice. Correcting qualify for reduced fees as a small entity. and Accounts Receivable Branch at the the name and/or address on NRC Form 526 Licensees who qualify as a small entity and address indicated on the invoice. or on the invoice does not constitute a file NRC Form 526, which certifies eligibility If you have questions about the NRC’s request to amend the license. Any request to for small entity fees, may pay the reduced annual fees, please call the license fee staff amend a license is to be submitted to the fee, which for a full year is either $1,800 or at 301–415–7554, e-mail the fee staff at respective licensing staffs in the NRC $400 depending on the size of the entity, for [email protected], or write to the U.S. Nuclear Regional or Headquarters Offices. each fee category shown on the invoice. Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC d. Check the appropriate size standard Licensees granted a license during the first 20555, Attention: Office of the Chief under which the licensee qualifies as a small six months of the fiscal year and licensees Financial Officer. entity. Check one box only. Note the who file for termination or for a possession False certification of small entity status following: only license and permanently cease licensed could result in civil sanctions being imposed (1) The size standards apply to the activities during the first six months of the by the NRC under the Program Fraud Civil licensee, not the individual authorized users fiscal year pay only 50 percent of the annual Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3801 et. seq. NRC’s listed in the license. fee for that year. Such an invoice states the implementing regulations are found at 10 (2) Gross annual receipts as used in the ‘‘Amount Billed Represents 50% Proration.’’ CFR Part 13. size standards includes all revenue in This means the amount due from a small whatever form received or accrued from entity is not the prorated amount shown on [FR Doc. 99–14697 Filed 6–9–99; 8:45 am] whatever sources, not solely receipts from the invoice but rather one-half of the BILLING CODE 7590±01±P

VerDate 06-MAY-99 16:38 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR3.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 10JNR3 i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 111 Thursday, June 10, 1999

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING JUNE

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 the revision date of each title. Laws 523±5227 381...... 29602 3 CFR Presidential Documents Proclamations: 10 CFR Executive orders and proclamations 523±5227 7103 (See Proc. 2...... 29212, 29213 The United States Government Manual 523±5227 7202) ...... 29773 170...... 31448 7201...... 29769 171...... 31448 7202...... 29773 Other Services 1703...... 31115 Executive Orders: Electronic and on-line services (voice) 523±4534 Proposed Rules: 12759 (revoked by EO 2...... 29246 Privacy Act Compilation 523±3187 13123) ...... 30851 850...... 29811 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 523±6641 12845 (revoked by EO TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 523±5229 13123) ...... 30851 11 CFR 12902 (revoked by EO Proposed Rules: ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 13123) ...... 30851 110...... 31159 13124...... 31103 World Wide Web 13123...... 30851 12 CFR 13125...... 31105 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other 4...... 29214 publications: Administrative Orders: 331...... 30869 Memorandums: 902...... 30880 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara May 26, 1999...... 29539 903...... 30880 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public Presidential Determinations: Proposed Rules: Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access: No. 99±25 of May 24, 24...... 31160 http://www.nara.gov/fedreg 1999 ...... 29537 No. 99±26 of May 24, 13 CFR E-mail 1999 ...... 31109 Proposed Rules: PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an E-mail No. 99±27 of May 24, 121...... 29813 service that delivers information about recently enacted Public 1999 ...... 31111 Laws. To subscribe, send E-mail to No. 99±28 of May 24, 14 CFR 1999 ...... 31113 [email protected] 39 ...... 29777, 29788, 29781, 29783, 30379, 30382 with the text message: 5 CFR 71 ...... 29785, 30241, 30888, subscribe publaws-l 1620...... 31052 31115, 31116, 31117, 31118, 1650...... 31052 31119, 31120 Use [email protected] only to subscribe or unsubscribe to 1651...... 31052 95...... 30890 PENS. We cannot respond to specific inquiries at that address. 1690...... 31052 97 ...... 30892, 30895, 30896 Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 2430...... 30861 401...... 29786 Federal Register system to: 411...... 29786 7 CFR [email protected] 413...... 29786 37...... 30861 415...... 29786 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 301 ...... 29207, 29541, 30213 417...... 29786 regulations. 407...... 30214 Proposed Rules: 930...... 30229 23...... 29247 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATES, JUNE 989...... 30233 39 ...... 29602, 29607, 29814, 1205...... 30236 29965, 29966, 29969, 29972 29207±29536...... 1 1780...... 29945 71 ...... 29817, 30259, 30260, 29537±29776...... 2 Proposed Rules: 30261, 30928 29777±29944...... 3 301...... 30250 29945±30212...... 4 916...... 30252 15 CFR 30213±30378...... 7 917...... 30252 774...... 30103 30379±30860...... 8 981...... 31153 Proposed Rules: 30861±31104...... 9 1065...... 30256 922...... 30929 31105±31484...... 10 1230...... 31158 16 CFR 8 CFR 245...... 30898 214...... 29208, 30103 Proposed Rules: 23...... 30448 9 CFR 91...... 29947 17 CFR Proposed Rules: 5...... 29217, 30384 3...... 30257 10...... 30902 317...... 29702 30...... 30103 318...... 29602 240...... 29550

VerDate 26-APR-99 19:21 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\10JNCU.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNCU ii Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Reader Aids

Proposed Rules: 33 CFR 29821, 29976, 30276, 30453, 30291, 30292, 30293, 30294, 31168 30295, 30296, 31171, 31172, 240...... 29608 100 ...... 30388, 30389, 30390 62...... 29822, 29976 31173, 31174, 31175, 31176 18 CFR 110...... 29554 117 ...... 29558, 29559, 29561, 63...... 30453, 30456 74...... 30288 Proposed Rules: 30390 80...... 30930 80...... 30288 35...... 31390 162...... 29554 81...... 29822, 30937 87...... 30288 385...... 29614 165 ...... 29554, 29561, 30242, 141...... 30464 90...... 30288 176...... 29823 95...... 30288 19 CFR 30243 169...... 29229, 31037 180...... 30939, 31040 97...... 30288 Proposed Rules: 185...... 30939 Proposed Rules: 101...... 30288 186...... 30939 4...... 29975 100...... 30273 159...... 29975 165...... 30274 239...... 30465 351...... 29818 261...... 31170 48 CFR 34 CFR 799...... 31074 52...... 30103 20 CFR 5b...... 31066 803...... 30442 404...... 29786 42 CFR Proposed Rules: 852...... 30442 Proposed Rules: 21 CFR 99...... 29532 1537...... 30443 5...... 29831 1552...... 30442 172...... 29949 36 CFR 51c ...... 29831 Proposed Rules: 173...... 29224 Proposed Rules: 175...... 29553 43 CFR 808...... 29981 1228...... 30276 178...... 30386 812...... 29981 Proposed Rules: 813...... 29981 520...... 30386 37 CFR 3100...... 29256 852...... 29981 Proposed Rules: 3110...... 29256 201...... 29518 853...... 29981 884...... 31164 3120...... 29256 202...... 29518, 29522 1815...... 30468 3130...... 29256 23 CFR 203...... 29518 204...... 29518 3140...... 29256 180...... 29742 211...... 29518 3150...... 29256 49 CFR Proposed Rules: 3160...... 29256 1...... 29601 668...... 30263 38 CFR 3170...... 29256 80...... 29742 3180...... 29256 24 CFR Ch. I ...... 30244 261...... 29742 3 ...... 30244, 30391, 30392 44 CFR 640...... 29742 203...... 29758 4...... 30392 Proposed Rules: 15...... 31136 Proposed Rules: Ch. IX...... 30450 39 CFR 40...... 29831 192...... 29834 990...... 30451 111...... 31121 46 CFR 195...... 29834 Proposed Rules: 8...... 30437 25 CFR 571...... 29616, 29617 265...... 30929 31...... 30437 Proposed Rules: 71...... 30437 151...... 30929 40 CFR 91...... 30437 50 CFR 107...... 30437 26 CFR 9...... 29490, 31358 20...... 29799 52 ...... 29235, 29563, 29567, 551...... 30245 222...... 29805 1...... 29788 29570, 29573, 29790, 29793, 223...... 29805 29958, 30394, 30396, 30399 47 CFR 29 CFR 230...... 31037 62...... 29796, 29961 0...... 31139 285...... 29806, 30925 Proposed Rules: 63 ...... 29420, 29490, 30194, 73 ...... 31140, 31141, 31142, 2510...... 30452 30406, 31358 31143 622...... 30445 80...... 30904 36...... 30917 635...... 29806, 30248 30 CFR 81...... 30911 51...... 29598 648...... 31144 Ch. II ...... 30267 82...... 29240, 30410 54...... 30440 660...... 29808 938...... 30387 85...... 30415 76...... 29598 679 ...... 29809, 30926, 30927, Proposed Rules: 136...... 30417 Proposed Rules: 31151 917...... 29247 180 ...... 29581, 29589, 31124, 1...... 30288 Proposed Rules: 943...... 29249 31129 22...... 30288 17...... 29983 185...... 29589 24...... 30288 226...... 29618 32 CFR 186...... 29589 26...... 30288 600...... 30956 171...... 29227 239...... 30434 27...... 30288 622...... 29622 706...... 31037 745...... 31092 36...... 30949 635...... 29984 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 73 ...... 29977, 29978, 29979, 648...... 29257, 30956 884...... 29252 52 ...... 29255, 29615, 29616, 29980, 30288, 30289, 30290, 660...... 29834

VerDate 26-APR-99 19:21 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\10JNCU.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNCU Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Reader Aids iii

REMINDERS TRANSPORTATION Fishery conservation and Air quality implementation The items in this list were DEPARTMENT management: plans; approval and editorially compiled as an aid National Highway Traffic Caribbean, Gulf, and South promulgation; various to Federal Register users. Safety Administration Atlantic fisheriesÐ States: Inclusion or exclusion from Motor vehicle safety Gulf of Mexico reef fish; California; comments due by this list has no legal standards: comments due by 6-14- 6-14-99; published 5-13- significance. Vehicle certificationÐ 99; published 4-14-99 99 Multipurpose passenger West Coast States and Iowa; comments due by 6- vehicles and light duty Western Pacific 14-99; published 5-13-99 RULES GOING INTO trucks; certification fisheriesÐ Maine; comments due by 6- EFFECT JUNE 10, 1999 labels contents Pacific whiting; comments 14-99; published 5-14-99 requirements; published due by 6-18-99; Minnesota; comments due AGRICULTURE 2-11-99 published 6-3-99 by 6-14-99; published 5- DEPARTMENT VETERANS AFFAIRS Western Pacific 13-99 Agricultural Marketing DEPARTMENT crustacean; comments Wyoming; comments due by due by 6-18-99; Service Disabilities rating schedule: 6-18-99; published 5-19- published 6-3-99 Organic certifying agencies; Ear and other sense organ 99 assessments by Livestock diseases; published 5-11- DEFENSE DEPARTMENT Drinking water: and Seed Program; 99 Federal Acquisition Regulation National primary drinking published 6-9-99 (FAR): water regulationsÐ Manufacturing Technology COMMERCE DEPARTMENT Unregulated contaminant COMMENTS DUE NEXT Program; comments due National Oceanic and monitoring regulation for WEEK by 6-15-99; published 4- Atmospheric Administration public water systems; 16-99 Fishery conservation and comments due by 6-14- AGRICULTURE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT management: DEPARTMENT 99; published 4-30-99 Postsecondary education: Northeastern United States Agricultural Marketing Unregulated contaminant fisheriesÐ Teacher quality monitoring regulation for Service enhancement grants Northeast multispecies; public water systems; Milk marketing orders: program; comments due published 5-5-99 correction; comments Iowa; comments due by 6- by 6-18-99; published 5- due by 6-14-99; DEFENSE NUCLEAR 14-99; published 5-13-99 19-99 published 6-8-99 FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD AGRICULTURE ENVIRONMENTAL Hazardous waste: Freedom of Information Act; DEPARTMENT PROTECTION AGENCY Identification and listingÐ implementation: Food Safety and Inspection Air pollution; standards of Fossil fuel combustion; Fee schedule; published 6- Service performance for new report to Congress; 10-99 stationary sources: Meat and poultry inspection: comments due by 6-14- ENVIRONMENTAL Irradiation of refrigerated or Fossil fuel-fired boilers and 99; published 4-28-99 PROTECTION AGENCY turbines; three new test frozen uncooked meat, Radiation protection programs: Air pollutants, hazardous; meat byproducts, etc.; methods for velocity and Idaho National Engineering national emission standards: comments due by 6-17- volumetric flow rate in stacks or ducts; and Environmental Phosphoric acid 99; published 6-2-99 comments due by 6-14- Laboratory; waste manufacturing and COMMERCE DEPARTMENT 99; published 5-14-99 characterization program; phosphate fertilizers Export Administration documents availability production; published 6- Correction; comments due Bureau Inspection dates; 10-99 by 6-14-99; published Export administration 5-20-99 comments due by 6-14- Air quality implementation regulations: 99; published 5-13-99 plans; approval and Air programs approval and Chemical weapons Los Alamos National promulgation; various promulgation; State plans convention; Laboratory; transuranic States: for designated facilities and implementation; comments pollutants: radioactive waste Nevada; published 5-11-99 due by 6-17-99; published North Dakota; comments proposed for disposal at 5-18-99 Pesticides; tolerances in food, due by 6-14-99; published Waste Isolation Pilot animal feeds, and raw Chemical Weapons 5-13-99 Plant; documents agricultural commodities: Convention; Air programs: availability; comments due Kresoxim-methyl; published implementation by 6-16-99; published 5- Accidental release 17-99 6-10-99 Correction; comments due preventionÐ by 6-17-99; published Water pollution; effluent LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Risk management 6-4-99 guidelines for point source Copyright Office, Library of programs; comments categories: Congress COMMERCE DEPARTMENT due by 6-16-99; Waste combustors; Copyright arbitration royalty National Oceanic and published 5-26-99 comments due by 6-16- panel rules and procedures: Atmospheric Administration Worst-case release 99; published 5-17-99 Payment of arbitrators; Endangered and threatened scenario analysis for distribution proceedings; species: flammable substances; FEDERAL published 5-11-99 Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, comments due by 6-16- COMMUNICATIONS and South Atlantic 99; published 5-26-99 COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION fisheriesÐ Air programs; approval and Common carrier services: DEPARTMENT Gulf of Mexico and South promulgation; State plans Wireline services offering Federal Aviation Atlantic coastal for designated facilities and advanced Administration migratory pelagic pollutants: telecommunications Airworthiness directives: resources; comments North Dakota; comments capability; deployment; Eurocopter France; due by 6-17-99; due by 6-14-99; published comments due by 6-15- published 5-26-99 published 6-2-99 5-13-99 99; published 4-30-99

VerDate 26-APR-99 19:21 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\10JNCU.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNCU iv Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 1999 / Reader Aids

Radio stations; table of Shell dredging and mining Bombadier; comments due available online at http:// assignments: of sand, gravel, surface by 6-16-99; published 5- www.nara.gov/fedreg. Utah; comments due by 6- stone, surface clay, 17-99 The text of laws is not 14-99; published 4-30-99 cooloidal phosphate, and Empresa Brasileira de published in the Federal surface limestone; Aeronautica S.A.; HEALTH AND HUMAN Register but may be ordered comments due by 6-14- comments due by 6-17- SERVICES DEPARTMENT in ``slip law'' (individual 99; published 4-14-99 99; published 5-18-99 Food and Drug pamphlet) form from the LABOR DEPARTMENT Administration Raytheon; comments due by Superintendent of Documents, Occupational Safety and 6-18-99; published 4-28- Food additives: U.S. Government Printing Health Administration 99 Adjuvants, production aids, Office, Washington, DC 20402 Safety and health standards, Robinson Helicopter Co.; and sanitizersÐ (phone, 202±512±1808). The etc.: comments due by 6-14- text will also be made Anthra(2,1,9-def:6,5,10- Employer payment for 99; published 4-13-99 available on the Internet from d'e'f')diisoquinoline- personal protective Sikorsky; comments due by GPO Access at http:// 1,3,8,10(2H,9H)- equipment; comments due 6-15-99; published 4-16- www.access.gpo.gov/nara/ tetrone(C.I. Pigment by 6-14-99; published 3- 99 index.html. Some laws may Violet 29); comments 31-99 not yet be available. due by 6-17-99; Class E airspace; comments due by 6-18-99; published published 5-18-99 TRANSPORTATION H.R. 1121/P.L. 106±33 DEPARTMENT 5-4-99 General enforcement To designate the Federal regulations: Coast Guard TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT building and United States Exports; notification and Ports and waterways safety: courthouse located at 18 recordkeeping East River, NY; safety zone; National Highway Traffic Greenville Street in Newnan, requirements; comments comments due by 6-16- Safety Administration Georgia, as the ``Lewis R. due by 6-16-99; published 99; published 5-25-99 Motor vehicle safety Morgan Federal Building and 4-2-99 First Coast Guard District standards: United States Courthouse''. Medical devices: navigable waters; Defect and noncompliance (June 7, 1999; 113 Stat. 117) Reclassification of 38 regulated navigation area; reports and notification; H.R. 1183/P.L. 106±34 preamendments class III comments due by 6-14- manufacturer notification 99; published 3-15-99 to dealers of safety Fastener Quality Act devices into class II; Amendments Act of 1999 First Coast Guard District related defects; comments due by 6-14- (June 8, 1999; 113 Stat. 118) 99; published 3-15-99 navigable waters; implementation; comments regulated navigation area; due by 6-18-99; published Last List June 3, 1999 HOUSING AND URBAN 5-19-99 DEVELOPMENT correction; comments due DEPARTMENT by 6-14-99; published 3- TRANSPORTATION 31-99 DEPARTMENT Fair housing: Public Laws Electronic Regattas and marine parades: Research and Special Complaint processing; plain Notification Service First Coast Guard District Programs Administration language revision and (PENS) fireworks display; reorganization; comments Hazardous materials comments due by 6-14- due by 6-14-99; published transportation: 99; published 4-15-99 PENS is a free electronic mail 4-14-99 Registration and fee TRANSPORTATION assessment program; notification service of newly INTERIOR DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT comments due by 6-14- enacted public laws. To Minerals Management subscribe, send E-mail to Federal Aviation 99; published 4-15-99 Service [email protected] with Administration the text message: Outer Continental Shelf; oil, Air traffic operating and flight gas, and sulphur operations: rules, etc.: LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS subscribe PUBLAWS-L Your Documents incorporated by Checked baggage; security Name. reference; update; This is a continuing list of on domestic flights; public bills from the current Note: This service is strictly comments due by 6-17- comments due by 6-18- 99; published 3-19-99 session of Congress which for E-mail notification of new 99; published 4-19-99 have become Federal laws. It public laws. The text of laws LABOR DEPARTMENT Airworthiness directives: may be used in conjunction is not available through this Mine Safety and Health Bell Helicopter Textron; with ``P L U S'' (Public Laws service. PENS cannot respond Administration comments due by 6-15- Update Service) on 202±523± to specific inquiries sent to Education and training: 99; published 4-16-99 6641. This list is also this address.

VerDate 26-APR-99 19:21 Jun 09, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\10JNCU.XXX pfrm01 PsN: 10JNCU